What is religion?

[tofayel]

Religion is way of God. Religion is never bad to people, but people badly use it for their interest. God give us knowledge for understanding true.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Etu Malku

I was with ya at "Religion engages man in his whole being" but after that ya lost me.

OK, but that's a good start.

Originally Posted by Etu Malku

When you can remove the confines and limitations of religious doctrine then religion will make sense.

The confines and limitations make sense when one understands the religion in question, they confine and limit the passional element of the sensible cortex that renders man debilitated in the first place. The confines and limitations are a necessary (although sometimes provisional and conditional) process towards dthe development of discernment.

Originally Posted by wil

What is religion? It is quite simply a compilation of books, traditions, thoughts, beliefs created by man.

I'm pointing to what gives rise to those thoughts and beliefs. If one excludes the idea of 'revelation' or 'enlightenment' or 'the Other' or, indeed, 'the One', then really one's missed the point of the thing.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

There are also non-theistic religions, that don't worship a god.

But the principle is the same.

Originally Posted by tofayel

Religion is way of God. Religion is never bad to people, but people badly use it for their interest. God give us knowledge for understanding true.

Well said.

Religion separates the Real and the illusory; the Absolute and the contingent; Atma and maya; God and the world and the 'Way' of religion is a journey from one place to the other. The one is Light, Beatitude, Consciousness, Subject, Being in a pure and absolute/transcendent sense ... the other encompasses an infinite variety of contrary worldly or illusory states.

God bless

Thomas

[Etu Malku]

Originally Posted by Thomas

they confine and limit the passional element of the sensible cortex that renders man debilitated in the first place.

What on earth did you just say? What does passional mean? I'm pretty sure I don't have a 'sensible cortex' in my body either!

[radarmark]

"Religion separates the Real and the illusory; the Absolute and the contingent; Atma and maya; God and the world and the 'Way' of religion is a journey from one place to the other. The one is Light, Beatitude, Consciousness, Subject, Being in a pure and absolute/transcendent sense ... the other encompasses an infinite variety of contrary worldly or illusory states."

Not bad, Thomas. The only difference is that what you are calling religion, I choose to call spritual. Again, going back to pre-Socratic roots the Absolute of Plato "beat out" the Process of Heraclitus. So Forms and Archetypes and Yes/No form the very essence of Western Thought. Today it is expecially exasperating in therms of quantum/relativity, me/you, Theology/Panentheism.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Etu Malku

What on earth did you just say?

Sorry ... should have said the 'sensible faculty' (as opposed to the 'mental faculty')

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by radarmark

Not bad, Thomas.The only difference is that what you are calling religion, I choose to call spiritual.

OK, then the terms for us are synonymous, which is part of my argument. They only ceased to be synonyms from the 17th century on, which is event if one examines the texts. Denys Turner on the Unknowingness of God presents that argument quite skilfully.

The problem is twofold:
The first is that those who declare themselves 'spiritual but not religious' invariably and (in my experience) unfailingly, regard 'religion' and those who profess a religion only in its most negative sense — that is with an undisguised prejudice that sees nothing good, beneficial nor positive, and which in any other context would be absolutely unacceptable — take religion away and replace it with race, or colour...

In fact, the assumption, often stated quite explicitly, that those who follow a religion do not and cannot think for themselves (that 'blind faith' is another term for mental deficiency or intellectual surrender) and so on, is offensive for the same reason — and yet I meet that attitude here often, and often by those who believe themselves to be quite 'right on'!

There is another aspect in that many who declare themselves to be 'spiritual but not religious' do this to put themselves at distance from those who declare themselves religious (they'd be horrified if anyone made that mistake — prejudice again) but at the same time assert that no-one has the right to question or comment on their particular brand or expression of spirituality.

The loss of this sense of the supernatural, the loss of the language of symbol, and the failure to see certain symbols as the embodied transcendent, as spiritual forms if such a thing was possible, allows the void to be filled by relative and contingent shades which can be hugely gratifying, but which are not always what they seem to be.

Spirituality of the transcendent order, that is spirituality as understood in the context of religion, is formless and inaccessible to the senses, so anyone making such a declaration is talking of a different order and a lesser order of thing altogether.

Again, we're back with a culture that has been indoctrinated into materialist consumerism, and sees experience as a necessary benchmark of the real, which is, of course, far from the case.

