@TheMiddleWay Islam's contribution to Science ended once they managed to work out how to get all their mosques aligned to Mecca. The fabled "Golden Age" is more of a conceit than a truth.

Admittedly many associated with the Christian Church made contributions to Science, but the methodology they employed was far removed from their theological suppositions. Men make scientific observations, the Church only peddles lies.

The university point I concede, but I wouldn't read too much into it. In the Middle Ages the Church was the most powerful institution on Earth, so it is not surprising it had a monopoly on schooling.

Religious "scientists" see no conflict because they choose not to examine their beliefs as rigorously as they would conduct an experiment.

@TheMiddleWay Belief is not Knowledge. Science seeks Knowledge; that which can be shown to be true, or most likely to be true. To do this it calls Evidence as its witness to the bar of Reason. Religious belief on the other had is entirely based on unqualified supposition, and brings zero knowledge to the table.

I would defend my use of the word "always" by asserting that whenever religion has appeared to aid the advancement of Science, this has always been done at a cost. Religion is not interested in Truth, all it cares about is Dogma.

@TheMiddleWay There is only one Truth!

@TheMiddleWay RE; the photon -- it appears to be both but is most probably neither, we just haven't yet found a suitable model to address all aspects of its behavior.

What the religious call "truth" and what is actually TRUE, are two totally different things, and they are ontologically mutually exclusive. Behind every Belief there should be Reason, and Reason should always remain anchored within the gravity of reality. Religion prefers the realm of dreams.

@TheMiddleWay Re: finite/infinite -- think of the difference between pure and applied mathematics. Infinity is a mathematical conjecture not necessarily a practical reality.

I hope your dreams make you happy. Sorry I cannot share them -- they don't wash!

@TheMiddleWay Am I really being dogmatic with regard to Truth? Or is it Truth that dictates an absolute division? Is the desire for verifiable evidence a wanton abandon? Or the expectation that behind the phenomena there is a rational explanation worth the seeking?

I know we need to use infinity in our calculations, but that doesn't make it "real". You did not give me any scientific proof of pluralism, instead you gave me scientific observations of phenomena that we haven't yet been able to rationalise within a monistic system. You gave a problem devoid of explanation, not a proof.

If indeed we live within a splinter of a multiverse, then truth might indeed have multiple variations, but at any given location it can have only one address! Your claims otherwise, are nothing but mysticism.

@TheMiddleWay There is no such thing as proven Science. We work with models, and with these seek to get an approximate handle on reality. When observations yield data in opposition to the model then the model needs replacing by another that can embrace the opposing data. This is our current dilemma, we know the data doesn't fit. So we're working on it. Notice -- God does not come into the equation. The moment God is inserted, the conversation stops. The search has ended and given way to magic.

@rcandlish How will we know there is only one truth until we get there?

@rcandlish Religious beliefs can be fudged as any beliefs can, but scientists do put their beliefs to the test in this life AND as a consequence get gradually closer to a truth, knowing that there is no ultimate truth.Religionists delay testing their beliefs until they die when they will or will not meet their maker . Which is the braver?

@Mcflewster What is Truth? Truth is a linguistic phenomenon where words reach for reality. There are two elements to truth: descriptive and explanative. Science covers both aspects but seeks the second. Religion on the other hand is mainly imaginative. Its statements look like truth statements, but unlike Science, Religion offers no form of verification. In fact, in this the real world, religious statements cannot be demonstrated to be anything other than supposition. As such Religion and Science though sometimes focusing on the same issues, are in fact moving in opposite directions, and as such reconciliation remains a pipe-dream only in the minds of those willing to be duped.

The statement that Scientists "know" that there is no ultimate truth is heavily presumptive. We know no such thing!

@Matias I read your post in its entirety. I wasn't responding to each individual point, I was offering my opinion on the overall question proposed in the headline because I think your "three-pronged approach" is wrong-headed. You're trying to be all things to all people. You asked one question and gave three answers: yes, yes, and no.

There is such a thing as objective reality and the objective reality with regard to your question is no they cannot be reconciled for the reasons I gave above.

Succinct, decisive, and logical.

@Matias Are you suggesting that because a believer carries the credentials of higher education, his/her belief in an invisible, magical superbeing in the sky should be taken more seriously than some rube with a GED? Wrong. It's equally as ridiculous for the man/woman of letters to believe in this nonsense as it is for anyone else.

