Religon Or Science ?

Jacob Bronowski Quote
From the "Knowledge or Certainty", an episode from the 1973 BBC series "The Ascent of Man", transcribed by Evan Hunt:

The Principle of Uncertainty is a bad name. In science--or outside of it--we are not uncertain; our knowledge is merely confined, within a certain tolerance. We should call it the Principle of Tolerance. And I propose that name in two senses: First, in the engineering sense--science has progressed, step by step, the most successful enterprise in the ascent of man, because it has understood that the exchange of information between man and nature, and man and man, can only take place with a certain tolerance.

But second, I also use the word, passionately, about the real world. All knowledge--all information between human beings--can only be exchanged within a play of tolerance. And that is true whether the exchange is in science, or in literature, or in religion, or in politics, or in *any* form of thought that aspires to dogma. It's a major tragedy of my lifetime and yours that scientists were refining, to the most exquisite precision, the Principle of Tolerance--and turning their backs on the fact that all around them, tolerance was crashing to the ground beyond repair.

The Principle of Uncertainty or, in my phrase, the Principle of Tolerance, fixed once for all the realization that all knowledge is limited. It is an irony of history that at the very time when this was being worked out there should rise, under Hitler in Germany and other tyrants elsewhere, a counter-conception: a principle of monstrous certainty. When the future looks back on the 1930s it will think of them as a crucial confrontation of culture as I have been expounding it, the ascent of man, against the throwback to the despots' belief that they have absolute certainty.

It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false: tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. *This* is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality--this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge or error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we *can* know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."

We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to *touch people*.

Could some one please, help me to find answers to the following questions?

1. Why dose religion always has been against the science?
2. Why when wee look at the history we clearly see that the more human developed the more distance from the religions and traditions, and more believe in science
3. Why do all the religions leaders, governments, and terrorists have always been partners against the people?
4. ........................................

Could some one please, help me to find answers to the following questions?

1. Why dose religion always has been against the science?
2. Why when wee look at the history we clearly see that the more human developed the more distance from the religions and traditions, and more believe in science
3. Why do all the religions leaders, governments, and terrorists have always been partners against the people?
4. ........................................

The answer is in this, which I trust will find no understanding here.
In elementary set theory, there are two, and only two methods of constructing a set, enumeration and definition. These are the two elements of a two element metaphysics. Now I ask, Given one thing, I can either abstract that things form, or that things material difference. However, does the fact that there are only two possible abstractions mean I have two things? Is a thing different from itself simply because I approach it through reason or through mythology?

And, would anyone who actually understood the foundation of reason itself, be misled by a simple fallacy?

Anyone reasonable intelligent, should be able to put things into layman terms.