The question then is if the order of transcendent spirituality of which the Religions speaks has no sensible component, nor any intelligible content, what exactly does one mean by being 'spiritual'?

I think the kind of spirituality people mean is a 'sense of' or 'spirit of occasion'; the feeling at watching a sunrise, of looking at the Milky Way, a baby reaching out to grab a finger. I don't mean just sentimentalism (that is often a very important part of it), I mean invariably they take that 'feeling' to be the primary constituent of the spiritual process, and seek for that as a marker of authentic spirituality, as if bliss were a signifier, whereas in fact what has happened is the authentic spiritual signal now has been reduced to sentimentalism.

I would argue that if we're talking an order of engagement with the Divine such as has been spoken by St John (e.g. "and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be" 1 John 3:2), by St Paul, and by the greater mystics of the Christian Tradition (St Denys, Meister Eckhart ...) then that is not at all the same as people saying 'I am spiritual but not religious' because in the traditional Christian sense no-one would or could make that self-designation.

Originally Posted by radarmark

So Forms and Archetypes and Yes/No form the very essence of Western Thought.

Which is where authentic 'comparative religion' come into its own. Everything I've argued (apart from the chronology), is axiomatic in Hindu metaphysics, if anything moreso, which is why Guénon declared that Hindu metaphysics is a universal metaphysic ...

Please be aware that I am the one refuting a distinction into this/that with regard to the question, I'm saying religion and spirituality is and/and, and if one extricates one aspect only, either way, one has neither.

God bless

Thomas

[radarmark]

I believe are getting closer to a mutual understanding, Thomas. I believe you thought I was a "new-ager" and I thought you a dry Neo-Thomist.



Originally Posted by radarmark
Not bad, Thomas.The only difference is that what you are calling religion, I choose to call spiritual.


OK, then the terms for us are synonymous, which is part of my argument. They only ceased to be synonyms from the 17th century on, which is event if one examines the texts. Denys Turner on the Unknowingness of God presents that argument quite skilfully.
Howells has a quite good exposition of all the contemporary Christian debate on mysticism and spirituality (Mysticism and the Mystical, I think). The problem with all the thinkers he covers (Lonergan, de Certeau, Williams, Sells and Turner) and himself is that they turn the Verstehen on its head. One cannot model the mystic except from within their context, one cannot talk about G!D unless one is theistic in a Traditional Christian sense.

The problem is twofold:
The first is that those who declare themselves 'spiritual but not religious' invariably and (in my experience) unfailingly, regard 'religion' and those who profess a religion only in its most negative sense — that is with an undisguised prejudice that sees nothing good, beneficial nor positive, and which in any other context would be absolutely unacceptable — take religion away and replace it with race, or colour...

In fact, the assumption, often stated quite explicitly, that those who follow a religion do not and cannot think for themselves (that 'blind faith' is another term for mental deficiency or intellectual surrender) and so on, is offensive for the same reason — and yet I meet that attitude here often, and often by those who believe themselves to be quite 'right on'!

There is another aspect in that many who declare themselves to be 'spiritual but not religious' do this to put themselves at distance from those who declare themselves religious (they'd be horrified if anyone made that mistake — prejudice again) but at the same time assert that no-one has the right to question or comment on their particular brand or expression of spirituality.
See, there is a school of studiers of mysticism and spiritualism who do not feel either of these effects. The best two examples I can speak of are Rosenzweig and Whitehead. Both practiced a religion, both modified their “particular brand or expression” throughout their lifetimes (R’s was far too short).

The loss of this sense of the supernatural, the loss of the language of symbol, and the failure to see certain symbols as the embodied transcendent, as spiritual forms if such a thing was possible, allows the void to be filled by relative and contingent shades which can be hugely gratifying, but which are not always what they seem to be.
I do not get this sense of loss reading either of the above or (even) Joseph Campbell. See “Forms” and “contingent” harkens back to classic Platonism again. The problem, from my point of view, is that we Western, Christian souls cannot help (for the most part) but make this error. It is really, really hard to “go inside” the Spirituality of Native Americans or Ueshiba or The Sixth Patriarch or Laozi with these Greek ghosts floating around. Like it is really hard for “purely Western” physicists to come to grips with uncertainty and non-locality or Bohrian or information physics.

