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. ?

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.

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 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!

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

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.

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...........

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.

Dr jesse bering book: the belief instinct, the psychology of souls, destiny and the meaning of life explains the powerful desire to believe in something greater than ourselves as human instinct. like fear of the unknown or fear of the dark, a very powerful instinct. so powerfu that most will believe but never question their beliefs. they are the ones who go to church and believe in one or more of the over 4000 gods men have imagined. religion a plague on mankind. faith never ever the path to truth.

I set that people that believe have made valuable contributions to science, but I can't help feeling they shouldn't be able to call themselves scientists.

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.

I don't think they are compatible in any traditional sense. No defined religion I'm aware of makes zero claims about the nature of reality, and as soon as we do make such a claim without supporting evidence we enter an anti-science mindset. This includes any argument from ignorance, e.g., Bill O'Reilly's assertion that "the tides come in, the tides go out — you can't explain that" (even though we can indeed explain tidal forces) or any claim that there's a supernatural explanation for the origin of the universe, for abiogenesis, for consciousness, etc. Just because we don't understand how something works doesn't justify invoking magic as the explanation. It's understandable why that's an attractive answer, even to some scientists, but it doesn't lend credence to the claim. If, as some have suggested, we consider religion to be nothing more than wonder and awe and an acknowledgement that there's more than we currently know or comprehend, I'm fine with that — though I don't really consider that to be religion, but at least it doesn't make appeals to metaphysics to explain what we don't yet understand. And that's not to say that the answers of which we're ignorant might not have a supernatural component, but only that there is no reason to accept that claim. Entertaining a hypothesis is one thing, but accepting its validity without supporting evidence is far different. So, yes, a heavily denuded concept of religion might be compatible with science, but if we're talking about traditional conceptualizations of religion then I don't see any way to reconcile it with science without significant cognitive dissonance (which we see all the time, so I'm not saying it doesn't happen but rather that it's not logically consistent).

In only perspective in which science and religion can be reconciled is the deist point of view -- that God created everything and now sits back and watches it all without intervening. But that requires unprovable assumptions contrary to any scientific point of view.

whiz. you are quite the christian apologist.

Religion and Science will always be at odds. Religion says believe it. Scince says prove it!

No, no & no!

Ha from a historical point of science and religion work well when science dose not say anything that contradicts the myths in there holy books or what the church leader said

If we are talking about people who take the Bible litterslly the answer is no, if it is taken as a metiphor but you still believe an intelligence crated everything and you will dwell in the house of the lord forever than it’s still no, but with gusto!

No!

I completely reject this analysis. To my mind, they were never apart. To explain … First scientists and first religionists used the same processes of observation, planning, prediction, conclusions BUT the differences are that religionists had the wrong theories and imposed conclusions. They should have accepted that there may not be a conclusion [ agnosticism]. Because they made prediction that the ordinary man or woman cannot make they observed the power of seeming to know what everything was about and took on a privileged position alongside royalty and leadership. This power and privilege they are reluctant to loosen. Scientist who are also religionists have developed the habit early on of partitioning the brain to keep close to friends and relatives who have not developed this capacity–something the brain IS wired to do-e.g. split personalities etc

I don't think so, certainly not based upon any projection that I can see. As you mentioned, scientists must put on a methodical atheist hat at work. Additionally, the extremist in each faith pull their faith in their direction, by virtue of their assertiveness and by how loudly they shout. Meanwhile, the major moderates remain idle as they are not nearly as motivated to pull back against extremists. The extremists' continued rejection of scientific evidence in most fields seems to persist and becomes more rabid as the space for the "God of the gaps" gets ever smaller.

Never!

Science is incompatible with any Fundamentalist or Literalist religion.

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

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