The fact is, some smart people believe in stupid things. Belief in god would still be foolish even if Eisntein himself had believed, which he did not. In fact, the vast majority of scientists reject god. Those that do not are the exception. There will always be exceptions to any rule. That doesn't nullify the rule.

I repeat; there is such a thing as objective reality. That doesn't change because an individual has an Ivy League education. A PhD believing in and arguing in favor of the existence of god is no different than the same PhD believeing in and arguing in favor of the existence of the Velveteen Rabbit.

The argument can be dismissed on its face regardless of who is making it.

@TheMiddleWay

POINT-1: So you support the appeal from authority; a fallacious argument that claims because a position is espoused by someone with a higher education or even a Nobel Prize it must be lent greater weight and taken more seriously even if the argument is demonstrably false. I already debunked this in my previous response.

POINT-2: As I write this, I am drinking coffee from a cup -- that's objective reality. You're free to argue with me about it til you drop over dead and you'd still be wrong. If I proposed the idea that a man can fly by gluing eagles to his arms, I'd be wrong no matter how much I argued for it because, objectively, a man can't fly by gluing eagles to his arms. Understand?

POINT-3: This was a joke and didn't call for an argument but you chose to argue it all the same and your argument is just another appeal from authority. If the PhD is Science insists on arguing that god is real then the PhD in Science better have a mountain of evidence to prove his position. Since there is no evidence to support his position, he's wrong.

I've made myself clear so I'm done with this thread.

@TheMiddleWay

Okay, let's argue this just a bit more, but, the fuq is up with all the winky faces? You flirting with me? The answer is no. You're not my type.

NEXT POINT-!:You think suggesting a given source of info that supports your position proves you right? I could just as easily reference a contradictory resource then proclaim myself having proven you wrong. There's a resource of information to confirm or discredit any position anyone can take on most anything. There are resources to confirm and deny a flat earth, Bigfoot, and the Moon Landing. Citing an authoritative resource isn't the measure of a compelling position, It's the quality of the argument and the degree to which it convinces those who are undecided that determines whose position is strongest. Since we're just arguing with each other, we don't have that input. But if we did, my points would be considered more convincing.

As I see it.

NEXT POINT-2: Okay, fair enough. So let me offer an example that comes with proof. As I write this, I am using a computer to interface with this website and post this reply. That's objective reality proven by the fact that you're reading this. You're free to argue with me about it til you drop over dead and you'd still be wrong. If I proposed the idea that a man can fly by gluing eagles to his arms, I'd be wrong no matter how much I argued for it because, objectively, a man can't fly by gluing eagles to his arms.

NEXT POINT-3: So far, you've tried to argue that the global scientific community embraces the idea that god is real while simultaneously arguing that objective reality is not. I can't speak for the global science community but many of the greatest scientists are on record as having not believed. This includes Darwin, Curie, Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, Krauss, and Tyson to name just a few. Newton did believe in god but had his own ideas about him that were in conflict with the church. Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus also believed so what can we draw from this? Clearly there's going to be an equal amount of info to support either position which makes this debate little more than an academic exercise that can go on forever.

So in the interest if expediency, I'm just gonna proclaim myself right.

@TheMiddleWay

POINT-1: To begin with, the information you cite is from a survey that is nearly a decade old. The difference between believer and non-believer is only 1% from being evenly split. With atheism on the rise, have you considered the idea that the non-believers could now outnumber the believers since there was only a 2% difference nearly 10 years ago as based on your resource?

Also, I never claimed to have global statistics but it's generally accepted that about 90% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheist. I don't know if that number accounts for strict atheists only or also includes deists, or undecided so let's drop it to a more tenable 70%-75% That's still am overwhelming majority from a representative group.

Ultimately, the real question is why would anyone trained to apply the scientific method espouse a belief in something for which there is no evidence? That's the real question; not how many scientists believe but WHY. Science and Scripture don't align but these faithful scientists have somehow convinced themselves that they do. I'd like to know how they accomplished that bit of intellectual gymnastics.

