Ever wonder what the fundamental difference between science and religion is? It is that to make a religion requires only one, while to make science requires two. When religion tries to become science, it fails miserably, and when science tries to be religion, it fails miserably. The reason is simple and is because they are mutually exclusive disciplines depending on whether one or two people are involved at the same time.
If you have two people experience something at the same time and then talk about it, the subject becomes science. Have the same two individuals experience something at different times and it becomes religion. Some times science tries to become religion by having two people experience the same thing at different times and then calling it science. Ever wonder why science is continually revised! Some times religion tries to become a science by telling people how to have religion with more than one person involved. Ever wonder why all religions need to be revised continuously. Both science and religion, when they are occupy the 'wrong turf,' end up needing revision.
The solution is of course for those that want to have science recognize that that it is more like a religion than science, and for those that want to have religion recognize that is more like a science than religion. What is completely absurd is to have a religion define what is good science. Equally, preposterous is to have someone scientifically try to define what is good religion. Thus, for a religious advocate to say that a certain religion is more scientific than another is an amazing non-sequitor, it does not follow. In like manner, for some one who has no religion to say that all religion is nonsense, is also a montrous non-sequitor.
Because of their basis, scientists tend to be loners that have to put up with groups. On the other hand, those that are religious needing group really have to put up ultimately with being alone. Why do the science groupies and the religious loners have such different life experiences you might ask? The reason is that scientists really want to be alone, but have to tolerate being in groups, while the religious really want to be in groups but must tolerate being alone.
Should science prolong life, religion will achieve a complementary goal of prolonging life after death. Does it figure?
Why does religion become distorted? It has to do with groupies thinking everyone needs to belong to the group. Why does science become distorted? It has to do with loners wanting to define what is reight without really beonging to the group. It's probably like the difference between crows, ravens, and jackdaws.
Equally absurd is for advocates of religion to flash around symbols of their religion or for scientists to do the same. I suppose it is possible that scientists need symbols to actually think scientifically. Does religion need symbols for people to think religiously? Symbols are not really needed to be very religious, and probably add confusion and need to be continuously revised. Religious people should stick to simplicity of being alone with their religion. Symbols are always a problem because they are neither religious nor scientific and should be just experienced as images of something interesting.
Since there is no past present nor future without the other is science capable of getting two people together symultaneously enough to define good science or are we always left with every thought we make being religious in nature and requiring continuous enlightenment while we are alone. Yes, when we are alone. Maybe good science is very religious. No that would be a non-sequitor and a vain aspiration of science.