Depends entirely on how you interpret them. When science can get over its squeamishness about studying human psychology and symbolic imagery, it will find religion to be completely in line with a scientific understanding of human nature.

As you point out, "God allowed the influenza viruses to infect Susan" is a baseless assertion, not an "explanation". By that logic, "Susan is being punished by the godess of influenza" or "Susan brushed up against a venus flytrap" or "Susan ate an artichoke" are other possible explanations. The problem here is putting an explanation connected to the real world and with evidence to argue in its favor, over against random flights of fancy. There is no comparison.

Is it up to each person whether to buy an explanation with no other criteria than that it seems intuitive or comforting? Sure. Is it often at least superficially easier and a deflection from bare-metal reality for people to do that? Sure.

But I'm not sure what you're actually arguing for here. Are you arguing that "Susan stubbed her toe against a Sniffly Nose Gnome" is not "in conflict" with "Susan was infected with the H1N1 virus"? I'm afraid that it is. This means people have to choose which is the "better" explanation but it doesn't mean they aren't in conflict.

Maybe the gnomes causing flu is a more pleasing explanation for me, and maybe I have a right to believe in flu gnomes. So what? Maybe you are arguing for "people need hope and comprehensibility, even if ill-founded". If that's the case then I'm not trying to take people's illusions from them, they are welcome to them if they want them, so long as they don't make policy decisions based on them or otherwise impose them on others.

True, but no person, scientist or not can ever refute a fictitious statement of any sort. Fiction obeys its own rules. I can not say that a hat in the Harry Potter novels can not appoint students, since a fictional world like the novel makes and obeys its own rules, which do not have to answer to any test valid for reality. The statement therefore says only that religion obeys the rules of fiction, and no more than that. (Though you can sometimes say that fictions are not self consistent, and many religious texts do fail even that test.)

IMO deeply religious people love science, and they readily incorporate the findings of science into their body of awareness. Their religion was never based on belief in the first place, rather it was a practice and a state of reverence and awe.

Quibbling over who believes or disbelieves this or that—yuck!

S J. Gould said that religion and science can easily get along because they operate in different realms, but that is only true if both agree to stay their own side of the fence. Generally science does that, but of course religion does not.

I think the two are only contradictory when science can outright disprove religion.

Young Earth Creationism being a good example. Science proves that it's ridiculous. What irks me is when people dismiss creationism entirely on the basis of this "the whole universe, this planet and life on it were created in literally 144 hours, roughly 4000 years ago" nonsense. But Young Earth Creationism is a recent and largely American phenomenon, that's really failed to gain traction elsewhere. Perhaps because it's so clearly bollocks.

Catholicism now accepts the theory of evolution. It still attributes the original creation of the universe and the spark of life to God, and of course believes that God has steered that evolution over time. I don't see any conflict between that and commonly accepted scientific theory and fact.

A lot of what was once explained by religion is now explained by science. The Biblical ban on shellfish presumably being because God would smite you with a bad dose of food poisoning (possibly fatal) if it wasn't cooked properly. We now know the real reason why this happens, but prior to gaining that knowledge, all that was obvious was that bad things often happen to people who eat the stuff. The connection wasn't made, so an angry God must be the link. A similar risk of blood poisoning is probably the reason for the prohibition of tattoos. In a culture where God punishes you by making you sick (or dead) anything that makes you sick (or dead) must clearly put you on the naughty step.

Religion is becoming increasingly redundant. If something comes along that gives the same comfort in mortality, the same sense of ultimate justice in an unfair world, and the same hope in hopeless situations, we might finally out-evolve it. But science doesn't have those answers just yet.

In early Mesopotamian mythology, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean with a hemispherical sky-dome above, and this forms the premise for early world maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus. During the 3rd century BC, Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical given and calculated Earth's circumference. The Bible agrees with the Mesopotamians that the earth is a circle with a firmament over it. When Christians argue that the Bible is scientific they will point to the circle and assume it means a sphere to make it jive with science. The Bible may have been right once or twice but I can't think of one example. It's usually people doing the same thing as above and jumping through hoops trying to make their book reasonable. Your argument is a god of the gaps one, that simply says that if science as yet doesn't have an explanation then insert god. As scientific knowledge grows god diminishes.

The definition of religion is belief in the supernatural. Science asserts there is currently no evidence for the supernatural. Which one is correct? Well for me I’ll go with the one that explains; physics, medicine, astronomy, geology, anthropology and let’s me watch YouTube on my iPhone.

I believe that Science and Religion are like 2 games played in different ball parks!

