THE BARE ESSENCE OF SCIENCE IS THE ACT OF EVALUATING REALITY OUTSIDE OF THE SELF.

In this I mean that, overall, science should be filtered down to it's basic goal. It is the quest to define that which is definable without the use of personal individuality. While we may be able to STUDY personal individuality with science, we cannot actually utilize our own individuality to deduce anything conclusive about the subject. You could say "It's all fact, and no opinion," and that would be a close hit. One cannot scientifically judge a theory if one uses their "opinion" on the matter; only by studying it in ways that do not apply to that person's unique mind. In that context, Science is simply the quest for the nature of existance through the Universe.

THE BARE ESSENCE OF RELIGION IS THE ACT OF EVALUATING REALITY WITHIN ONESELF.

In other words, the bare essence of religion is faith. Faith is something that a person feels compelled to believe as a fact, even though it is not a fact. It is the use of personal individuality to arrive at a conclusion where analysis alone could not possibly succeed. In order to say that God Created Everything, one must have faith in that God because physical, realistic proof of that God's existance is unavailable. In that context, Religion is simply a quest for the nature of existance through the Individual.

With that in mind, the terms "Religion vs. Science" have been rendered impossible to use, and have instead been filtered to "Individual vs. Universe". When comparing the two, it can be measured down even further to "Me vs. Everything Else". Religion is Individuality through expression, and therefore is "Me". Science is Universe through deduction, and therefore is "Everything Else". And that's where they are no longer opposites, but have merged to a simple, final question concerning the fabric of existance:
"What am I with regards to Everything Else?" (synonymous with "What is Everything Else in regards to Me?") This is the question that has only two major symbolic influences on the quest for the nature of existance: a) It's answer would establish the final link between Humanity and the Universe; b) it cannot be answered.

The futility of that may seem unimaginable, but it is the only truth I can come up with in any philosophical thought process. And with good reason. It cannot be answered because the answer would completely negate the question. It is a contradictory question, completely devoid of anything but the most questionable merit as a topic for debate, and laden with paradox. Suppose an answer were suddenly achieved, and you instantly knew what you are with regards to everything else. In order to actually have that answer, you would have to know exactly what you are, and exactly what everything else is. But in order to actually contain that amount of knowledge, you would have to have been created with that amount of knowledge, and you must continually have that amount of knowledge every second thereafter. You would literally have to be one with everything. The universe is a constantly-changing environment, on both a physical and metaphysical level. You would have to possess the knowledge of the nature of EVERYTHING, ALL of the time. The only possible way you could actually do that is if you WERE everything, able to witness every object in existance from the standpoint of any and every other object in existance. This would mean that you have become that which you were just comparing yourself to. And that just caused the question being asked to change from "What am I with regards to Everything Else?" to "What am I?" And the answer to that would actually be quite simple: You are the universe.