mousethief brought up an interesting point:

"There is good argument, some of it by atheists, that science as we know it got a good jump-start from religion, in the form of belief that the world is predictable because it is made by a rational God. The scientific method of iterative experiment and hypothesis, as first proposed by Roger Bacon, follows immediately from the philosophy of the Scholastics. Experimental science is the daughter of Abrahamic religion and Greek philosophy. It can be reasonably argued that without both, it would not have arisen, or would have arisen at a much much later date, after the intellectual framework was built up from some other source. Isaac Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants. Many of those giants were Christian philosophers."

This is quite true-- centuries ago, most/many 'scientists' were also religious. There was an underlying theme to much of 'scientific' thought of "Let's learn all we can about the wonders God has given us", and much of what was learned was guided by, and interpreted in terms of, how it fit with religious texts. Nothing very surprising about that.
   But in the process of studying nature (plants & animals), the stars, physics, chemistry, geology....etc., the major thinkers were also codifying the rules for making sense OF scientific discovery. That is, they were gradually inventing the scientific method as a tool for accurately doing experiments, testing hypotheses, and using careful language to minimize misunderstandings among their peers & students. Gradually, as mathematics and rules for 'good science' were integrated, many became aware that they were defining not only 'good science', but also 'good thinking'.
Now...what happens when a dedicated scientist...such as Galileo... finds that 'good thinking' requires him to dispute or question certain religious precepts... like Heliocentric universe or age of the Earth? Several things happen.... Some 'rationalize' and try to make scientific theories 'fit' the religious concepts they cannot emotionally doubt. Some just try not to deal with it and simply do the science and let others do the arguing or questioning.... and some begin to see the rules of 'good thinking' as a separate, but guiding principle for ALL concerns.
Fast forward to today's dichotomy: the dispute between those who argue that "science, when done properly, has no place for a 'god' which cannot be tested in standard scientific method" and those who reply that "issues about God are not IN the realm of science, and simply not subject to 'testing'."

This seems to be a chasm that defies any effort to build a bridge. On the one hand, many assert that it is irrelevant whether religious topics are subject to 'testing' ala 'scientific method', because the 'rules of good thinking' always are relevant, and positing metaphysical realms and 'gods' EITHER violates certain rules of 'good thinking' and logic, OR is only internally and circularly consistent.
On the other hand, opponents assert that because gods and metaphysical concepts can be conceived of at all, they are 'possible' and simply involve 'different' forms of evidence & reasoning and it is not even fair or useful to suggest they be required to submit to testing or analysis common to the physical world.

   ...but there is a 'sort of' other position which may be about as close to a bridge as we will ever get, and which can be held in some form by those on both sides of the chasm. It holds that because religious thought is so ancient and embedded in human culture throughout history, it has 'value' over & beyond any reference to its absolute 'truth'. These people hold that we can & should find within religious contexts...lessons about our 'selves', beauty, guidance about morals, respect for tradition...and many other subjective concepts.

I **tend** to think that the 'good thinking' position IS the most reasonable one... but *smile*...perhaps some will say that is as circular & subjective as any religious orientation. To me, it is just "reasonable to BE reasonable" in all things, and that the rules of 'good thinking' are, in fact **objective** if properly understood....but I do cross a mite over halfway on that shaky bridge of respect for the values I can see on 'the other side'.


The details & complex implications of the position I take is even longer than THIS rambling attempt to say something new on this topic...but maybe they are obvious to some.