I think we essentially agree with each other on the first part, the need to combine beliefs and values to ensure religion is accepted.
For the second part, if I simplify your point, aren't these two positions opposite to each other? On one side, there is God saying "believe and obey," and on the other, there's the Scientific Method saying "don't believe, verify." These seem like thesis and antithesis to me. What exactly makes the Scientific Method holy in your eyes?
I don’t think that God is saying “believe and obey”. I think more like “believe what you cannot comprehend”. But the science tells “you can comprehend anything”. That seems a lot like hubris to me.
Ok, “believe what you cannot comprehend” sounds very much like religion/god. I fully agree with you.
So you think that “you can comprehend anything in an infinite time” is hubris? Of course saying that we already have comprehend everything would not only be hubris but also very naive and a total lie. Unfortunately "modern" science stopped being humble and that was the moment when it got itself on the pedestal and replaced God.
Yes, I think there might be limits to what we can actually comprehend. For example, our thinking might be limited biologically somehow.
And while I agree with you, I wouldn’t say that science replaced God, but that it is trying. But without value system it cannot succeed. Even communists had communism as a value system complementing the science.