POINT-2: I agreed I couldn't prove the cup of coffee example so I offered you a proven example of posting my response through a computer which you completely ignored so you could go back to arguing the cup of coffee. That I'm using a computer to post these replies is a provable fact that is the same for all people, all the time. Reality only comes in two versions: objective and subjective. Your continued insistence to subjectively deny objective reality using QM as a dodge to obfuscate simple and observable facts is unconvincing regardless of how much you repeat it.

POINT-3: So you DO understand the point I was making but are simply choosing to be contentious about it. As I said, I'm far less interested in how many members of the global science community embrace religion as I am why any of them embrace something that flies in the face of all they've been taught. Since there's no proof of god, no scientist should believe it.

In fact, I think I'll search the internet for that explanation. I'm very curious about it.

Sorry that marriage will either last a lifetime because they agree to disagree or 2 weeks. But why did they decide to get married? Just for the sex? Bad idea

@TheMiddleWay

And then I'll point out the weakness in your argument and you'll point out mine and over and over til we're both found dead at our keyboards having neither gained nor lost any ground so I'll conclude with this; your arguments do not convince me. Mine do not convince you. NO ONE is going to read this interminable wall of text we're producing. We've both made our positions clear so we're done.

Ya gotta know when to just walk away.

Yes!

This book is an interesting read. You seem to grasp larger concepts. I'd be interested in your opinion.

@Fibonacci1618 Thanks, I’ll check it out.

@Matias Good point. If we seem science and religion as contradicting each other, we can reconcile them in our minds through analysis.

@TheMiddleWay Thanks, I’ll check into that.

@Fibonacci1618 I’ve briefly looked at the book, and I’m sort of floored. I’m not a psychic kind of person—not at this time. I am open to psychic ideas from a philosophical perspective. Maybe our entire conscious experience is one big psychic phenomenon.

I’ll keep the book on my iPhone and try to work my way through it—try to understand and relate. Do you have some of those psychic experiences yourself?

@WilliamFleming whether it's called psychic or simulation theory it's still an interesting phenomenon. To asnwer your question, yes. Whether you call it déjà vu or something more elaborate is argumentively semantical variations I think. But the scientific theories and associations in the book are quite interesting. The fusing of frequencies and wave theory especially. Thanks for the update on the reference.

@Fibonacci1618 I just read about simulation theory on Wikipedia. It reminds me of Donald Hoffman and his theory of Conscious Realism. That is something that seems to resonate.

@WilliamFleming we use symbolism to communicate. Whether it's English or French Numbers or words, it's our ability to translate it into knowledge that counts. Hence my interest in all avenues of it. Glad to know that you learned something new about simulation theory sir.

@Matias depends on which definition of reconcile you want to use...I choose "to make consistent" and therefore the answer is no. Using any other definition and the answer is whatever you want it to be.

@Matias Sorry, you're asking to reconcile fact and fiction. The Big Bang theory and all other excuses for the existence of our planet have ZERO to do with god. Because some guy says it, no matter how revered he might be to you doesn't make it so. Because you then have to answer the question did god just stop after creation? What's god doing now and you have your self fulfilling prophecy. The problem with all those arguments is accepting the initial premise which is always bullshit and unprovable: "IF scientist A believes that God created the universe as we know it and that it is an honour for him or her to study His creation." Notice the IF at the beginning? Start with b.s and you end up with b.s. If I think that you're our next president does that make it so?

@Matias Not in my world

But they do. It’s compartmentalization. One the physical realm, the other the emotional, spiritual realm. You don’t have to believe in the Bible or any other text to believe in something greater (I don’t btw believe anything) . I don’t think they blindly accept scripture. I think there is more than one way to have a belief.

@Livia If there is more than one way to hold a belief, then what happens when two beliefs, arrived at through the two different methods, are in conflict? Throughout our recent history in the clash between science and religion, in every case there has been disagreement, religious belief has been forced to conform to science. Do you envision a future where religion informs science, forcing science to give way to religious faith, and alter its findings?

@pnfullifidian You’re confusing two things by giving them equal weight - and then putting them in binary opposition.

The clash between science and religion is mainly because some dunces think biblical texts are the word of god and are error free, and equal to the world of fact. These stupid people are definitely in a binary opposition to science. But I am not talking about some backward Evangelicals or Baptists.