Spirituality of the transcendent order, that is spirituality as understood in the context of religion, is formless and inaccessible to the senses, so anyone making such a declaration is talking of a different order and a lesser order of thing altogether.

Again, we're back with a culture that has been indoctrinated into materialist consumerism, and sees experience as a necessary benchmark of the real, which is, of course, far from the case.


I agree 100%, but the experience is a qualia (perhaps the most personal and private and subjective of all qualia). And the experience, not the material thing or the mental thing (dissection and explanation) is the key. It is of itself transcendent, not of this material world nor a dream or hallucination of the mind.

The question then is if the order of transcendent spirituality of which the Religions speaks has no sensible component, nor any intelligible content, what exactly does one mean by being 'spiritual'?
If the experience is not the benchmark, but a mere sensation or thought, how much less so is the source of that experience?

I think the kind of spirituality people mean is a 'sense of' or 'spirit of occasion'; the feeling at watching a sunrise, of looking at the Milky Way, a baby reaching out to grab a finger. I don't mean just sentimentalism (that is often a very important part of it), I mean invariably they take that 'feeling' to be the primary constituent of the spiritual process, and seek for that as a marker of authentic spirituality, as if bliss were a signifier, whereas in fact what has happened is the authentic spiritual signal now has been reduced to sentimentalism.
This transcendence is not feeling or bliss or sentimentalism. Witnessing a birth or looking at the sky is the reward, the experience is separate from the emotion. If one just seeks the emotional reward (the awe-full aftereffects), one misses the entire point. Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes. It is the event, the occasion, the experience which matters… not the form not the mental content.

I would argue that if we're talking an order of engagement with the Divine such as has been spoken by St John (e.g. "and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be" 1 John 3:2), by St Paul, and by the greater mystics of the Christian Tradition (St Denys, Meister Eckhart ...) then that is not at all the same as people saying 'I am spiritual but not religious' because in the traditional Christian sense no-one would or could make that self-designation.
Of course not! The “Traditional Christian Sense” most learn is entirely too self and culture oriented. Too Platonic, too abstract, too focused on “Truth” as something that just exists out there. At their core, St John and Meister Eckhart have “gone beyond” this. It is our cultural misreading of them that is the problem—it is the Greek and not the Jewish mind at work. Nikos Kazantzakis puts this quite well when he says Dionysus turned into Apollo, and “The Cretan Glance” is what we need to follow. Come to think of it, he is the third Western thinker about spirituality I see no hatred of religion or uncompromising ego-centrism.


Originally Posted by radarmark
So Forms and Archetypes and Yes/No form the very essence of Western Thought.


Which is where authentic 'comparative religion' come into its own. Everything I've argued (apart from the chronology), is axiomatic in Hindu metaphysics, if anything moreso, which is why Guénon declared that Hindu metaphysics is a universal metaphysic ...

Please be aware that I am the one refuting a distinction into this/that with regard to the question, I'm saying religion and spirituality is and/and, and if one extricates one aspect only, either way, one has neither.

God bless

Thomas

See Forms and Archetypes are mere constructs of our limited minds in my opinion. They do not exist, otherwise the Gödelian Universe exists and it just does not. Neti, neti and tat tvan asi at the same time… which is why I like the Navajo “daats’i” which has the connotation of “yes and no” as well as perhaps, maybe. They use it a lot because they feel little is definite (especially among elders).

Peace, My Friend!

[Amergin]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Religion engages man in his whole being (e.g. Luke 10:27 "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself"), vertically (towards God) and horizontally (towards the world).

I think religion is a organised set of beliefs about the matter-energy universe, and unseen beings, spirits, gods that must be believed on someone's authority rather than evidence, reason, examination, or scepticism. The content of such beliefs varies widely, influenced by tribal and clan cultures, and the authority of real or imagined leaders.

Religion is essentially discernment — a discernment between God and the world, between the Aeternal and the ephemeral, between the Absolute and the contingent and, in the last resort, between the Real and the unreal.

I might be religious if it means discernment between the Real and the Unreal. I believe in the matter and energy universe, of macrophysics and nanophysics of the smallest units of reality (Energy Superstrings). I am not sure I believe in an absolute anything, an aeternal anything, the many gods invented by humans. Discernment between god and the world makes no sense to me. The World is real, no matter how we define it, or study its laws, content, and behaviour. Contrasting that with a great variety of invisible, unproven phantasms or gods is like contrasting the fossil evidence of rodent evolution with the cartoon Mickey Mouse by Walt Disney.