The only religions people I have the slightest amount of respect for are the ones who just admit that what they are saying isn't literally true and instead argue that it's metaphysically true. It's the only way that everyone has a chance of getting along. After all, the purpose of religion is just to make people feel comfortable with there lives, and give them some higher sense of purpose so that they will actually try to accomplish something.

Some people just are not capable of putting away childish things and accepting the world for what it is, in all its horrific splendor.

Science allows for "new" information. I put new in quotes, because technically the information was always there, science at the time just didn't have the means/ability to access interpret it. Religion doesn't allow for new information... Although they do tend to alter their interpretation of their texts at will at times.

Not if the religious belief is based on actual human experience and had happened to stumble upon an insight that had a basis in reality. The same way reading a comic book might lead one to better understand the world. Or porn.

Absolutely!

My view is that the biggest and most important difference between science and religion is the scientist's demand for evidence and religion's demand for faith and belief without evidence. If you 'trust'or 'believe' in any kind of supernatural being, or 'ultimate cause' without evidence, then you have surrendered your critical faculties and can be led to believe in whatever suits those in authority.

religion has fallen into the realm of control and power. Once people start to believe in their religion, it has to be the only truth, the greatest thing, the end all. They resent other religions that may be even more religious than them.. and start to pay attention more to their own religion. It's very messy and sickening. I guess that's why we here have decided that we just don't want anything to do with those groups.

I doubt a person who believes in god would care about the contradiction you have framed. They would simply say it was god who breathed spirit into life, which enabled both the flue and its victim and what happened after that you can read in your evolutionary science books.

The main thrust of Dawkins' The Extended Gene is that phenotype should not be limited to biological processes such as protein biosynthesis or tissue growth, but extended to include all effects that a gene has on its environment, inside or outside the body of the individual organism, then perhaps religion is in our phenotype, part of our naive reaction to the world.

I do understand what you are saying and I believe that impartiality is the most important thing. If a catholic evolutionary scientist contradicted my understanding of evolution I wouldnt answer back. fyi there is such a person, name escapes me.

In the general sense I acknowledge that not all religion contradicts science, it just simply can't be proved or disproved. Per se I agree. However in reality the conception of God is based on the bible and you even used the bible as an example "God created the universe.........." Science cannot prove or disprove. The biblical God is based on a very strict premise. That it is perfect, infallible, and error free. So even one tiny infraction, one sentance that contradicts hard science, histotical fact makes it invalid. Like a house of cards you take out one and the whole thing comes tumbling down.

Now I know how it works. You can believe in God and not the bible, its just a reference, etc but the people who introduced this God into the world made the rules. And if my premise assumes that God was just a product of their imaginations then people are just using their imaginations to take a fictional idea and alter it as they please.

There will always be a way to make God fit and I would like to say this is fine as long as one doesnt ignore science. However is that the case? Pascal's wager was strongly built on the premise that there is nothing to lose by believing in a deity that doesnt exist. Psychologically speaking believing in a deity that doesnt exist however benign is damaging.

The questions you should contemplate on are these: why are the religious trying to support god with science? Why are they abandon faith and using logic and reason? Do they really care that you believe in god, or that you are part of their tribe?

Of course they contradict each other. There is absolutely nothing scientific about religion. I find that religions just make shit up. Science actually tests things and if it no longer fits the model they find evidence that does fit.

I can disprove God in one word,,, "dinosaur"! Done and done!

Yes, unless the religion accepts the reality of scientific facts.

The difference is illustrated by the example you gave with the flu. Let’s say that Susan has the flu, was that because god let her get it, or because of a weakened immune system? If it was god, what would be the the proper response? Is she being tested to see if she can maintain her faith and therefore she needs to pray and grow in order for god to free her of her affliction? Is she being punished for her lack of faith or a sin that she committed and therefore needs to repent to heal? If everything good and bad that happens to a person is the result of the whims of an all knowing, yet ultimately unknowable being, how does one take control of their life?

Now if the flu was caused by natural means, next year Susan can get the flu vaccine, she can make sure to eat well and exercise, or to get enough sleep. Non of these things will guarantee that she won’t get the flu next year, but they have a better chance of it then praying for the best.

The real difference between science and religion is that science strives to discover the hows and whys of the world and universe around us, it’s dynamic and able to change as new information comes available. Religion on the other hand starts with the explanation and try’s to shoehorn in the universe into its narrow understanding.

In other words science is a quest for understanding and religion is an assertion of truth (generally based on the best guesses of people who lived millennia ago)

in a word "YES" Didn't need to read past you r headline.

I pay no mind to religious explanations.