DarkThorn,
That should not mean that one is more right than the other.
That is a good point.
Science can explain most things by conducting tests numerous times and then coming up with a tight conclusion to the findings, science also offers hope and people should have faith in what scientists do and have done for mankind but........
Science is not in the business of hope, nor is it personal, its use is to gain knowledge about the physical/phenomenal world.
Having "faith" in science is like having faith that cars will be mobile in the future. "Science" assures us that we do not know everything about our (physical) selves, or environment, that there is indeed more to learn.
Spiritually science offers us nothing, so religion offers us that hope in what comes after.
The above appears to mean spirituality is only about hope of the afterlife. Is that so?
While I can accept that some understanding of religion is based on this type of gross-materialistic desire, I fail to understand how you come to the conclusion of your definition. Spirituality, by definition must incorporate everything, including "science" and all it entails.
There is nothing wrong in romanticising what we do not know. It is the best fantasy ever to wonder what happens when life ends.
Don't assume that this statement applies to every person who decides to become God-conscious.
So to keep this short, science offers us hope in life but religion offers hope for after life.
Hope is a subjective aspect of our human, physical (albeit subtle) make-up and has nothing to do with either of the diciplines, unless we decide to apply it. Religion appeals to the human heart, mind, and intellect, its point is to elevate the human to his/her highest human potential.
Sometimes though i think both do have a secret love affair because science wants to solve the unanswerable. Perhaps one day it will.
The rift between science and religion is, IMO, a man-made agenda and has nothing to do with reality.
Jan.