Sorry, but "B" of the 3 pronged approach (personal point of view) is invalid. If some scientists say they "believe" in the triune god, they are speaking of their RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. They are not speaking as scientists. Unless they (or anyone else) can inform me of a single speck of evidence of god (much less a triune god !!!!), then this "reconciliation" is only between 2 groups of people....religious people who also do scientific work....and religious people who do not. The actual field of science is not represented here.

No! ... unless you use a very loose definition of either science or religion. It's impractical to accept the biblical definition of creation or the time frame many religions have for the existence of EARTH.

Usually in a reconciliation one or both parties change their tune to come into agreement. Science and Christianity can reconcile by simply having all Christians admit that none of the assertions in the Bible relating to the natural world can be taken literally, and admitting that everything since the big bang has happened according to natural laws. In other words, narrow god's agency range to the time before the big bang. It is not necessary to do this with Taoism, Hinduism or Buddhism because in those philosophical traditions people are not required to believe in the literal truth of the stories (though many do anyway). The stories are there merely to provide mental pathways to concepts that transcend stories. Those concepts, by the way, are not inconsistent with modern science. Read Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics for more on that. ?

Only if the gods prove to be Aliens.

People want to believe in superstitious claptrap and all the science and logic in the world will never convince them otherwise. A reasonable society would just make sure the religious charlatans are unable to steal their money and molest their children.

No the idea of warfare between science and religion is not popular I would think most athesits are disgusted with the idea of war. Even if it is just arguing with someone. Actually let me take that back I went to a science convention once. But still if you have mountains of evidence you can see, feel, test, retest and retest on one side. And the other you have a book saying if you don't worship me I will torture you all time because I love you. With no evidence to back it up. Why believe at all.

Heres your christian "scientist".

Kent Hovind uses celery to "disprove" evolution. He also made a dick joke with it. Ok rightttt. Even when I was a christian i was not that dumb.

Right micro-evolution that happenned over billions of years from people that believe that they world is only 6000 years old.

Your using micro-evolution in place of evolution is a nice trick of words I barely caught it. One example of micro-evolution I can think of is birds. We have seen bird families have one trait, and their offspring another. Then something happens that the offspring with a trait that better alllows them to survive that event changes their offsprings traits. And so on and on.

Can Einstein and the Tooth Fairy be reconciled?

I thought about getting into this discussion then it came to me -
With all the other shit going on who gives a damn!

I've said it before, and I will say it again (and someone said it before me)

If civilisation ended tomorrow, and we had to start over, eventually, all of our scientific knowledge would be re-created, and would be exactly the same as it is today (well, the stuff we have right)

Religion would never be re-created exactly the same.

It depends if a Good God really exists or not and if heaven and hell really exist or not. No 1 can prove a negative (prove that neither exist). If even one of the two exists, then it's half and half.

Religion has historically been used to explain that which is unknowable. As scientific knowledge has increased, the religious justification was no longer a valid premise. In darker times, having a scientific theory or even a proof, placed the scientist in mortal danger for challenging the church’s authourity over knowledge. Science and religion can never be resolved in my opinion based solely upon historical records of which even the bible is party to.

I don't think they can. Religion keeps loosing footage over science because facts can be kept hidden only while the cloud prevails. The cloud keeps getting thiner out of hard work from the science side of the equation, not out of kindness and understanding from religion. At the end of times, science will be around and religion will be forgotten. That doesn't necessarily mean they will reconcile.

I could have said that in twelve words. Wordiness does not equate to knowledge.I keep it short and simple. One extra word not needed should be cut out. Keep it simple!!

I am 100% an atheist. However I can only know my own mind, belief is a weird human phenomenon. I think it can only really be accounted for by brain chemistry or something, however there are people who are incredibly educated and active scientists who believe. Their argument is not that they believe the Bible creation stories, but they are mind-blown by the universe, and the complexity of the biological world. Their exposure to science intensifies their wonder and belief in the “oneness” of “the creation” a.k.a the interconnection and interdependence of the universe and all things in it. I have heard scientists say things like “God is Maths” or that they are profoundly spiritually moved by the amazing adaptation of genes to the environment. It doesn’t mean they signed up to Genesis’ creation myths or Noah’s Ark or even the “intelligent design” theory. Belief, and lack thereof, is varied and personal, so I don’t go in for arguments that deal in binary opposition and reductionism. All humans are full of incongruous behavior and belief.

42

that which does not exist cannot be reconciled with science.

The entire question is fallacious. '"The known mechanisms of evolution can only account for micro-evolution, but in order to explain macro-evolution we need a transcendent and divine force..."' This is ridiculous. In what sense does evolution on any level need to be "explained" by a divine force, unless one is assuming that evolution has an ultimate goal? Evolution explains itself. Natural selection over generations results in complex forms of life arising from simple forms of life. There's no need for a further explanation, unless one starts with the a priori assumption that human life was the goal to begin with. It wasn't. But for an accident of history, we could have been miniraptors debating why hairless mammals never got farther along.

I would give it a big F.

As long as religious people attack science to justify ridiculous, debunked claims made by their holy books, science and religion cannot be reconciled.

While their are religious people spouting absurdities like "evolution is just a theory," or "there is no evidence that the earth is more than 6000 years old," religion cannot be given a pass when their claims contradict facts.

There is nothing to reconcile. Science and religion are in different categories. It’s like asking if art can be reconciled with mathematics.

Science deals in objective reality. It makes observations of nature and discovers mathematical equations that model those observations. Science is good at describing what is, but does not deal in the WHY. It would be futile to ask a physicist why space is granular, why time does not exist, or why matter pops in and out of existence. It just does.

Religion, metaphysics and philosophy are free to deal in the subjective reality. Religion in no way presents a credible body of logical, testable assertions. That’s not what it’s about. Religion is about awe, enlightenment, self-realization, awareness, appreciation and gratitude. It is true that some religious organizations promote a God concept, but that concept merely represents a metaphorical symbol for the overwhelming reality beyond the space/time/matter model of our senses.

It does not surprise me at all that half of all US scientists today say they believe in God, and I am not surprised that nearly all the founders of modern physics expressed deep religious sentiments.

Here’s Niels Bohr:

• I feel very much like Dirac: the idea of a personal God is foreign to me. But we ought to remember that religion uses language in quite a different way from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the language of science. True, we are inclined to think that science deals with information about objective facts, and poetry with subjective feelings. Hence we conclude that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science. But I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far.

Edwin Schrodinger:

Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.

But why?

No need! Science is hogwash and the bible is all the truth we need! Oh and the earth is a few hundred years old, flat and the center of the universe, and i didn't read everything you wrote because i have the bible to back me up . Muahahaha!!!

HOW. They never were in agreement from the beginning. WHY would you want to reconcile them?
What would be gained? Believe me, astrophysicists will not be talking about the "triune god." This brings up the question of why should anyone else be talking about gods in such a serious way.

No. Science relies on the scientific method: that truth requires demonstrable, repeatable results. Religion requires the suspension of the scientific method.

A) Historical - NO. So many tenets of religion have been shown to be false. From origin in 7 days, to floods that didn't happen, to lack of Jewish in Egypt and the list goes on and on. No record of Jesus in Roman times, etc...
B) Personal - maybe. I don't begrudge that religion offers some solace to the very naive. We're all naive to some things. No one really understands the truth and that is why science is so important because it shows some of the truth to us one theory, one experiment, one proof at a time. So if religion taints your worldview and you try to make science represent that view it is a cripple. It will lead down false paths.
C) Material - no but you made a good enough case for this although it could be expanded upon.