Religion is not simply a binding, it is a union, with the Divine (or, with its object, which is considered the ultimate or absolute, according to its own determination). Everything in every religion has its foundation in these two elements: discernment and union (I will be your God, and you will be my people").

Religion is neither a binding or a union with the imaginary (divine). Religion is most often a blockage to binding or union with reality. Most religions fight the human search for reality, examination, learning, cross-examination, doubt or scepticism, and reason based science.

Man is intelligence and will, and religion is discernment and concentration.

A major function of animal brains, including man, is intelligence, cognition, will or choice. Religion is the imposition of external limits or oppression of intelligence. Religion fears free thinking. Religion wants knowledge stasis often regarding learning as evil. That is because the major function of religion in evolution is the imposition of social order by use of fear, banning of freedom, banning of questioning, banning of dissent, and condemnation of Scepticism.

A religion is an integral whole comparable to a living organism that develops according to the principles of discdernment and union. One might therefore call it a 'spiritual' organism, it is the Spirit that binds (cf Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:6), and the 'societal' or 'exoteric' aspect is founded on the inner (esoteric) reality of a union both vertical and horizontal.

None of that makes any sense to me, like the double-talk of an intoxicated standup comedian. A horse is a horse, of course, of course and no one can talk to a horse of course...unless of course the horse is Mister Ed.

Religion cannot therefore be determined by the constituent elements independently of their inward unity, as if one were concerned with a mere collection of facts. This is why empirical data alone will not suffice to reveal anything about the reality of a religion, other than its historical forms. Nor can a religion be dissembled, as if one is seeking the core. This is akin to disassembling the brain in search of the mind.

Actually, since the mind is a brain function, it requires understanding of circuit systems that individually do not constitute that mind. Like many other brain functions, neurons do little but say yes or no. They are on/off switches, billions of them in our brain that connect axons (like electrical cables) in huge groupings called circuits. Circuits are grouped into larger functional clusters called programmes. Many circuits participate in many different programmes. Cognition is the action of many programmes each composed of many circuits. These can now be mapped by fMRI, PET scanning, Transcortical Magnetic Imaging, and Single Fibre Mapping. We can see the Mind in action in the programmes that we can map. The image of the mind changes with the varied functions of that mind. Each is reflected in shifts of 30 different neurochemical transmitters across synapses (hundreds of billions) in an ever changing pattern. I know the image is a representation of the mind, not the actual mind. It shows how shifting signals in vast programmes make us think, choose, and believe. It is not magic or spirit but matter and energy. I find it strange that more people attribute thinking to a Stone Age concept called a soul.

The reverse is also the case — the empirical investigation of its constituent cells, taken individually and collectively, will never reveal the richness of the human mind.

Actually it does. We understand much more about the brain than ever in the past. We know it is not magic, spirits, or phantasms. It is real, matter and energy in complexity difficult for us to grasp other than measuring its dynamic shifts in message transmissions from cell to cell, circuit to circuit, programme to programme, and sequences of those transmissions. I am not saying that we know everything about higher brain-mind functions. But we have learned 98% of what we do know in the past 20 years.

Why, therefore, anyone should think the mere 'facts' of a religion will reveal anything worthwhile shows how far off the mark we are. The Quest for the historical Jesus, for example, is just one example of the futility of this exercise.

There are very few if any facts in religion. It is a system of meme induced beliefs based entirely on the authority of other ruling humans or shamans. We Neuroscientists know there is much more to learn, but each giant leap in Neurocognitive knowledge washes away the lingering oil slicks of ignorance, magic, and superstition used by Stone Age Shamans to explain the mind and the world. You make up fancy sounding words not based on a nano-iota of evidence.

The term 'heresy' points to this. It derives from the Greek verb 'to choose', and indicates an over-emphasis that distorts the organic integrity of the whole.

All religions depend on authority to maintain its subjugation of the masses of people. Any minor alteration of the most minimal dogma threatens the entire oppressive and enslaving system. That is why religion deals with dissent by torture, fear, and killing. Dissent is introducing a queen termite into the vast wooden structure of religion. Unlike science it does not respond to dissent by examination, experimentation protocols, retesting, challenging, and lab results. If the dissent is proven to be a better explanation of the questions then the old theory is voided or altered toward the new evidence and re-examination. That cannot be allowed in religion which is intolerant to change of any kind.

