Waffle, may you be cursed by 1000 fleas for making me think.
But seriously, thank you for your response that demanded that I think.
Your statement that proven science is a yardstick for religious truth - at least that is what I think that you mean - is a concern for me. The reason is that I really don't think that there is a thing as proven science. All of science is work in progress, and subject to challenge which is the lifeblood of progress in science. This does not only apply to those topics on the extreme of our understanding some of which are no longer on the extreme. I think that we should be careful not to confuse "extreme of our understanding" with "extreme of our everyday experience"
I think that religious ideas are expressed as metaphors and say a great deal about humanity if interpreted in this way and are less inclined to depict God as a murderous tyrant as literal interpretations tend to do.
There's nothing more righteous about religion than there is science, the real difference between religion and science is that scientists are educated, are subject to brutal peer review and they are known by their fruits and the fruits of science are abounding. In this age the fruits of religion are the perpetuation of ignorance. That is often true, but not always. I know deeply religious people whose fruits are profound as they serve humanity so I suggest that we are careful about putting everybody in the same boat.
