For instance, in Sex and the Constitution, Geoffrey Stone writes:
“[Augustine] postulated that while in Paradise, Adam and Eve had never suffered the degradation of sexual desire. ... After the fall, however, they were afflicted with a crude and animalistic impulse—the insatiable quest for sexual satisfaction.”
“Non-overlapping magisteria” my left foot!
Separate approaches for science in its empiricism as it endeavors to discover reality and religion which is received rather than investigated, accepted rather than questioned, changes in response to secular pressure rather than evidence, makes promises and demands without being falsifiable rather than having a method of making probability of its findings valid based upon repeating the experiments and repeating the results...oh and not to mention using early indoctrination (which ought to be criminal matter) to ingrain and make nearly indelible its lies...
So yeah Gould was mistaken and although it is uncomfortable to admit...Tom has this right.
Yes, early indoctrination should be criminal. That it isn’t confirms Seneca’s view that rulers regard religion as useful.
‘Tis nice to know that in six years I have something right !
Briefly comparing/contrasting the two methods:
The scientific method requires observation, a hypothesis, tests of the hypothesis, and acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis. (See Wikipedia for a stronger definition.)
What does the religious method require?
A search on the term found nothing. Frankie Dapper's post above suggests elements of the method: conclusions, acceptance, promises or demands, indoctrination.
The religious method has potential.