Urbi et Orbi
I am unsure of how useful to anyone the following rumination on religion, science, & Man might prove, but at the same I am no Benthamite & would not argue that utility is the best, let alone the sole, reason to do much of anything: P.O.V.-link. My curiosity was initially piqued by the title, "Can religion teach us more than science?" I was then further intrigued by the early prominence in the essay of Graham Greene, not because of any particular affection for his writing, none of which I have yet read, but because of his adult conversion to Catholicism. (I am particularly intrigued by adult, British converts to Catholicism, such the aforementioned Greene, G. K. Chesterton, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, & Tony Blair.) There is much in the piece with which I agree & much in the piece with which I disagree. I am of the school of thought that the purpose of religion is not to provide comfort in times of trouble (though that is a very lovely side effect), but to encourage rectitude & salvation.

The best line of the piece has more to do with the relevance of fiction & myth than it does about religion, but it's a good line all the same: "Just as you don't have to believe that a scientific theory is true in order to use it, you don't have to believe a story for it to give meaning to your life."

The worst line of the piece is the very last line, the line that most reinforces the author's own utilitarian view of religion, a view which I ardently dispute: "What we believe doesn't in the end matter very much. What matters is how we live." The second sentence is dynamite; the first sentence is, as so many debaters are fond of saying, problematic.

On the whole, though, "Can religion teach us more than science?" is a valuable contribution to a discourse that is, so it seems to your humble narrator, repulsively dominated by shrill, anti-intellectual fundamentalist Christians & shrill, intellectually-bankrupt fundamentalist atheists. (For the latter, look no further than the despicable comments following the piece.)

The Rebel Black Dot Song of New York of the Day
Michael Penn, "(P.S.) Millionaire" courtesy of the YouTube (Mrs. Skeeter, Esq.)

Commentary: On the heels of her nomination of "(P.S.) Millionaire" as a R.B.D.S.O.N.Y.O.T.D., Mrs. Skeeter, Esq. also provided the following apologia*: "With respect to (sic) millionaire, I realize it may not immediately seem like a song about NYC, but I strongly feel that it is. If you'd like further explanation, I can provide." It took a careful listening to discover how specific to N.Y.C. the song is, but she's correct, it really is. Even so far as more than a hint of 9/11. Well done, old friend.

*As part of the ongoing evolution of my diction, I've decided to reassert the explanatory sense of "apology." It's early days for this reclamation of apology; so, in this instance I chose the less ambiguous variant "apologia," even though I prefer apology.