The clergy have led us to believe that science and religion are totally different. Philosophers such as A.J. Ayer (See LANGUAGE, LOGIC AND TRUTH, pp. 115-120) have agreed with them. But those who accept the foregoing end up being diverted from dealing with the really important issues. Click here or here to see more on this point.
Folk religions have used belief in magic and in the power of wishing to achieve their position as the binding institutions of society. However, if one looks beneath their supernatural superstructures a naturalistic, non supernatural foundation is found. It is the normal, natural part of human beings that provides the basis upon which a Science of Religion might be built. The usual symbols of folk religions (God, Nirvana, immortal soul, spirits, etc.) are merely one way to get an individual's attention. For a different approach on this see: "Fundamentalism and a Science of Religion."
Folk religions are responsible for humanity's precarious position because
religion is the social institution concerned with definitive issues including
the meaning of human life and how this meaning can be achieved. It provides
the binding institution within a society that allows most persons to feel connected together. It furnishes the shared values that guide individual and group behavior.
Religion's responsibility is to teach its adherents how to best live their
life. At least since the development of science all folk religions have
been remiss in fulfilling their responsibility. And, the effects of this
irresponsibility have been magnified by the power science has provided
humanity.
In addition, when properly defined and established, a science of religion
not only utilizes all the tools of science, but actually provides support for science which up to this point has been lacking. Science has traditionally been defined as the search for Truth.
However, since Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711 - 1776) we have known that human beings cannot achieve
Truth (certain knowledge). This is because Truth either depends on a definition and therefore is an idea not a proven attribute of reality, or a hypothesis which can only be proven wrong, but cannot be proven right. It seems clear to me that the search for something that by its nature
cannot be found is not a reasonable, sensible life goal for a finite creature. Post-modernists provide a real service by reminding us of the nature of Truth. However, none of them -- to my knowledge -- take the next logical step: If truth is not a sensible goal, what is?
A science of religion claims that the goal of humanity is to create societies such that every person can achieve a sustainable feeling that their life has meaning. Within this context, science becomes the search for congruency
and its goal is to learn everything possible in order to
improve the quality of human life.