from class

It seems that, in the end, there is no difference between science and religion. And yet I think saying that is a post-modern cop-out. In the purest sense, there should be a difference. Science is the analysis if the material that exists, and religion is the analysis of why that material exists. The line between them, as I said, is blurred. It can't help being blurred, because the question of what something else almost always begs into the question of why it is, how it came to be the way it is, or a hundred other questions that veer into religion.

We strive to make science objective, but we cannot erase our cultural assumptions any more than the ancient Chinese could. There are things we take for granted that will be brushed off as religion and superstition by those looking at our science from the vantage point of the future. That doesn't mean that our science is not science, nor does it mean that the science of the Chinese is not what it purports to be. Scientists do their best to put aside cultural baggage. It doesn't succeed (and I don't know if it can) but it tries. Religion doesn't aspire to be observation, and sometimes doesn't even aspire to objectivity, particularly in Asia. It is inspiration turned inward, while science is inspiration turned outward.