@TheMiddleWay Islam's contribution to Science ended once they managed to work out how to get all their mosques aligned to Mecca. The fabled "Golden Age" is more of a conceit than a truth.

Admittedly many associated with the Christian Church made contributions to Science, but the methodology they employed was far removed from their theological suppositions. Men make scientific observations, the Church only peddles lies.

The university point I concede, but I wouldn't read too much into it. In the Middle Ages the Church was the most powerful institution on Earth, so it is not surprising it had a monopoly on schooling.

Religious "scientists" see no conflict because they choose not to examine their beliefs as rigorously as they would conduct an experiment.

@TheMiddleWay Belief is not Knowledge. Science seeks Knowledge; that which can be shown to be true, or most likely to be true. To do this it calls Evidence as its witness to the bar of Reason. Religious belief on the other had is entirely based on unqualified supposition, and brings zero knowledge to the table.

I would defend my use of the word "always" by asserting that whenever religion has appeared to aid the advancement of Science, this has always been done at a cost. Religion is not interested in Truth, all it cares about is Dogma.

@TheMiddleWay There is only one Truth!

@TheMiddleWay RE; the photon -- it appears to be both but is most probably neither, we just haven't yet found a suitable model to address all aspects of its behavior.

What the religious call "truth" and what is actually TRUE, are two totally different things, and they are ontologically mutually exclusive. Behind every Belief there should be Reason, and Reason should always remain anchored within the gravity of reality. Religion prefers the realm of dreams.

@TheMiddleWay Re: finite/infinite -- think of the difference between pure and applied mathematics. Infinity is a mathematical conjecture not necessarily a practical reality.

I hope your dreams make you happy. Sorry I cannot share them -- they don't wash!

@TheMiddleWay Am I really being dogmatic with regard to Truth? Or is it Truth that dictates an absolute division? Is the desire for verifiable evidence a wanton abandon? Or the expectation that behind the phenomena there is a rational explanation worth the seeking?

I know we need to use infinity in our calculations, but that doesn't make it "real". You did not give me any scientific proof of pluralism, instead you gave me scientific observations of phenomena that we haven't yet been able to rationalise within a monistic system. You gave a problem devoid of explanation, not a proof.

If indeed we live within a splinter of a multiverse, then truth might indeed have multiple variations, but at any given location it can have only one address! Your claims otherwise, are nothing but mysticism.

@TheMiddleWay There is no such thing as proven Science. We work with models, and with these seek to get an approximate handle on reality. When observations yield data in opposition to the model then the model needs replacing by another that can embrace the opposing data. This is our current dilemma, we know the data doesn't fit. So we're working on it. Notice -- God does not come into the equation. The moment God is inserted, the conversation stops. The search has ended and given way to magic.

@rcandlish How will we know there is only one truth until we get there?

@rcandlish Religious beliefs can be fudged as any beliefs can, but scientists do put their beliefs to the test in this life AND as a consequence get gradually closer to a truth, knowing that there is no ultimate truth.Religionists delay testing their beliefs until they die when they will or will not meet their maker . Which is the braver?

@Mcflewster What is Truth? Truth is a linguistic phenomenon where words reach for reality. There are two elements to truth: descriptive and explanative. Science covers both aspects but seeks the second. Religion on the other hand is mainly imaginative. Its statements look like truth statements, but unlike Science, Religion offers no form of verification. In fact, in this the real world, religious statements cannot be demonstrated to be anything other than supposition. As such Religion and Science though sometimes focusing on the same issues, are in fact moving in opposite directions, and as such reconciliation remains a pipe-dream only in the minds of those willing to be duped.

The statement that Scientists "know" that there is no ultimate truth is heavily presumptive. We know no such thing!

@TheMiddleWay but they credit their "God" either way which only reinforces my original point. Its laughable.

I am totally in agreement.

In that quote from Einstein, he was referring to the mystical order of the universe. He was not a religious person. And he did not believe in the biblical god who supposedly concerns himself with our fate. He thought such a belief was naive.

@balance_point I need neither a mansplanation of Einstein's beliefs, nor your help channeling Einstein.

@balance_point In fact, here is the letter he sent (using the word "naive," but no terming all religious beliefs as naive) to someone who asked him:

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein

@TheMiddleWay
It is certainly good news that only 25% of Christians now believe in literal interpretations of the Bible. However, that's still 65 million people. Still way too many!

@Matias depends on which definition of reconcile you want to use...I choose "to make consistent" and therefore the answer is no. Using any other definition and the answer is whatever you want it to be.

@Matias Sorry, you're asking to reconcile fact and fiction. The Big Bang theory and all other excuses for the existence of our planet have ZERO to do with god. Because some guy says it, no matter how revered he might be to you doesn't make it so. Because you then have to answer the question did god just stop after creation? What's god doing now and you have your self fulfilling prophecy. The problem with all those arguments is accepting the initial premise which is always bullshit and unprovable: "IF scientist A believes that God created the universe as we know it and that it is an honour for him or her to study His creation." Notice the IF at the beginning? Start with b.s and you end up with b.s. If I think that you're our next president does that make it so?

@Matias Not in my world

Scientists "say that they can not disprove" ,but neither can they prove. This makes the topic only discussable within agnosticism . Science never "just" does anything. It records and suggests explanations which eventually will move closer to the truth but may not reach it.

What makes a molecule can be explained by the electrical and other mysterious[to me] forces between atoms. Gradually more complex molecules gain the capacity to reproduce themselves and man /woman results. The only difference between man and another living or dead collections of molecules is that humans have consciousness of themselves and seek to improve things for all other molecules.

Welcome to the discussion. Thank you for your post. ?

a good, omnipotent creator does not exist. it defies reason. it defies observable fact.

a good god who commits people to eternal punishment for finite transgressions does not exists, it defies the meaning of the word "good" in every way.

a being capable of influencing nature or the fate of man "supernaturally" may exist, it is not falsifiable, but given no evidence of such influence in any form, it is as dismissable as fairies and leprechauns.

@HereticSin a good, omnipotent creator does not exist. it defies reason. it defies observable fact. " It depends on definition of "Good" and "Reasoning". God's logic and reasoning may be different from ours. E=MC2 is based on assumption that speed of light is constant and nothing moves faster than speed of light (2 illogical proven scientific facts). Same with Quantum physics. Also definition of "Good" is subjective. Many white Americans LOVE Nazis and Adolf Hitler, but jews and most Americans hate Hitler and he is the symbol for evil.

@rayfunrelax E=MC2 isn't reasoning, non sequitur.

IF A isn't A, and things can be both true and false, or neither, for God, then he doesn't have a "different' logic, he's illogical.

if "good" means "wants humanity to suffer", then you've got a fucked up dictionary.

"it depends on the definition" is nothing more than redefining words to try to pretend that something impossible might exist.

@HereticSin Human Brain is only 3LBs. Just like a pig cannot add 2+3 = 5, our brain and logic, reasoning, emotions, etc....are not infinite (very limited). I agree that out of billions of planets and stars, the odds of god existing are pretty low (I am myself agnostic) but there is no PROOF that god does not exist. Just like there is no proof that human has no soul or there are no angels even though the odds are less than 1 in a billion.

@Matias
You are of course correct. I should have phrased my response in terms of believe in a deity, as opposed to being religious. Religion can flourish without a belief in a supreme being. Astrology, Buddhism, Yoga, and Marxism are examples.