I am talking about people that have an educated understanding that the Bible is a text composed of myths, legend, oral history, histories, cultural and religious traditions and laws that were compiled over thousands of years in the Fertile Crescent. They have a philosophical and spiritual understanding of the Bible. I don’t know how many times I have to explain that not all Christians take the Bible literally. This philosophical and spiritual approach is common in places Britain and Germany.

Many compartmentalize the spiritual word and the world of science and believe in both at the same time, and they occupy different parts of their lives.

To me, that makes sense - the world of belief is an entirely psychological phenomenon- i.e. really undefinable as it is the realm of personal perception. Even psychiatrists will admit that they still don’t know the workings mind. It’s completely possible to have a spiritual need whilst being a quantum physicist.

Human beings are full of cognitive dissonance. This is why poor people love Trump even when he cuts their Medicare. People do, and can, continue to believe conflicting or incongruent ideas. That’s human.

I don’t believe in god or spirituality, I don’t see it informing science, but I do believe that religion can persecute scientists and suppress scientific discoveries and progress.

@Matias, @Livia “…I am not talking about some backward Evangelicals or Baptists.”

Since that is whence I came, it is this version of Christianity with which I am most familiar. It wasn't me who put the two at variance, it was my former religion. And yes, I was once a dunce too!

“I don’t know how many times I have to explain that not all Christians take the Bible literally.”

Since I’ve never interacted with you before, you needn’t take an exasperated tone. I have met and engaged with some of these ‘lukewarm Laodiceans’ who are neither hot nor cold about their faith, and who, according to Revelation 3:16, Christ threatens to 'spew out of his mouth.' But when pressed, they often become somewhat flummoxed. I ask them to describe the basis for their belief in Christianity, which clearly is, according to St. Paul, Adam’s sin, which necessitated the entire plan of salvation. When pressed to identify which hominid was Adam, these so-called Christians either admit that they aren’t Christians at all (except in name only), or they double down and reassert the truths of their Bible. Either way, they lose.

“I do believe that religion can persecute scientists and suppress scientific discoveries and progress.”

I agree with you, wholeheartedly!

@Livia, @Matias “If you take a close look: religion makes very few factual statements that are in conflict with science on the same level.”

Very few? You must be joking, my friend! When was the last time you read the Holy Bible? Scripture is replete with stories (that the faithful accept as truth, and which little children are taught to believe) that simply could not, according to natural law, have occurred. And Christianity makes innumerable claims that are scientifically counterfactual. In fact, at least two of the key ingredients that go into the making of a Christian involve an affirmation of scientifically unsound events and circumstances: an ‘immaculate’ conception [oh, for a time machine and a decent rape kit to disprove that one!] and a resurrection from the dead [where’s a good coroner when you need one?], followed by an ascension [into space?].

“Religious belief just adds another dimension…”

Really? What dimension is this? What are the descriptive attributes of the ‘religious dimension?’ Is it a 5th dimension? Can you provide the maths to define this dimension, or is this more Chopraesque ‘woo-woo?’

“But if a religious biologist believes that evolution unfolds according to some "divine plan", science cannot prove that this is nonsense.”

Science doesn’t need to, and it doesn't care! In fact, it is under no obligation to disprove anything. We know that the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, and any religious person, no matter what their profession, is saddled with this burden. Science need not "prove that this nonsense" any more than it needs to prove that a belief in leprechauns, unicorns, Santa Claus or fairies is nonsensical.

@pnfullifidian hi, the exasperated tone wasn’t at you. I have had to explain multiple times on the thread that there is more than one way to believe. Literal interpretations are not well received in Europe, where a spiritual and philosophical view is more common as are textual deconstructions like redaction criticism, and the ancient historical record is used to explain things like the codification of mosaic law [en.m.wikipedia.org] (I was taught these critical approaches at A level at secondary school in religious education class)
so the conflicts between scripture and science are less of an issue. It is not a common belief that the world was created 6000 years ago, this is clearly a creation myth or a combination of creation myths from ancient cultures.

Most Europeans are comfortable with differences between fact and an ancient text. We have many ancient myths, Sagas from Greek or Norse mythology and regard the Bible as a similar phenomenon, but with a clear message about how to treat others and be a generally good person.
Miracles are popular beliefs but again, are routinely questioned by many as are exorcisms.

