At some point in the future, I'm going to expand the comments on this page, to set forth some ideas about the unhappy balance/tension/conflicts between science, and religion. I need to spend at least the next few months, dividing my efforts between four "primary and pressing" projects; however, I've become convinced that the best chance for humanity to adapt to the approaching massive problems that will be caused by global warming without collapsing into unprecedented levels of barbarity, slaughter, and suffering, is if people of science, and people of faith, can begin working together again. For right or wrong, better or worse, humanity needs both science AND faith.
​          Although I've spent my entire career focusing on science and technology, I have high levels of respect, admiration, and affection for people who are somehow guided, strengthened, or otherwise benefited by having some type of "faith" which manages to be both active, and abiding, at the same time. There are strong connections and overlap between "faith" and "trust", and people who chronically distrust everyone become severely unpleasant to be around, and end up sharply limiting and damaging the good that they would be able to accomplish (and enjoy), if they could somehow learn to form teams, partnerships, and other forms of cooperation that will begin to work better, if the people in them can rely upon at least some level of trust.
          Accordingly, better connections can indeed be made, between people of science, and people of faith, if those efforts are properly encouraged and guided.
          As just one example of an insight which might be able to help people on either side better understand the other side, both sides need to recognize, understand, and learn to accept a huge and critical difference between how people on the two different sides see and interpret things.
          People of faith will actively believe something, BECAUSE it makes them feel better, and stronger, and more able to withstand challenges. For them, that is a reasonable, appropriate, and fair test and measure of what "faith" actually means, and does, both to them, and for them.
​          However, in stark and direct contrast to that approach, people of science are specifically and deliberately coached and trained to add an additional layer and level of distrust and skepticism, to anything they think they have seen, IF IT MAKES THEM "FEEL BETTER". To scientists, that type of skepticism is one of the foundations of good, responsible, honest and objective science. A good scientist cannot and must not be seduced into thinking that he has discovered something new, because it makes him FEEL better to think those kinds of self-praising, self-congratulatory thoughts. 
​          Neither way is "right", and neither way is "wrong". Instead, each approach evolved and emerged in the way it did, because THAT is the way which works better, for people on THAT side. If BOTH sides can be helped to understand and simply accept that crucial difference in how they see and interpret whatever they regard as "the truth", then a HUGE barrier to good communication, between the two sides, could be, if not overcome, then at least turned into something that can be climbed over, or bypassed, by people who are willing to do that, if that is what it will take to reach agreements with other people.
​          I'll offer another analogy, to help explain why BOTH science AND faith must be accepted and encouraged, as a team and a partnership with each other.
          The earliest human civilizations arose around rivers that flowed through deserts, in the Middle East and Africa, such as the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. Why did civilizations arise in THOSE particular settings, again and again? Because someone figured out a truly clever trick, arising from basic facts of life, physics, and weather, where rivers pass through deserts.
          In the coastal area around a river in a desert, the wind will pretty much always blow inward, and inland, from the coast. Why? Because the land surface in a desert heats up faster than the sea. That causes the air over the land to rise; and, that draws in replacement air, from over the sea, in the form of winds and breezes that reliably blow inland.
          However, the water in any river will always and reliably flow in the opposite direction – toward the sea – because of simple basic gravity.
          The fact that the wind, and the water, move reliably and consistently in opposite directions, in a river that passes through a desert, enabled people to create sailboats that would allow them to travel – reliably and controllably – in EITHER direction. If and when they wanted to go farther inland, they would raise a sail, and would be carried farther inland, by the wind. Later, if and when they wanted to go back toward the sea, they would simply lower the sail, and be carried by the current.
​          The ability to travel, reliably and controllably, on any day, in EITHER of TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, became a huge, HUGE advance. That is what laid the foundation for trade, and commerce, and those are what began what we now call civilization. If you can travel down a road or river in only one direction . . . well, what are you going to do, once you reach the end of that road, or the start of that river? The real and true value came to (and from) those who figured out how to travel in EITHER direction, in a controlled and reliable way, whenever they wanted to.​
          I offer that as an analogy, a lesson, and an example, drawn from reality and life. In life, the people with the most wisdom, insight, and ability to add true and genuine value, are those who have learned how to travel in BOTH directions, when it comes to:
          (i) matters of science and technology, which point in one direction, like a wind that reliably blows inland, ready to be used by people who can figure out how to put sails on boats; and,
          (ii) matters of faith and values, which flow in a very different direction, like a current toward the sea.
          Another way to see it can arise from regarding science, engineering, and technology as being comparable, in various ways, to a powerful (but sometimes aggressive, domineering, egotistical, and self-centered) male personality and ego, with all the problems of those types of people. And, faith – when done right – is comparable, in various ways, to a loving mother who is imperfect, and who sometimes makes mistakes, but who nevertheless wants and hopes to give and share happiness, good character, kindness, and compassion, to and with her children.
          I grew up with parents who – both of them – had serious and even severe problems, which made both of them very unhappy with life in general, and, with each other. And yet, they stayed married, and they both did the best they could, to raise and teach their children. So, I did not choose, or try, to love either one of them more than the other. Instead, I consciously and deliberately tried to learn how to accept, understand, love, and help BOTH of them, rather than just one of them. They BOTH had things to offer, and they BOTH taught me things I wanted and needed to learn.
​          So – I choose to love both science, and faith, in much the same way that I chose to love (and continue to love, even though they both passed away, years ago) both of my parents – even though they both had problems, and even though they were very different from each other, in ways that often caused severe clashes and conflicts. Did they both make mistakes? Yes. Absolutely. Sadly, yes. But, instead of making me believe or conclude that I should love only one of them, my realization that they BOTH had made mistakes, ended up making it even MORE important for me to learn how to see, study, and try to understand what EACH of them could do, better than the other, and of how and why I would be much, much better off – more balanced, more stable, and better able to weather the storms – if I could find ways to get along with both of them, instead of just choosing and favoring one over the other. As I grew up and gradually came to understand each of them better, I also came to realize that I could not and should not simply follow either one of them; instead, if I could learn how to incorporate and balance what EACH and BOTH of them had taught me, into an ongoing, dynamic balance, then that type of effort to sustain an ongoing balance (like the biological process called "homeostasis", which is the ongoing adaptive process which sustains the organs, digestion, and muscles within tolerable limits, within an animal  body) could and would become a source of strength, rather than struggle.
          So, I do the same thing, when it comes to trying to understand, accept, and work with the strengths, weaknesses, and conflicts of both science, and faith.