Now. As me and my family will be on vacation for almost a month, I wish you and your family a great summer and lots of good luck in your new place.

Well, I think that religion addresses a lot of the same things as science, but from a different perspective and using a different set of a priori assumptions. For example, both religion and science are concerned with truth, but both can have different criteria for what counts as reliable data. Religion (at its best) can be seen as a conglomeration of goals related to human thriving, and it is perfectly reasonable to look to creative, non-scientific efforts for inspiration in service to it. But science has a great deal to say about human thriving, so an ethical religion will eventually shift the locus of authority towards science and away from scripture and superstition.

I don´t understand this comment as it implies there actually is something called “God”.

I thought it implied the exact opposite. That there is no consensus on what “God” is can be seen as evidence that one does not exist. If there were indeed a deity that was sensible to the human mind, we would have by now arrived at a clear understanding of what it is. There is only one science but billions of gods.

“But the real issue isn’t “God” but all the details behind what a person attaches to that construct.”

I don´t understand this comment as it implies there actually is something called “God”.

I don’t say that RN provides meaning, but that it might help inspire people to establish their own sense of meaning.

How about viewing religious language as an language of meaning while science (do you mean the natural sciences?) uses a language of objects?

I think that’s too narrow a definition of what science addresses (and by “science”, I mean the general pursuit of knowledge that uses the scientific method). For example, science also looks at processes and tries to understand how things happen. Religion traditionally also addresses objects and processes, often folding in things like moral oughts, so there is a lot of overlap there.

Meaning is, I suspect, mostly grounded in relationships and experiences, especially of the type that have a sense of profundity. Science is obviously unnecessary for this, but can greatly inform the project. For instance, science can help establish a reliable model for our shared cosmological and biological origins, both of which can be a source of great meaning. This is why I say that science can (and should) inform religion. Science can also inform us of the kinds of relationships and experiences that optimize well-being.

Regarding god-language, I’ve already outlined by general objections here: http://www.sacredriver.org/679/god-language-and-religious-naturalism People are, of course, free to use whatever language they want to describe their experiences and beliefs. But the real issue isn’t “God” but all the details behind what a person attaches to that construct. Using “God” as shorthand for meaning is more likely to produce misunderstanding than clarity, since people will interpret that word using their own preconceived ideas. At the same time, there is no reason why “scientific” words couldn’t become imbued with the poetry that characterizes religious language…it’s all about context and intent.

You write a lot about “meaning” in these pages and that RN has to somehow offer its adherents some kind of meaning. How about viewing religious language as an language of meaning while science (do you mean the natural sciences?) uses a language of objects? From my readings of some theologians and religiously inclined thinkers this way of thinking is not foreign to for example Christianity. Your concept of “Allegoricalism” includes thoughts like this but even then you don´t seem to like to word “God”.

I believe religion should establish a similar relationship to science. It would look very different, of course, because the practice of religion is obviously quite unlike medicine in many significant ways. But just as medicine can potentially hinder or forward well-being, so it is with religion, and so I believe religion is ethically bound to employ the best information possible in service to its particular goals, and so far science is the best method we’ve yet devised. I believe that for religion to ignore what science has to say about the cosmos and about human nature is irresponsible while actively working against science is abhorrent.

Care to explain what you mean?

And oh, interesting questions.