How religion and science intersect, or whether they can, is a subject worthy of a conference like Pop!Tech, a venue for dangerous topics.

Evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins, he of the Selfish Gene and Memetics, doesn't have much use for religion. He sees it as unscientific and dogmatic. The current attack on evolution – a theory accepted by most scientists as extremely well-grounded – by some religious groups has highlighted differences. The cover story in the November issue of Wired magazine ("The New Atheism: No Heaven. No Hell. Just Science. Inside the crusade against religion.") lays out his position.

But neither technology nor religion is going away, says Martin Marty, a religious scholar and ordained Lutheran minister. We have to find ways to have them live together, he says.

After hearing their presentations, I wonder if Dawkins may have had more in common with Marty than it seems.

Marty spoke of religion exploring mysteries, not with the idea that they are unanswerable, but in the sense that as one answer is obtained it only leads to more questions, more mysteries to unravel.

That seemed to be close to Dawkins's view of the scientist as humble explorer, always ready to give up positions outgrown when new evidence suggests new truths.

We live in a "middle world," Dawkins says, in which we experience only a limited part of reality. We see a rock as a solid object, not as mostly empty space with atoms whizzing around, because it has been a useful way for us to see it. We may have trouble getting our heads around quantum mechanics, the quite different set of laws that govern the world of the extremely small, because – as he puts it – our brains haven't had to evolve to confront those ideas.

In other words, he explains. if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. The universe is "queerer" than we can imagine.

What we call science and religion may be different paths to unlocking these truths that, for now, seem beyond comprehension.