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?

Only if the gods prove to be Aliens.

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?

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.