Why Science and religious faith are in conflict.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Science and religion are in the profoundest of conflicts, and any scientist who denies this simply has a bag over his/her head.  Any religious claim or tenet, of which there are an infinite number, is not falsifiable, which is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, for an idea to be incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge.  The word "science", after all, is a descendant of the Latin word "scire," which simply means "to know".  The existence of a god or gods is not falsifiable, even in principle on empirical grounds, and while many have suggested the incoherence and/or contradictory nature of such a being or beings on philosophical or theological grounds, ad hoc explains can always be concocted as to why that is not the case.  Atheism, on the other hand, is completely falsifiable, as would be evidenced by the instantaneous healing of an adult amputee.  As such, it is good science to be an atheist, and at least suspend judgment (and, hence, withhold belief) in the existence of a god or gods until good empirical evidence is discovered that such a being or beings exist.  Until then, lack of empirical evidence over entities that are invisible versus those that do not exist is an exercise in futility.  No good scientist is going to waste his/her time and research funding trying to disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns with spotted rainbow stripes, hence, the common comparison.  In this regard, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

---

That doesn't make religion any more in conflict with science, then any other non-scientific epistemology. Being outside of the category of science, does not a conflict make.
Also, I don't think, that you can say that atheism is falsifiable, while theism is not. And the example of instantaneous healing of an amputee, wouldn't falsify atheism. Atheism is after all, only means a lack of belief in Gods. One can be an atheist, and believe in a sudden re-growing of limbs (although it may provide difficulty for a materialist. Also, I think that your main tenet (being unjustifiable) would make the claim of evidence of absence difficult. You need to pick one, and go with that. Together they are incoherent!