Science, religion, and their grandmother.

[Disclaimer:  this is a long entry, but I like it. Do you think I should split it into shorter entries? Anyway, I have tried to keep well-defined paragraphs, so they are almost independent and you can read whichever you feel like.]

Religion and science are perfectly compatible as long as religion doesn't try to explain how the world works and remains purely spiritual. Unluckily, most religions seem to not like that. Furthermore, the kind of religious systems that work like this are pretty sophisticated and many people won't accept them. Most people don't want spirituality, they want superstition, and any religion that caters to them is incompatible with science. It's a pity most religions want to keep a large base of believers and consequently adopt or at the very least accept superstitious elements in their dogma, many times standing against scientific advances. And no, I'm not talking about stem cells or other morally dubious (for some) research topics but about the obvious topics of evolutionary biology, archaeology and astronomy and others not as obvious like some treatments in medicine.

I used to think religion was a force that slowed social and (especially) moral changes in a way that was positive for society: by buying us the time to see which changes were actually good or bad, it allowed us to weed out some of the worst of them. I no longer think like that. First and foremost, because some of the changes religion allows seem awful to me, and also because it has delayed some advancements for far too long (centuries!). It may also be because, in the process of becoming a scientist, my life has centered more and more around knowledge. And religion has done the same thing with knowledge I thought it did with morals, with the very relevant difference that there is no weeding out to be done in scientific knowledge (or, rather, it is done by science itself). I now think that the possible moral benefit of religion on society, which had already become doubtful to me, is not worth stopping scientific advances that at the end of the day mean improving people's lives.

I left out of this moral element the elephant in the room: the bad deeds done by religious organizations themselves. It's not that they are not relevant, which they are: the possible positive influence in our morals is worth nothing if the religions themselves are working against it. No, I left it out because it has been commented to death, and also because I understand that this is not intrinsic to any religion. I do think it is inevitable when a religious organization becomes as big and powerful as the church, and it gives its members riches, power and an upstanding social position. At least some of the people in such an organization will try to cling to that power and position, perverting its message. What is the solution to this? Either a truly humble organization or a lot of smaller churches (preferably humble too). I understand why the pope doesn't don a monk's habit and live in poverty, I really do, but if there is people who do agree with me (and I believe they are a lot) why don't I see in europe some christian sect that has a humble leader, or hundreds of small congregations led by priests that have separated from the church (this only happens when they realy want to marry, which is fine to me and I think they should all do it*, but it doesn't seem like the best of reasons).

*Fun fact: I read a while ago that rabbis have to marry because otherwise how can they give advice about marriage? I think this is awesome.

PS: Please comment! All these are really things I think about and I would like some possible answers to what I don't know. As an agnostic going from religious believer to possibly atheist or maybe even back to believer (seems more improbable every day) I'll probably know many arguments but I really want to read some new ones.