We don’t generally think YHWH, God and Allah are different entities, which lots of people have claimed in the US. They are just 3 strands of the same cord. This is because of our geographic closeness to Israel and the Middle East.

Where things get more heated is on things like Papal authority or acceptance of transfiguration or the Trinity - more historical or doctrinal theory.
Belief in the scriptures as the literal truth and actual word of god, seem like crazytown to many European Christians.

So back to my main point - if you have a cultural-historical and philosophical approach to the Bible, it’s not really in opposition to science - it’s a simply a different academic discipline. Asking whether science and religion can be reconciled to me is like comparing chemistry to gymnastics - it’s a nonsensical question as the two are not related. They occupy totally different spheres that are not mutually exclusive- they are just unrelated.

It’s perfectly normal to think early cultures like the Canaanites has creation myths AND believe in Darwinian evolution.

@Livia Thank you for clarifying. Having had no exposure to ‘cafeteria Christians’ I’m wondering what’s the point of calling oneself a Christian. I mean, if you’re going to say that the Bible’s essentially a bunch of myths, and call miracles into question, then you’re likely to reject the concept of Adam’s original sin, for which the Plan of Salvation was meant to correct. And you might also reject that a deity would ever impregnate a teenage girl in order to produce a hybrid man-god, who would later be executed and come back from the dead, which is, of course, the heart of Christian doctrine. So, why even go through the motions of paying a pew tax and showing up to church once in a while, if you suspect the vicar himself is a hypocrite since he probably doesn’t buy into it either, and you honeslty think the whole thing is a load of BS?

@pnfullifidian There is a whole lot more to Christian theology than the things you mention. Mark doesn’t have the nativity story. The NT is I document in itself and you don’t have to buy into the OT to appreciate the NT. J’s ministry is not devalued by not believing in miracles. Pauline theology is not the ministry of J. Gnosticism is pretty amazing stuff. Salvation is a spiritual thing, not a end times who is left standing thing. The resurrection is a metaphor. I am sad that people who call themselves Christians hang on to all the hocus pocus and cannot see the deeper meaning. You all need some good German theosophical reading!

@Matias You arguments here seem to be supporting the idea that religion, like science, is worthy of consideration. , despite their opposing ways of finding truth. That could support a narrow meaning of reconciliation ( calling a truce ). But it does not begin to reconcile their differences. Also, I do not see where in pnfullifidian's above remarks he makes the assertion that you accuse him of in "Second mistake". The general fallacy you allude to is, however, a clean piece of logic. And it describes well why I am agnostic. Although the notion that the "unknown realities" would happen to align with the bible is the biggest stretch of all time.

@Matias Wow! Did I say all that? I’m looking at my remarks, and am unable to find all these points that you’re countering.

Please know that if religion—and in particular, the Abrahamic faiths—were more like the Eightfold Path than they were about the words I found objectionable, I might be persuaded of its utility. But ways of living or ritual by themselves don’t make a religion, unless you’re willing to include my rituals of drinking martinis on Friday evenings, hiking on Saturdays and mowing the lawn and watching football on Sundays as a 'way of life.' But that is not what we’re talking about, are we? The two (action and motivation) go hand in hand. As the Bible says:
“In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”
James 2:17(NIV)

But then, the Bible also says:
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.”
Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)

Regarding my ‘second error,’ I didn't mean to imply that because science has little or nothing to say about a subject, it has ‘no meaning.’ Unicorns, Pokemon Go and the Marvel comics of Stan Lee have significant meaning to many people, topics on which science has little to say.

Finally, ‘transcendent dimensions’ sounds very much like something Deepak Chopra might say, or, as Michael Shermer calls it: "woo-woo."

@Matias "Science and its scope of explanation is limited..."

Agreed. Science is limited by our ability to collect, analyze, recognize and characterize data. That being admitted, the fact that there remains a vast number of 'unknown unknowns' (i.e., questions we've yet to even consider) should never be in dispute. However, the limitations to which you refer are not fixed, and as we gain knowledge regarding the universe and the phenomena by which we are surrounded, the realm of science (including our ability to reason on the relevant subjects) continues to expand.

@Jimmyboy Exactly! If I understand @Matias correctly, not only are there things we do not know, but there are things we cannot possibly know in our present evolutionary chimp-brained state. And this is assumed to be true, based on what information? Absent evidence for these unknowable unknowns that may never be known, to believe in such is like believing in a deity.

