Never!

No. To reconcile them is to deny truth. Compatibilism won't work. The conflicts are too frequent and severe.

Most religions are founded on the belief that your consciousness doesn't die right along with your brain (supposedly, there is such a thing as a disembodied spirit), and a god (a disembodied spirit) has introduced laws of the universe that govern the functioning of disembodied spirits. Since there is absolutely no basis for disembodied spirits in our universe or any universe I can contemplate, then there will never be a "reconciliation" between science and religion.

The arrogant will have to go on believing -- rather than knowing -- that the universe cannot go along existing without their consciousness being part of it, because it will never be shown to be true.

Not if you're consistent. Religion is a form of primitive philosophy. Most religious metaphysical teachings say that reality was created by a god, can be changed by a god and that magic can happen. Most religious epistemological teachings say that truth and knowledge comes from a higher power and you must obey that higher power to reach salvation. Science disagrees with those teachings. Obviously some of the greatest scientists of all times were religious, but they weren't consistent in their philosophy.

Observation of the universe and derivating understanding from those obesvations does not nessacerly preclude the existence the divine.

Good points all, but I think your concept of “Christian”, while probably fitting the majority, does not include possibly the “best” Christians, who by literalist standards are probably atheists. Famous, distinguished Christians like Bart Ehrman, Karen Armstrong, Chris Hedges, Elaine Pagels, etc. who most likely don’t believe in a literal sky daddy, but are passionate supporters of the metaphorical truths contained in those traditions.
All one has to do to dissolve 100% of the perceived conflict between science and religion is to come to understand that the ancient stories were allegories about human psychology, whether their writers could grasp that fact (they couldn’t) at the time or not.
The silliness of the science/religion “debate” is like vociferously declaring Picasso an incompetent because “women don’t really have both eyes on the same side of their face!”

Absolutely. All it takes is education.

This is probably getting near some of the core of the issue, but I think that there is important nuance that needs to be added in each case—nuance which is critical in understanding this fuzzy area of potential conflict.

A. Historical

Read Richard Carrier's The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire. Early Christian values (and New Testament ones) do—on history—clash with proto-scientific ones. The value hierarchy is distinct in ways that caused Christians to leave aside operational science.

Personally, I don't think your C entirely stays separate from A. The Christian "method" of knowing by revelation and the scientific method of empiricism are directly at odds; take the story of Doubting Thomas for example or Colossians 2:8.

B. Personal

Going back to your second point, I do think that, given the Bible is a big book and Christianity is a widely varying belief system, plenty of people in their connection with science and religion probably don't find any conflict between them in their daily lives.

This, however, wasn't the case for me. I threw a science book away once because I was worried at the time that my mind and connection to God would be corrupted by intellectualism. I'm not kidding! And that was heavily motivated by other antagonistic sayings by Paul (in addition to the brain-washings of Young-earthers). (As crazy as this all sounds in retrospect!)

While my own Christian experiences are not necessarily common, I highly doubt that such anti-intellectualism (including with science) is very unusual, particularly given the prevalence of Creationism, Supernaturalism, and other kinds of simplistic magical thinking in the Christian movements.

C. Methodological

Playing Jesus's advocate for a second... There are some Christians who use stray Bible verses (out of context, of course) to support their personal applications of good empiricism, rational consideration, with a sense of open curiosity into their engagement with science. So here they do manage to synthesize a valid scientific process out of beliefs (they think are supported) in the Bible. In those instances, they would not really agree that calling it "methodological atheism" is valid. (This is one reason why the term is "methological naturalism" which is more appropriate in reference to the scientific process.)

Conclusion

So, I think you are correct in the essence of things in positing A. being yes, B. being yes, C. being no, yet I do think that all three are what I would call "soft" yeses/noes in the sense that they are only partly true/false with substantial situational counter-examples to them as a rule.

It is important to keep these nuances in mind and on the table, or else the simplistic A & B you put forward will rightly not connect as being correct with other ex-Christians, and your simplistic C will get your remarks similar reactions from some honest and intelligent Christians.

