rickholio

I don't think it's fair to claim that science "isn't seeing the forest for the trees", so to speak. Individual pursuits may build up incomplete understanding of underlying principles, but invariably someone comes along who "sees farther" and takes things to the next level. Who knows who'll be the next aristotle, copernicus, or einstein.

I've also noticed that your treatment of 'religion' is that of a pure abstract. Conventional real-world religions may house theologans that pursue studies in what I would more properly consider as metaphysical philosophy, but they seem to be something of an anachronism these days. The practical application of religion lately is as a means of control over a large populace that lacks the time, talent or motivation to understand the world independantly. Sadly, it appears that real religion often only delves into philosophy as a device to bamboozle the doubter back into the fold.

I would say that science and religion can overlap, but that the overlap exists in that grey-zone of philosophy and conjecture (in my mind, I'm seeing a venn diagram). Science tries to pull as much of itself out of that area as possible by providing proof to its postulates but is inexorably drawn back in by the innate need to imagine "what if...?" in order to progress, and religion tries to push as much of itself into that area as it can but inevitably has to be drawn back out to confront real-world situations (and is deliberately shoved out when it's being used as a bludgeon to control people's thoughts and actions).