At an individual level, it is certainly possible to achieve a level of compromise (ie. live and let live). I have a mixture of friends ranging from atheist and agnostic, to religious but secular, to orthodox and evangelical. We all get along well, and we all love having debates pertaining to science and religion. So we can compromise at an individual level and get along, with the compromise being that we can disagree and not be enemies (this is my wish for many groups on this planet). But what this really is, is simply the philosophy of live and let live. This is a societal or interpersonal level of compromise to allow different groups to function civilly with one another and not let different beliefs get in the way. If this is extended to the ontological problem, or rectifying science and religion, then I don't see how the two can fully and genuinely compromise. Religious text and science do not see eye to eye on many issues.
People try to reconcile creationism and evolution. For example, the idea that the world and its inhabitants were created by god in 6 days and that man was created in his image, but that we and other creatures have evolved since then, has no backing, but I have been told this numerous times by my more religious peers. I have seen this periodically over the internet at well. What this reflects is a growing body of empirical evidence for evolution, and a stagnant view of creationism that people are holding on to and they will attempt to infuse religious belief with science for the illusion of compromise. It truly reflects a psychological pull for an answer, mixed with the psychology of fear. At this level, compromise is essentially impossible when it comes to the origin of life, in my opinion.
People try to reconcile creationism and evolution. For example, the idea that the world and its inhabitants were created by god in 6 days and that man was created in his image, but that we and other creatures have evolved since then, has no backing, but I have been told this numerous times by my more religious peers. I have seen this periodically over the internet at well. What this reflects is a growing body of empirical evidence for evolution, and a stagnant view of creationism that people are holding on to and they will attempt to infuse religious belief with science for the illusion of compromise. It truly reflects a psychological pull for an answer, mixed with the psychology of fear. At this level, compromise is essentially impossible when it comes to the origin of life, in my opinion.
