Actually, while Catholicism does not take the scientific view as being above its own in describing the world, it has been far more congenial towards science than the Protestant forms of Christianity, especially in the 20th century. John Paul II was pretty regressive, but John XXIII was much more inclusive, and set the Church on the path of modernization and open dialogue. My own love of and curiosity about science was inspired by two of the Sisters who taught me in school - Sister Judith, a lovely young nun with a very sweet disposition, and Sister Lucida, an older lady who taught my sixth grade class. She especially was well-versed in science, spoke about it as the ultimate tool to understand God's world, and NOT in that silly revisionist way that fundies claim. She was up on all the latest developments, and happily taught us about evolution, saying that it was remarkable how much we were learning about the incredibly complex way God worked in the world. She never contradicted the validity of scientific knowledge, but rejoiced in it. It was from her that I learned that science and religion do not have to be in conflict at all, but can support and complement each other beautifully, so long as we approach each with humility and openness.

That's the spirit with which I went on to approach science. I always wished I could have been a scientist, but the way my mind works never fit with those disciplines. I'm more artistically inclined, which is why I never left religion behind, I think. I'm more comfortable with metaphor than with logic; I prefer paradoxy to orthodoxy. To me it's just as accurate to say the Universe was birthed out of the Goddess's body as it is to say that it came into existence through a stupendous burst of energy which began the process of space/time. One is just a way of expressing the other, as is saying it all happened because God said, "Let there be light." For me, it's all one and the same, because while science works on proof of facts, religion works on elegance of image; they cover different territories, but they are all maps of the same land.

One of the reasons I loved, and still revere, Carl so much is that, while he had his way of viewing things, he never looked down on others for their way, so long as they didn't succumb to nonsense. He studied philosophy and religion as part of a well-rounded education, understanding that even if he didn't believe it, it was still part of our common human heritage and deserved attention. How can you argue about the world with someone if you know nothing of their views? In his book Contact, he had that wonderful line about Buddhism, "The Buddhists believe their god is so great, He doesn't even need to exist," which made me laugh out loud with its gracious humor and exact knowledge. He always said he understood the impulse to religion, even if he couldn't share it. That is an attitude I try to emulate, even if I often fail. (In my own defense, I'll say that it isn't people's religious beliefs I object to, but the cultural trappings that are often overlaid on them, and the ugly impulses those trappings can nurture and encourage.)