Yazata: I agree with most of what you wrote above. So, a lot of this post will just be agreement. Nevertheless... "Religion" is a very broad term. Clearly, science won't ever demolish the idea that there are "higher powers" or supernatural forces/beings/phenomena. However, science certainly can demolish specific empirical claims that religions make. For example, if a religious "scripture" claims that the Earth sits on the back of a giant tortoise, or that the Earth is only 6000 years old, then those claims are empirically falsifiable, and therefore squarely in the scope of science. I agree. Yes. As long as those hypothetical supernatural realities don't try to muscle in on "nature", then I don't think science is concerned with them. If they aren't muscling in on the natural world, then the hypothetical supernatural realities don't have a lot to do with their time, though, as far as I can tell. It's very difficult (probably impossible, in fact) to verify the existence of another "reality" based purely on states of mind. The hurdle of proving that there's anything there other than the state of mind itself is a high one to jump. Yes. These are interesting philosophical issues. When it comes down to it, even the way we divide up the world into discrete "things" is a kind of arbitrary-seeming process that can seem more pragmatic than actually embedded in "reality". Well, there's some argument there, and most scientists don't actually worry about these kinds of questions on a day-to-day basis. For example, we can argue over whether a mathematical concept such as "triangle" is something that exists out there in a separate Platonic "second reality", or whether it is just a useful abstraction that we invented to help make sense of the world, or to describe it.