Very judgmental on very little evidence. True sign of a religious bigot.

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 .

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.

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.

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

Oh horsefeathers!
Religion....a magical construct to explain unknown phenomena, and comfort the fearful.
Science. theories proved by observation, measurable results, replication, and Peer review, with applications in the real world.
You may Wish they could be reconciled...........

I have a good friend who is perhaps the 'ideal Christian'. He believe that the bible was written by men, and men make mistakes. Ask women about that! And that science is there so we humans (of all sexes) can unravel the mysteries that god has made.
We have to evolve further to fully understand what god (genderless) has done.
I like his perspective, as science cannot be heretical. For if everything is made by god, then god cannot be a heretic. For me, shame there's no god.
I believe in creation. At some point the universe that we live in came about. It may not be the first creation, nor the last. At the moment we just cannot answer that question, only investigate and give the best supporting statement. Which isn't it was knocked up in six days!

There are people working in science that are religious. Somehow they are able to deal with the cognitive dissonance between what they see and what they believe and make it make sense.

If a person is a true student and researcher of the scientific method at most, they can say that they can not disprove there is a "god/s", because of the way hypothesizes are tested.

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin.

Faith always yields ground, eventually. Advanced science is still in it's infancy. Give it two thousand years and we'll see what religion there is left.
From what I hear, Newton makes no mention of magic in his equations until he hits a wall. Only when he can't go further, when he can't make the math fit, does he invoke god.

It's different for different kind of believers. If you believe god created the universe and then left it alone, thee is no dissonance. It's only a problem if you keep looking for magic.

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.

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.

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.

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?