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.

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!!!

But why?

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.

I would give it a big F.

42

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Only if the gods prove to be Aliens.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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