I don't think it's impossible. If people just be nice to each other then maybe. 


I think it's possible to hold scientifically proven worldviews while still being religious. 
After all, religion and science have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

So in my opinion - why not? It is possible. It's just a question of whether people are willing or not I guess.

What history shows is that religion has always had a problem with science because science keeps proving that religious beliefs concerning science are absolutely wrong.

Which creates a further problem of religion creating its own brand of science which is not science at all.

A given religion nominated to this status would need to either not make testable predictions, or only make correct ones.

I'll let you ponder just how large a FAIL Christianity is by that standard.

I mean, given that religions have and do make assertions about reality, when science can investigate those assertions there is a necessary conflict. Age of the earth, for example. It's "possible" for science and religion to coexist if the religious claims are all supernatural, unfalsifiable, and untestable, but I still wouldn't call that a good thing.

Like if you profess your belief in a deistic god, but also accept the scientific method and its findings...there's nothing I can really say as far as a "conflict" because the claims don't overlap - one is just unsubstantiated. But if you claimed that the world is 6000 years old, your faith gives you immunity to snake venom, or you can cure homosexuality with prayer... well we can investigate all of those claims, and a conflict sure as shit exists.

@OP Q

Sure, and what we have now is exactly what that looks like, for whatever that's worth.  

Frances Collins is a Christian fundamentalist and the Director of The Human Genome Project. He seems to be able to juggle his religion and scientific work.

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."

I could call him an irrational twit but he is way smarter and more rational than me.

Yup, another way to avoid any conflict is to say that any scientific discovery or advancement only shows how great god is in the first place.

Side note: Collins isn't the head of the HGP any more (since that's over), he's actually the Director of the NIH as a whole. I work at the NIH and I've met him a few times. Immensely intelligent man, I just think he tacks on God too much - though that literally never comes up ever in decisions or discussions at the NIH. He's a scientist doing science, just with some private views that I think are misinformed.

But that just illustrates the point. If you can structure your religious beliefs in such a way that there is no conflict by definition (science being a demonstration of god, for example), then sure, you can't disprove that. But that claim that science is a demonstration of god is itself unfalsifiable and untestable, which is the only way to go if you want to make the round peg of religion fit the square hole of science.

If you say you believe in both science and religion chances are you aren't being true to one of them. I love my husband to death but he says he believes in both... but he doesn't think the stories in the bible are true and he doesn't adhere to half their rules. He isn't a very good Catholic. Most religions contradict science in a lot of different places and to believe in both would leave you with which side to believe for each thing. That doesn't sound like they could live peacefully together in a logical person's mind. Not to mention most religions are built to be spread and they have a tendency to encroach on other's lives. Either the religions have to change or no one will be truly left in peace.

(May 30, 2017 at 11:10 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Yup, another way to avoid any conflict is to say that any scientific discovery or advancement only shows how great god is in the first place.

Side note: Collins isn't the head of the HGP any more (since that's over), he's actually the Director of the NIH as a whole.  I work at the NIH and I've met him a few times.  Immensely intelligent man, I just think he tacks on God too much - though that literally never comes up ever in decisions or discussions at the NIH.  He's a scientist doing science, just with some private views that I think are misinformed.

But that just illustrates the point.  If you can structure your religious beliefs in such a way that there is no conflict by definition (science being a demonstration of god, for example), then sure, you can't disprove that.  But that claim that science is a demonstration of god is itself unfalsifiable and untestable, which is the only way to go if you want to make the round peg of religion fit the square hole of science.

Collins said he was converted to Christianity after reading CS Lewis's "Mere Christianity". I guess it did not take much. That book is dull yet so many Christians find the statement that Christ was a liar, insane, or the Son of God to be a brilliant piece of logic. Merely a myth , maybe?

(May 30, 2017 at 11:19 am)chimp3 Wrote: Collins said he was converted to Christianity after reading CS Lewis's "Mere Christianity". I guess it did not take much. That book is dull yet so many Christians find the statement that Christ was a liar, insane, or the Son of God to be  a brilliant piece of logic. Merely a myth , maybe?

A teacher gave me that book in high school. It did not make me stronger in my faith, because I found Lewis should have stuck to writing about Narnia.