It used to baffle me too, but with research and reflection I have come to recognise that highly intelligent people including scientists are using the emotional part of their brain, putting it simplistically, to believe in religion. If you push them I swear you can actually see cognitive dissonance on their faces. Studies in neuroscience deal with this too, though I'm not an authority, just general reading. I think I get what is going on about this these days more than I used to.

Perhaps they are agnostic in their minds

@Matias Thank you for the link. Actually, now that I'm not a working scientist myself, I guess I'm less puzzled by the phenomenon, since I don't encounter it daily. But I might take a look anyway.

@TheMiddleWay Clearly, you are correct. I just don't see how they do it.

@Matias but would the religions evolve (yep, used that word on purpose ) the exact same way? There's no doubt there would be religions, but the odds of them being the same are (again, wait for it) astronomical. Yet, E=MC^2 will always be E=MC^2

@TheMiddleWay Really, you live in a country that still clings to feet and pounds and degrees Fahrenheit and you're suggesting that we might have different units of measure, and not having ms^2 is going to invalidate all scientific theory? The thing is, the law is the law, and nothing will change that. Not order of discover, not order of operations, not standards of measurements. C is C, no matter what,

But there is no discernible difference between pounds and kg (well, absent one being a measure of weight, the other being a measure of mass, so on earth's surface), just the numbers are different. And despite the efforts of religion and the anti-science administration, 2+2 STILL =4

Well-said!

@Matias I think our difference of opinion is largely semantics. I do not dispute your assertion that some scientists "believe"...and that some of them even take the bible seriously. In my response, I was referring to the heading of your post, in which you posed a question about science and religion. You may disagree, but I see the word science as referring to the disciplined procedures and rational thought that brings us to accepted "scientific knowledge". If you choose to include the personal musings of some people in the science community to be within the definition of science, I can not say that you are necessarily wrong. It just does not fit my own parameters of the word "science".

@Matias Just as 'nobody owns science' so too shoud be the mantra 'nobody owns religion.' After all, religion belongs to the people, not to any so-called authority or made-up deity! We determine our own religion, right? Religion is not set in concrete ... or is it?

Within most, if not all, organized faith communities, we can find outliers. Non-doctrinal, non-heirarchical, non-judgemental groups. And here we may even stumble upon the concept of 'universal priesthood' or the 'priesthood of all believers.' But these ideas are far from mainstream. Religion is slow to yield to any apparent progress. However, if religion is to have any long-term significance, it cannot be authoritative, punitive or unalterable. Religion with either evolve, or die.

a good, omnipotent creator does not exist. it defies reason. it defies observable fact.

a good god who commits people to eternal punishment for finite transgressions does not exists, it defies the meaning of the word "good" in every way.

a being capable of influencing nature or the fate of man "supernaturally" may exist, it is not falsifiable, but given no evidence of such influence in any form, it is as dismissable as fairies and leprechauns.

@HereticSin a good, omnipotent creator does not exist. it defies reason. it defies observable fact. " It depends on definition of "Good" and "Reasoning". God's logic and reasoning may be different from ours. E=MC2 is based on assumption that speed of light is constant and nothing moves faster than speed of light (2 illogical proven scientific facts). Same with Quantum physics. Also definition of "Good" is subjective. Many white Americans LOVE Nazis and Adolf Hitler, but jews and most Americans hate Hitler and he is the symbol for evil.

@rayfunrelax E=MC2 isn't reasoning, non sequitur.

IF A isn't A, and things can be both true and false, or neither, for God, then he doesn't have a "different' logic, he's illogical.

if "good" means "wants humanity to suffer", then you've got a fucked up dictionary.

"it depends on the definition" is nothing more than redefining words to try to pretend that something impossible might exist.

@HereticSin Human Brain is only 3LBs. Just like a pig cannot add 2+3 = 5, our brain and logic, reasoning, emotions, etc....are not infinite (very limited). I agree that out of billions of planets and stars, the odds of god existing are pretty low (I am myself agnostic) but there is no PROOF that god does not exist. Just like there is no proof that human has no soul or there are no angels even though the odds are less than 1 in a billion.

I am totally in agreement.

