Noma (Non Overlapping Magisteria)

[Rhondazvous]

Consider what the NAS (the National Academy of Sciences) has to say (emphasis mine):

Compatibility of Science and Religion

Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations. Because biological evolution accounts for events that are also central concerns of religion — including the origins of biological diversity and especially the origins of humans — evolution has been a contentious idea within society since it was first articulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858.

Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith. Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evoluti...ility.html

If there is a stronger statement of atheism, I would like to know.  Ergo, "supernatural entities" do not exist, because "they are not part of nature".

Wow, how slick this is. We know what this means, but the article is careful not to actually say that which is not a part of nature doesn't exist. This way the theists can't accuse them and the scientist is free to placate the theist and deny what we know the article actually means.

The good news is while the theist edits his religious beliefs to make them compatible with science, the scientist, to my knowledge and to his credit, does not edit facts to make them compatible with religion.