The Pope admits that part of the Bible is a fairy tale.

This is a bad development. The less influence religion, particularly catholocism and islam, has in science, the better.

This is a bad development. The less influence religion, particularly catholocism and islam, has in science, the better.

At the most basic level: many scientists are religious, and this will influence the conclusions they reach. Many of the people who run scientific journals are religious, and this will influence which articles they publish.

Then there is funding. Scientists need grants. Religious organisations can fund studies by scientists who consistently reach 'satisfactory' conclusions. They can put significant pressure on organisations to cut the funding of scientists who often conduct research they don't like, perhaps including in the form of religious scientists writing an open letter to the organisation or something.

This is a bad development. The less influence religion, particularly catholocism and islam, has in science, the better.

Due to the largely objective nature of science, it is hard for large religions not to contribute something to it. When a religion is 1/6th of the global population, I'd expect some reasonable scientists from them.

That isn't to say the religion itself is a positive force.

A religion/ideology/whatever might be argued to motivate the scientists themselves, or create an environment where the sciences prospered.

Not that it happens with any religion, but it might have been so in the past.

Religion has no influence over science. Science is science and is a record of what has currently been observed. If someone observes something that contradicts previous learning, science moves forward. Anyone is welcome to disprove anything that has been established through science.

But religion would have us "believe" that the world is 4000 years old because someone wrote a story about it once. No questions asked. That isn't science.

Naiive. Religion has influence over science, as does politics.

At the most basic level: many scientists are religious, and this will influence the conclusions they reach. Many of the people who run scientific journals are religious, and this will influence which articles they publish.

Then there is funding. Scientists need grants. Religious organisations can fund studies by scientists who consistently reach 'satisfactory' conclusions. They can put significant pressure on organisations to cut the funding of scientists who often conduct research they don't like, perhaps including in the form of religious scientists writing an open letter to the organisation or something.

With religion comes controversy. Religion affects the very things people see as "right" or "wrong". Many topics remain too taboo for scientists to explore, and would lose their careers if they tried.

For example, race and IQ. Not religiously motivated in this case, but it is obvious that there will be other subjects taboo thanks too religion also. Such examples would be the fear of GMOs and stem cell research, of humans "playing God", that has resulted in many EU countries substantially restricting GM research, and restrictions on gene research (for fears that it could lead to designer babies) and stem cell research (because 'muh embryos are sacred'.

Some nobel laureate in biology gave an interview where he said something along the lines of "all our policies in Africa are based on the assumption that their intelligence is the same as ours, while that is not the case in reality.” His lecture was cancelled, and forced to resigned from his position at his lab.



Okay.

Nah. Religions have been trying to cling to the coat-tails of science for a hundred years and more. They have to as science is the only likely way to truth, so they seek any coincidence between their superstitions and science in order to claim it as justification.

It would be worrying if it were scientists trying to tie religion and science together rather than the opposite.