Thanks for the reference to the Peter Lipton essay. He lost me a bit in the middle but as far as I can summarise his argument it went something like this:

- religion and science can provide different ways of looking at things.
- sometimes they contradict each other
- this is a problem for someone who is trying to hold both viewpoints

He goes on to discuss how, then, one should read a religious text in the light of scientific knowledge.

After exploring a few different options he comes to the conclusion that the best solution is immersion - that is, suspending disbelief and immersing oneself in the world of the text. A bit like reading a novel, say.

I found this quite interesting because someone had recently suggested it to me as a way to read Buddhist scriptures. It seems a more satisfactory solution than simply ignoring all the bits you think are unlikely (as Lipton points out) resulting in a text full of holes.

His last subtitle is "Religion without Belief". This is certainly possible and even necessary in Buddhism. Traditionally, one of the "fetters" that must be broken in order to gain awakening is that of "fixed view", or dogmatic belief.

I'm not sure how it applies to other religions, though. Christianity or Islam without belief sounds unlikely.