I passed on blogging about the recent Science Guy versus Bible Guy debate. I'm so beyond all that now in my personal journey of discovery. I like science and I like the study of the human religious impulse. However, I don't like being a participant in some "religion versus science war."
In other words, I opt out. My personal opinion is that either study might inform the other, but I don't think one should be used to attempt to nullify the other.
Extremism. That's what really bores me. I don't prefer religious "revelations" beyond what I (or anyone) am able to discover using normal means. At the same time, I sure don't enjoy listening to science geeks pontificate on things that seems to me beyond the proper realm of their study. (I'm not here defending NOMA, but IF there is a supernatural realm, surely that isn't something science can tell us much about.)
Bram Stoker, noted for his horror classic Dracula, wrote "Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explains not, then it says there is nothing to explain.”
There is a God of the gaps - where the unknown is categorically chalked up to "God did it" - to be sure; but as has been noted, there is also a science-of-the-gaps that feels certain knowledge gaps eventually will be fully explained by naturalism.
The ultimate why question still resonates with me: Why is there a Cosmos instead of a chaos, or nothing at all?
That seems to be a real toughie.
If religious believers shouldn't be anti-science (and I firmly believe they shouldn't and folks like Ken Ham are way out there in the Twilight Zone), should scientists be anti-religion (not a-religious, but vehemently against), and use their scientific disciplines to argue against the possibility of there be something beyond the natural?