The idea then that religion should be removed from the primary focus of one's being, and kept concealed in the wings, as it were, flies in the face of Scripture. The exhortation of the Shema Israel is absolute, and admits no condition or relative determination.

God bless,

Thomas

That is why adherence to scripture is a form of mental slavery. Thinking is unlawful unless it is twisted to that of the Pope or the ambiguous writings of a prophet who lived in the desert eating unknown plants, becoming dehydrated to the point of hallucination.''

"I am an Atheist because I received a special inspiration and message from God. He admitted that he is an Atheist." Morgan Freeman.

My inspiration is the poetry of Robert G. Ingersoll, "The Joy of Freedom."

Amergin

[Amergin]

The Joy of Freedom


When I became convinced
that the Universe is natural,
that all the ghosts and gods are myths,
there entered into my brain, into my soul,
into every drop of my blood, the sense,
the feeling, the joy of Freedom.

The walls of my prison crumbled and fell.
The dungeon was flooded with light
and all the bolts, bars
and manacles became dust.
I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave.
There was for me no master in all of the wide world,
not even in the infinite space. I was free.

Free to think, to express my thoughts,
Free to live to my own ideal,
Free to live for myself and those I loved,
Free to use my faculties, all my senses,
Free to spread imagination's wings,
Free to investigate, to guess and dream, and hope;
Free to judge and determine for myself,
Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds,
all the "inspired" books
that savages have produced,
and all the barbarous legends of the past.

Free from popes and priests,
Free from all the "called" and the "set apart,"
Free from the sanctified mistakes and holy lies,
Free from the fear of eternal pain,
Free from the winged monsters of the night,
Free from devils, ghosts and gods.

For the first time I was free.
There were no prohibited places
in all the realms of my thought:
no air, no space,
where fancy could not spread her painted wings.
No chains for my limbs,
No lashes for my back,
No fires for my flesh,
No master's frown or threat,
No following another's steps;
No need to bow, or cringe, or crawl,
or utter lying words.

I was free.
I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously,
faced all worlds;
And my heart was filled with gratitude,
with thankfulness, and went out in love
To all the heroes
and the thinkers who gave their lives
for the Liberty of hand and brain,
for the freedom of labor and thought;
To those who fell on the fierce fields of war,
To those who died in the dungeons with chains,
To those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs,
To those whose bones were crushed,
whose flesh was scarred and torn,
To those by fire consumed;
To all the wise, the good, the brave of every land,
whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom
to the sons and daughters of men and women.

And I vowed to grasp the torch that they held,
and hold it high,
that light might conquer darkness still.

--Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899)

Amergin: To me this beautiful and inspiring poem also means the Joy of Freedom from Superstition and Theistic Religion.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Religion is essentially discernment — a discernment between God and the world, between the Aeternal and the ephemeral, between the Absolute and the contingent and, in the last resort, between the Real and the unreal.

I like this. I see religion as a way to share modelling across the line between physical and meta-physical to allow a usable interpenetration of both both realms.

Chris

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Amergin

I think religion is a organised set of beliefs about the matter-energy universe, and unseen beings, spirits, gods that must be believed on someone's authority rather than evidence, reason, examination, or scepticism.

I think that is a common expression of the anti-religious bigot. As discussed elsewhere, would be utterly unacceptable if you were discussing someone race or colour ... the assumption that those who follow religion have settled for the authority of another rather than exercise reason, etc., is patently and demonstrably nonsense, and, quite frankly, offensive.

Originally Posted by Amergin

I believe ...

OK, but that's your credo. Please allow others to have theirs. After all, yours is no more certain.

Originally Posted by Amergin

Discernment between god and the world makes no sense to me.

OK. Doesn't mean it's not the case. A lot of scientific theories don't make sense to me, but I tend to think that's probably my lack of understanding, rather than any flaw in the theory.

Originally Posted by Amergin

The World is real, no matter how we define it, or study its laws, content, and behaviour.

I'm simply suggesting there are laws which suggest there's more to the world than meets the eye ... the empirical eye, that is. Please don't make the assumption of interpreting 'real' in a narrow fashion.

