Seamless science of religion; the Sin-Grace bridge

The deeper your search for truth, the more seamless it seems. As the light and the heat of the flame composes the fire, the transfixing truth is one thing for all its attributes.
The farther back in time we trace the human awakening, the more our religion and our science appear to be the same fire. Our notion of sin in pre-Galileo vessels was not confined to social condemnation, it was not in a thought-box entered one day out of the week, it was not neutered, or considered impractical for business. Private faith was tied to social duty. It still is.
Of course, there have always been false prophets, hypocritical preachers, and careless scientists. The Cheney of graft and war profiteering is paleolithic. The Bush of hypocrisy and fraud is burned into many of our texts -- it is actually the plot line of most of our stories and warning Gospels. The Rovian pretentions to statistics and authenticity are nothing new. Evil always acts under color of law and authority when possible. And this is where the idea of "sin" operates as the dragon at the margins, policing even a wrathful, wasteful, proud and envious god.
Pope Gregory (the Great) catalogued the Seven Deadly sins, which were put into theoretical and literary paces by Thomas Aquinas and Dante. One draws a bracing excitement from reciting the list: Pride, gluttony, sloth, lust, greed, envy and anger. For 15 centuries the Church decreed these to be sufficient to explain the misfortunes of mankind. For example, violence is derivative of anger, waste from gluttony, theft from greed, and all manner of tragedy from pride. None of these "sins" separate Man from God, as all of them are carefully attributed to the Gods -- in the Bible, the Popovul, the Olympiad, the Book of the Dead, the Book of Mormon. What is useful, of course, is the fact that "sin", unlike folly or crime, contains the spiritual hint of redemption.
Mohandas Gandhi was one of our first leaders to re-visit the list. His version of the seven deadliest sins: "Wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, politics without principle, commerce without morality, worship without sacrifice, selfishness without responsibility."
Ghandi clearly addressed the falling gap between "spiritual" and practical morality, once again placing sin into the scientifically valid tool kit. We have always needed a practical measure not only of acts but of attitudes. The mens rea is not just problemmatic for Believers (after-life gamblers). It is also a concern for specialists in all human realms -- legal, social sciences, corporate enterprises, individual responsibility. The sin which begins in the heart, and the hope of salvation, is universal.
What is keeping us from grace? Clearly stealing, coveting. But also polluting, withholding evidence, and becoming rich at the expense of the gullible. There is authenticity and scientific method behind the usages of Sin. The world can be "saved", in every sense, if we understood that the condemnation is not just "spiritually" appropriate. It is apparent that survival requires us to recognize the acts and attitudes which are separating us from grace.

Where do we go from (no) here?

We are clearly going to end up where we are headed. How does it look? What can we do that has not already been done, and done, and done in spades?

COHERENCY is not enough. We are heirs to Scholars who have devoted lifetimes to marshaling the facts and composing the rational arguments which derived from those facts. Other scholars have sifted through and prioritized the Learning Points. Great Minds have compiled mountains of coherent conclusions. It is not enough.

PASSION is not enough. We are heirs to the efforts of devoted guides and their disciples who have expressed faithful and heartfelt expressions sufficient to inspire immovable objects and indifferent mountains. Great hearts have leaped upon sweating galloping legions of zealots and the ebb and flow has ebbed and flowed. And it is not enough.

MONEY is not enough. The riches of the world have from time to time been plundered and consolidated and gathered into hands eager for more. And what was achieved in this achievement? It is not enough, Ozymandias, never enough.

POWER is not enough. We have stood in honors before a parade of Caesars, we have sacrificed life and limb, and sons and daughters, to and for the Kings and Popes and Ayatollahs who assumed GOD's power over all the forces and influences at their disposal. We have put entire civilizations to death. And now look, look at the result of that power. To anyone with an feather of judgment left in the quiver, it is not enough.

DIVINE GRACE is not enough. We have prayed to the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-resourceful. We have gone to the Source. Golden altars of petition floating on rivers of tears. Our best martyrs, our purest saints, our most sanctified sacrifices of our most chosen people. The Gospel has been broadcast to every person with a dollar to contribute to its promulgation. Yet, here we are: 7 billion people on the planet, every possible dogma has its day, and not one example of salvation.

KINDNESS is not enough. Even the extremities of friendship, the most intimate associations among the closest tribes, the kinship of twins and paternities have seen betrayal. Under color of charitable motives we have seen predators emerge with billion-dollar booty seized from the gullible, the hopeful, the living and the dead. We have drunk cups of tea to oblivion, shared draughts of kindness, and smoked peace pipes to extinction. Yet suffering has moved in and builds every palace. It is not enough.

Even RUTHLESSNESS and ILL-MOTIVES are not enough. Did Machiavelli manage to send the Borgian Prince to the deepest aperture of Hell by offering him a prescription? Does the Captain of Industry have a name whose manipulation of some rival or mass consumer, or government agency, has laid up some enjoyment which he was able to enjoy more than any meal enjoyed by the lowest grasshopper? Is there a tribe or family more fruitful and happy than that of the innocent tardigrades?