I’m not sure what you mean when you say you’re more oriented to science than I am. I don’t have a science background, but I do have an analytic philosophical one, which takes science for granted. I understand how science works in general. You also say you’re a religious person with a strong belief in God, so that casts some doubt on your orientation towards science.
You say the evolution of ideas and of science is “inherently good.” I don’t see how that confidence could be justified without a dubious appeal to theism. Just look at the problem of environmentalism. That’s the outcome of all our scientific and technological and social “progress,” a massive conflict between civilization and nature that threatens to destroy us all.
In any case, the naturalistic fallacy means there are no inherent values.
You say that religion and science can be constructive or destructive, but that goes without saying. Science is progressive in one sense, in the short term and on the surface, but in the long term and after philosophical reflection, science may have nihilistic implications. That’s what many pessimistic philosophers say. Of course, secular philosophers have been busy reconstructing liberal values on the assumptions of science and atheism, for a few centuries now. The question is whether they’ve succeeded in making peace between science and the values we need to make us happy.
That play does sound interesting. I enjoy writing philosophical dialogues. Here are a few others that might interest you:
