The study reported in this paper deals primarily with religion and gen eral semantics, a combination that makes it out of the ordinary. The fact that it ultimately suggests perennially perplexing questions concerning religion and science, however?and leaves them unanswered?makes it quite ordinary. The latter comment is not by way of apology. Studies that raise relevant, provocative questions often have heuristic value far exceeding those that produce simple answers to complex questions. A limited amount of background will explain the chief reason for conducting this investigation and expecting a certain outcome. But first a brief statement about general semantics and an explanation of several concepts will be helpful. General semantics is concerned with the relationship between our verbal communications and the nonverbal world of objects, events, per sons, experiences, etc. The general semanticist regards communications that fit nonverbal territories as reliable maps that help direct us to an understanding of the world in which we live. Inaccurate verbal maps, on the other hand, so distort our thinking about the world that our ability to adjust to it can be seriously impaired. Galileo's reputed demon stration with a large ball and a small ball atop the Leaning Tower of Pisa, for example, was responsible for the formulation of verbal maps about the nature of falling bodies and science that contributed substan tially to man's understanding of the world. Aristotle's earlier map about falling bodies proved to be incorrect, but only after it had served to mislead man for centuries. Today we live in an explosive age in which accurate maps are of utmost importance. A single erroneous map could lead civilized man down a path of self-destruction; hence that area of