In that quote from Einstein, he was referring to the mystical order of the universe. He was not a religious person. And he did not believe in the biblical god who supposedly concerns himself with our fate. He thought such a belief was naive.

@balance_point I need neither a mansplanation of Einstein's beliefs, nor your help channeling Einstein.

@balance_point In fact, here is the letter he sent (using the word "naive," but no terming all religious beliefs as naive) to someone who asked him:

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein

@TheMiddleWay but they credit their "God" either way which only reinforces my original point. Its laughable.

@WhistlingFox Jumping in here, and I defer to @Pedrohbds, but that is what science is about--the gaps in knowledge. Science is continuously expanding (broadening) and digging (deepening). Science is never satisified. Scientists in each new generation seem never to tire at looking at things afresh. But in the areas where the data is limited, and the extrapolations weak, scientists are, on the whole, quick to make this point. The bottom line is this: science and faith are incompatible.

@WhistlingFox science is all about the gaps. Relativity and photovoltaic effects were small gaps on classical physics and poking the gap we expanded the universe that we knew.
But instead of filling the gap with magic, science puts a magnifying glass on the gap to see what is there. That is why religion is static (it evolves due to external pressure, not by itself) and science is fundamentally dinamic.

@WhistlingFox but yes, science aims to fill the gaps, so we hope that there is science in the gaps. But there cannot be, the Heisenberg principle for example is a gap that we know we can't fill with science.

I'm going to go with a big agree on your NO.

@TheMiddleWay Face it, no one believes anything the catholics have to say about anything anymore. Any time they may have admitted to not having gotten it right, means nothing now compared to the level of corruption and cover-up surrounding all their pedophile priests.

@TheMiddleWay Even if God exists, it must be a very disgusting, deplorable being! Fuck God!

no-oh...

Concisely stated. ty

@Matias Haha! Nobody has time to read such long ones, though.

@Matias You asked a question. I was merely answering it.

My father was a Chemist and a Catholic. He integrated religion into science just fine.

@Matias
You are of course correct. I should have phrased my response in terms of believe in a deity, as opposed to being religious. Religion can flourish without a belief in a supreme being. Astrology, Buddhism, Yoga, and Marxism are examples.

Religion has been shown to result in a tribalistic approach to life. It even affects Christians who merely identify as Christian and doing my go to church:
[pewforum.org]

The data doesn’t really support that science and religion are the optimal way to peace if you agree that a tribalistic perspective is an obstacle to peace.
In fact I think the above study shows that non-religious people are the least tribalistic being both more open to immigrants and ironically more open to different religions.

@Myah
I don't see where this particular collection of data even attempts to address causation. Looks to me like a pretty straightforward statement of correlation only. If there are other studies that claim to show causation I'd like to look at them. My guess is that it was the people's innate tribal instincts that attracted them to religious participation, not the other way around.

I hold the view that... the way the great majority of participants practice religion today is deeply obsolete, to the point of being largely counterproductive, but I see intellectual laziness and cultural drift as the main culprits, not anything necessarily inherent to the (already somewhat vague) concept we refer to as "religion". In my opinion the baby in that bathwater probably always has been, and most likely should continue to be, training in how to balance our higher values against our animal instincts. "Science" isn't in the business of conducting such training of the common citizenry, every week, in all local communities. "Religion" is.

What that suggests to me is that reform is what is called for, rather than abandonment, of religion. And what better reform could come to that institution than a heartfelt embrace of reason, the lack of which, after all, is what has precipitated the current exodus from the church.

I would argue that it is precisely our innate propensity for tribalism that is in need of weekly balancing by lessons on faith, hope, charity, love, forgiveness, and truth. Why wouldn't science inform those lessons better than superstition?

@Matias It's not obvious, given the rest of your post. Furthermore, I doubt whether any evolutionary biologist would have such a thought to begin with.
The vast majority of scientists view "God", if they think of one at all, in the sense that Einstein did- the physical laws of the universe, the beauty of all things, the forces that act unseen on us all. Not a personal god, but the cosmos itself. There are very very few serious scientists (outside the "Intelligent Design" movement) who believe in a personal god in the sense of the Bible.

@TheMiddleWay
It is certainly good news that only 25% of Christians now believe in literal interpretations of the Bible. However, that's still 65 million people. Still way too many!