Ready, you totally missed my point:
I made the point that science, as Einstein reminded us, without a moral and ethical religion--note that I did not say a "stupid and superstitious kind of religion"--is useless and without meaning.
Nevermind, Revlgking, at least Mike got your point.
In the context of the use of science, I think the word we're looking for is ethics rather than morality.
I would agree with Mike that an ethically good society is most likely to result in the ethical use of science. I would disagree with you that an ethically good society requires a religion. Furthermore, science does not require a religion in order to be useful and have meaning.
We are, of course, discussing the relationship between science and freedom.
Certainly, it's more than just a chicken and egg question as there are other factors that result in the coexistence science and freedom. Religion, however, is not one of those factors. As I said earlier, religion does not belong to the set of conditions for a free society and for science.
