2. Read Descartes. Not everything he writes I agree with, but there is some interesting stuff in there along that vein.

3. Sure, but all of that is just psychology. So, yes, I agree that psychology can certainly be aided by studying the effects of religion on people, but sciences such as biology and physics ought to be left alone, and not diluted and distorted based on someone's religious beliefs (creationists vs. evolutionists). Basically the effects ought to be taken into consideration in social sciences, but the actual beliefs should not change the scientific studies.

I think we are more or less on the same page, and I don't find anything wrong in what you just said (except your "existance as a thought" thing, but whatever).

1. Sorry, I probably shouldn't have assumed that.

2. So what if science can't prove God does not exist? It can't prove that Santa or the Easter Bunny don't either. The lack of any evidence, in my opinion, is enough of a condemnation, at least for the moment, of religion. Why should we pretend to believe in something for which there is no evidence. If you can show me evidence, I'll believe, but until then, I find it expedient to assume non-existence.

3. You keep saying they are connected, but you give no examples. Do you mean that they are both at the core of western civilization and culture? Do you mean that they have historically been used together? Because I will admit both of those, but I see no philosophical significance in these connections other than sociological connections.

I don't assume that religion is wrong, I understand it to be wrong based on an empirical analysis of it using scientific methods.

The difference between our viewpoints comes in at the very core of how we view the world. Starting from scratch and building up a structure of knowledge, I assume scientific methods upon which to base evaluations and make decisions about the world. In light of this, I evaluate religion as generally being incorrect.

You, on the other hand, begin with an assumption that God exists, and religion is the path of knowledge. You then attempt to rectify this with science by pressing to two together (usually quite awkwardly), so that you will not be forced to abandon either, while attempting to follow both.

It is this initial choice in viewing the world from which our standpoints diverge.

I don't believe that science without religion is lame. Science for the simple sake of empirically studying the world is a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself. I see no need to attach religion to it. There are, I will admit, large cosmological questions that science may never answer, but religion to me appears to be just as unqualified and unable to answer these as science has thus far been.