Quote:(1) Fortunately, science and religion don't have to conflict. (2) People are capable of being spiritual, and rational at the same time.These are two different statements. Humans are complex, and can hold strange and contradictory sets of beliefs while maintaining harmony in their lives. Statement no. 2 is no doubt true.
Statement no. 1 is less certain. If we're talking about Non-Overlapping Magisteria, then perhaps not - they don't *have* to conflict, so long as religion sticks more or less to non-observable phenomena. (This is the point where I wonder why anyone cares about non-observable phenomena at all, but that's my personal belief.)
Aesthetics perhaps fall somewhere into this camp. Maybe one really believes that the similarity between the Rose Window and DNA seen from one particular angle "means" something. I think this is nothing more than pareidolia, but it's not testable, so I suppose that branch of spiritualism could coexist without conflict.
But the world's religions are not generally preaching NOMA. They make specific worldly claims that are definitely in conflict with science - and lots of them. They assert political pressure on governments that have very real scientific implications. They insist on the literal reality of religious phenomena, intruding into the other Magisterium. Telling scientists that, in some ideal case, this would not be happening, is not very reassuring.
-Jester