But, I will say, it is annoying to hear people talk as if it is absolute noes on all three accounts, when that just isn't the case, or (somehow!) absolute yeses.

My first thought is why would you want to?

No. Science deals in facts, and religion deals in faith and make believe in a God or gods.

i think they have to be in denial, or redefine god in some compatible way, or both. so my answer is a general NO. i have also never seen or heard of any of the supposedly respected B scientists.

g

No

Does the Pope shit in the woods?

There are some that do.
For example. Dr. Kennith R Miller. He's a cellular biologist, and a professor at Brown, He is also a huge promoter of evolution. And Her is a devout Romen Catholic.
And there is Frances Collins, who led the team on the genome project, also a promoter of evolution, and he as well, is a believer in god.

Usually the norm for the elite scientists are Atheists, or at least Agnostic. but again, there are some exceptions.

I'm going to go with NO.

Science admits when it's wrong about something, and offers new evidence to
prove or disprove any scientific assertion. It is constantly questioning, researching, experimenting, and working toward answers.

Religion asserts that gods exist, and insists on it's adherents to have "faith", and
not to question it's teachings, or it's hierarchy. It's gods are infallible and unknowable.

It's "holy" books are complete fiction, and have cannibalized and plagiarized every ancient text that came before them.

It consistently fails to produce one scintilla of credible, verifiable evidence to prove it's assertion ANY gods have ever existed, at any time, anywhere.

R u seriously asking this , or this is an oppurtunity to preach . I don't have the degrees u claim to have , and not the best to articulate in English , and not in great mood for arguments . But I do have enough common sense and English to ask u this , sir . R u a religious / Christian ? Because I can tell u that much , u ain't agnostic or atheist .

What is not addressed is the development of most religions, which sprang form "scientific" hypotheses attempting to explain observed natural phenomena.
The ultimate reconciliation would be verified and reproducible proof of the existence of the supernatural.

Many people do this on a personal level. What I would postulate is that motive matters. Not many scientists seek out a faith after becoming a scientist, it is almost always a world view they carry with them. So denouncing it would have a cost, a cost they are motivated not to pay.

The essence of this is whether it works well, and the best example would be the "god of the gaps". In reality science slowly replaces religion in more and more places. So in the compromise you dilute science by adding religion making it less precise, and you render religion pointless by adding science. The act of reconciliation seems like an effort in futility.

“Science as a method and religion as a faith can never form an alloy.”

I would have to take issue with this. It depends on how you envision “religion” and “faith”. There is no universally accepted definition of these terms. To my thinking authentic faith is not about believing unsubstantiated notions about the material world, but rather about believing that enduring peace of mind can be had in a chaotic and contentious world. Religion at its core, I believe history will bear out, is the practice that brings us closer to this peace. No unscientific assumptions are required. In fact, I will argue, the closer to science you stick, the sooner you will get there. An alloy of science and religion is not only possible, but the optimum path to peace. Warring factions do not contribute to peace.

I am a (retired) scientist, and I have known a number of good scientists who were religious. But I have never understood how this can be.

I go one step further.. I believe that anyone professing a believe in the supernatural, , can never reconcile with science.. So (call me narrow minded if you must) but all religious people are either, ignorant fools, or the worst kind of deceivers and liers controlling an agenda for their own benefits.

If you were to plot the trajectory of thought evolution comparing science and religion you would find that science is moving upward and away from religion. That's because religion is rooted in dogma with not much emphasis on testing, refinement and creation of new hypotheses. In contrast science is built on the scientific method which is a an infinite generator of new thought. Consequently in my opinion scientific knowledge will relegate religion to the history books where it belongs.

I think the question is less "can they be reconciled" and more "SHOULD they be reconciled?" Is there really any benefit to giving religion the appearance of legitimacy by trying to reconcile it with actual science?

Science is incompatible with any Fundamentalist or Literalist religion.

If you aren't a Literalist or a Fundie, then you are already basically harmless.

I'm sure if someone spent enough time you could construct a narrative to reconcile the two. But it would just be ridiculous fan fiction supporting an unenlightened viewpoint. Besides wasting time, why would you want to water down science with dogma?