Science and Religion cannot overlap.

[Michael]

Just a little more on the OP. It was the evolutionary biologist Stephen J Gould who perhaps most famously argued that science and religion do not overlap. He described them as being 'non-overlapping magisteria' (NOMA). Richard Dawkins most vocally argued aginst this position writing "it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims". For Dawkins, then, the magisteria of science and faith do indeed overlap and conflict.

I find myself taking a middle ground, a position that people have called 'partially overlapping magisteria' (POMA). I find science does shape my faith, and my faith adds a background that affects my view of science (as being one view of a larger picture). My experience is that they can't be cleanly divorced from each other as Sephen J Gould argued. I'm with Dawkins here as far as saying that there are times, at least, that religion (or faith) and science are overlapping, and if there is a conflict then we (or I) need to try and address any questions or issues and be prepared to re-evaluate things. That has happened to me in both 'directions'; science has challenged and informed my faith, and my faith has challenged, and enlarged, the bigger picture in which science fits for me. Science for me digs deep into one aspect of a wider understanding of who we are and what is the nature of what is around us.

That's obviously a personal view and, as ever, I am very happy to acknowledge that personal and subjective perspective (I dont shy away from subjectivity; I think it must always be acknowledged and embraced).

Here are Stephen Gould's own thoughts. They are thoughtfully and respectfully written (he was not a believer, though declared a respect for religion), which I appreciate, though ultimately I think he was trying too hard to keep faith and science apart (out of a wish for a peaceful concordat):

"The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven."

More at: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

Just as one final thought, something that I always come back to, and is something Stephen Gould quotes, that John Paul-II said and is echoed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that "Truth cannot contradict Truth". More fully, it reads...

CCC 159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."