Originally Posted by Amergin

Contrasting that with a great variety of invisible, unproven phantasms or gods is like contrasting the fossil evidence of rodent evolution with the cartoon Mickey Mouse by Walt Disney.

That's just bigotry again.

Originally Posted by Amergin

Religion is neither a binding or a union with the imaginary (divine).

And again ...

Originally Posted by Amergin

Religion is most often a blockage to binding or union with reality. Most religions fight the human search for reality, examination, learning, cross-examination, doubt or scepticism, and reason based science.

Utter bollocks. Do I need to list the scientists who've made significant, if not ground-breaking contributions to science, and yet profess a faith in God?

It's this kind of statement that robs your argument of all credibility. This is pure bigotry talking. Next you'll be burning religious texts ... and the rest of your post is just the polemic of scientism in support of the bonfire.

God bless,

Thomas

[Sam Albion]

what is religion?

-- a framework for the spiritual.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I
Utter bollocks. Do I need to list the scientists who've made significant, if not ground-breaking contributions to science, and yet profess a faith in God?

That list is waning like the list of scientists who don't believe in climate change (hmmm many of the "scientists" that don't believe in climate change also believe in "creation science"...but that's another story)

Fact is that ever since Galileo Galilee and their became a tacit agreement between church and scientists....that the scientifically known is the realm of the scientists and the unknown was the realm of the church, both the percentage of things in the realm of the church and the percentage of scientists believing in G!d has been dwindling.

Now many scientist will deny G!d but still believe in some higher power/force they've yet to grapple with..(of course I would like to think they are simply nontheistic panentheists like me)

And of those that enter the realm of science with a religious belief....it has been shown that two factors even make that belief diminish..... age, and climbing the ladder of scientific significance; now the latter ladder some folks may attribute to a Peter style denying of sorts, but the age is not congruent with what we find in the outside world, where age increases the likelihood of 'believing' and church attendance....

So yeah, while we can cherry pick names quite easily, they are no longer actual evidence of anything, simply anecdotal instances that no longer prove the point desired.

[wil]

hmmm in contemplating 'scientists' and the 'spirituality vs. religion' discussion, I think scientists probably throw out religion first...and maintain a form of spirituality....?? And also....

Originally Posted by thomas

A lot of scientific theories don't make sense to me, but I tend to think that's probably my lack of understanding, rather than any flaw in the theory.

I think that applies to many scientists....they see/understand/know their elementary school teachings of religion and G!d and have not moved to a post graduate level understanding. This is the fault of the churches....who teach kids literal views of religions as facts instead of the esoteric, metaphysical, mystical portions...they may touch on allegories and parables....but feel the kids aren't able to grasp other deeper meanings and understandings....(which has a ring of truth to it even for adults), but then they lose them before they get that far....and to me that is a crying shame...

[radarmark]

Let's try to get to the core of the matter: Religious Ideology versus Scientism.

There is no conflict between a religion which teaches truth and a science that seeks truth, how can there be? G!D H!mself gave us the capability to do science (to think rationally, to use logic, to experiment, to explain). As Sh! gave us the wonders of radioactivity, fossils, the evolving universe, the evolving life forms, the emerging life and chaos and complexity.

If science discovers something that is against a Religion or the teachings or the dogma thereof (oh, like the earth revolving about the sun), that dogma should be laid down. The role of philosophy in this matter is to play hand maiden to both. If a Religion holds something eternally or necessarily true that can be falsified, that should be given up as dogma. If it holds something that is not verifiable (consistent with the universe as we know it), it should acknowledged. If it holds something that is contingent (may or may not be the case), it must be made subject to disbelief. Any Religion that does not do this is not really a religion but an ideology (imho).

And as Jefferson said “[t]he returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ."

“Modernism” is “scientism” is the notion of “material monism” and “reductionism” and “secularism” and “me-firstism”. It is basically philosophically inconsistent because the tenant “no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true” cannot be proven empirically. Nor can the existence of “only matter”. Nor the hypothesis that “everything can be known by breaking down its parts”. Nor is the assertion “I have no need of that hypothesis [G!D]” as a universal rule. Nor is the concept of solipstic ethics. None of these can be proven, can ever be proven, will ever be proven empirically.

It is these attitudes, not science itself, that lead to the conflict between religion and science. While there is conflict between Religious Ideology and Scientism, there can be none between what I would call "real" science and "real" religion.