Religion and science don’t mix. Okay? Science inspires free thought and religion forces you to adhere to an imaginary pixie fairy that cannot be proven by scientific means. Science allows you to question everything, religion says that if you question god you burn. Religion says that people were made from dirt, when evidence proves we evolved and have common ancestry to fish, Apes, Orangutans, etc.
When scientists tried to prove religion was a bunch of crap, religion mocked them. Come on, this is getting old, the bible is not correct.
A very big question, hard to cover in this forum. First you don’t seem to have an objective or complete view of Science or Religion, so I can see why with your bias you can’t see the compatibility.
In general terms both Science and Religion are searching for objective truths, usually with different methods but these are the goals. If you hold a logical view that real truth will not contradict other real truth, then as we search down these different paths then these truths, if they are really true, will agree not conflict with each other.
If you really kept to pure hard Science & only empirical evidence then you wouldn’t see anything that conflicts with some religions, others there would be conflicts (like the earth isn’t riding on the back of a big turtle or held by a really large guy, per our experience in space).
There is more conflict with the faith elements of Science with the faith elements of Religion. If you don’t think there are faith elements of Science then, like I said, you don’t have an objective view of Science.
Overall there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding, and perhaps an intentional blurring, between hard natural science (based on the scientific method) that are the observable & objective facts and the man-made categorizations & organization of these facts into whatever form or theory suits us. These man-made structures may help us organize and understand the facts better, or may mislead us as well, but they are Not facts in and of themselves. Accepting these non-observable, non-testable theories as facts themselves is a leap of faith.
So you should understand that not all faith is irrational or goes against reason. Ignorant stereotyping & under-investigated atheistic dogma leads people to think this way. [1] Plus it’s poor logic to use argument by insult [2] "imaginary pixie fairy" especially when much of what you believe is also cannot be proven by hard scientific means and relies on billions of unobserved miracles that go against observed natural processes. These by faith, are accepted as occurring even though they can never be reproduced or observed by the scientific method.
The common, but limited definition of faith does not understand the concept of a reasonable faith. One based on evidence and experience that leads us to trust a God who has a proven track record. You are under the Kierkegaard’s definition of faith is opposed to reason [3], which is not the case in the real world, except for blind or under-investigated leaps of faith.
As beings of limited perceptions and limited knowledge we rely on many things by reasonable faith just to get through the day. So when we say we know something, we usually have reasons. These are based on our personal experiences or the interpretation of available evidence. And as we are taught by others what they know, our trust in them as a valid source of truth also builds into this web of reasonable faith. We should continue to challenge things we take on faith and see how firm they are and if they are based on blind trust or objective truth.
This is the kind of reasonable faith we can have in God & Jesus as Lord.[4] The kind that has proven itself and continues to do so again & again in history and archeology etc.
So as a student of Science & Christianity, I have not found any incompatibility with any of the hard facts of either. There is no fact in science, history, archeology, etc that is denied in the Bible.[5] [6] In fact much of the Bible is considered real history by National Geographic and The Smithsonian. And is often used to help archaeologists [7] make discoveries. So much so that the Smithsonian Institution’s Department of Anthropology has an official statement on “THE BIBLE AS HISTORY.” In it they say:
"… much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed."
I know it is easier to just insult & dismiss what doesn’t agree with your worldview bias. But if you really think you are rational and open-minded, please really look into the evidence and don’t assume it isn’t there because you have never really looked into it yourself.
Hope this helps you at least understand another view, even if you don’t agree with it.
“faith is not a substitute for knowledge, but the response to it.” Udo Middelmann
