Cats and Dogs, Science and Religion

Why are we still debating this. Ugh and WTF with a head shake. Maybe this is why I don't go to Huff Po Religion and Huff Po in general anymore. Usually this writer has really really good articles, but today I have to disagree with dude. In the article Can Religion and Science Coexist dude concludes (thru a survey) that most scientist have no problem with religion. I forgot what that logical fallacy that is when you say "most people..." but I know one when I see one.

 Here's the short of it...no. Science and religion are not compatible. Science deals with the material, the observable and the measurable. If there is no matter, then it doesn't matter to science (I couldn't resist that one). Science comes to conclusion through super rigorous testing, the scientific method, and more peer review testing. Science changes when the best information becomes available (and that is a good thing). Science is the truth as best as we can know it at the moment.

Religion is none of those things. Religion works because of faith (which, if you had faith in anything, the evolved powerful human brain will make those thingies come true). You cannot measure God or the afterlife. You cannot give your God data to a peer for them to independently test it's validity-it is based on belief and faith. Religion never changes, they are always correct (not). Where the scientific method can predict an outcome, religion is after the fact and fudges the truth to comply with scripture. Science and religion are cats and dogs.

The article claims that the scientists that have the most problem with religion are the scientists that see religion in very narrow terms (often associated with evangelical Christianity). The scientists that have a wider view of religion to include meditation-n-stuffs, the survey concludes, are coolio with religion. I get the feeling that the author is poo poo-ing the scientists for having a narrow view of religion. Well poo poo on him.

They often call us (Team Atheist) out on this one, but they are wrong for doing that. To say, that is not my religion, or we don't do that, is, well...dookie. I guess the simple answer is "then I guess we are not talking about you, so shut up." The reason why scientists and the New Atheist call out believers for having a narrow view of religion is because they practice a narrow religion. What is that great saying, "If you want us to stop making fun of your silly beliefs, then stop having silly beliefs." So what that some Christianities accept evolution, good, they should. But to say that we cannot call out Christians that believe in Genesis over evolution, well, once again...that is dookie.

One good thing in the article that was concluded in the survey is that the majority of scientists, whether they were cool with religion or not, are totally against teaching creationism in the science classroom. Well, I'm glad that we can at least agree on that.

* Article Huff Po Religion.

* Update Sept 25th. the last paragraph is the same logical fallacy that I mentioned earlier (but it's cool when I do it. I didn't create the double standard, I just acknowledge it...now...) Awesomeness.