Religion is not compatible with science. And yes it is a fraud like psychics and mediums.

If I owned a bookstore, I'd put the Bible in the Fiction section.

Galileo certainly thought so.

No, that's not a snarky back handed slap up against the church. Back in his day, if you wanted to pursue science, you went the way of the church. In fact, his day, and his input, were part of the turning point of this. Renee D'escartes, Tycho Brahe, and a bunch of others were, if not devout, trained in the church schools. None were academic slouches. The church, in fact, embraced "natural science" (physics, which included astronomy) up until that time.

According to a book, Infinitessimals, the concept of being able to cut things into smaller and smaller pieces is what tipped the balance as it implied things divine, to some clergy. They asked Galileo to weigh in on it. Galileo saw nothing extraordinary about the concepts and much to explore. He thought it should be embraced. The Jesuits opposed it and they won the day. What happened to Galileo you know (this is not directly related to his excommunication but it is a nail in that coffin).

From that time forward, the Italian churches and schools (almost one and the same) were not allowed to study or access this information and... Italy has not been a mover or shaker in the science scene since. Up until then, they were the center of the science scene.

Said scene moved North and soon thereafter a young philosopher by the name of Newton took this idea to the limit (pun intended) and designed the Calculus... 20 years later, Leibnitz was to publish his works which were entirely the same (no one stole from anyone, it's just another interesting story of the times and kind of implies that new ideas happen holistically when the right information is available to ponder).

Long and short of my long winded post is that science and theology worked hand in hand for a long time prior to this. It was the clergy that made a fateful, and egocentric, decision about the center of our universe and the implication that certain things are not to be known... which stalled the Italians for 700+ years... on the science scene.

Edit: just cleaned up some of the text as, upon reread, it was a bit confusing and fixed a grammar error. Note that this is gelled from recollections of the book Infintessimals (Amir Alexander [play.google.com], and my reading of history for many years. It's been a while since I read the book I am directly speaking too and the Jesuits were by no means the only actors in opposition to this idea, or to Galileo, but I recall they played a key role, according to Infinitessimals.

Of course not! religion doesn't understand science! Religion is Mythology!

Not compatible. At all.

It very much depends on the extent to which you take your religious beliefs. If you believe that God made the world 6,000 years ago in six days, that there was a global flood, that Earth is flat and/or that all animals were created as they are now, then that flies in the face of accepted scientific fact and all the available evidence, so you necessarily cannot accept science without suffering cognitive dissonance.

If you believe in any form of interactive god, you need to accept that its interactions have not been empirically demonstrated, only anecdotally. So, you're accepting something based on faith and not the scientific method. It stands apart from science, and doesn't stand up to science, but it doesn't interfere with science.

If you're a deist, who just thinks someone or something kick-started the universe then left us to it, same as the above.

So yes, science and religion are compatible, but only as long as your religious beliefs are vague enough not to contradict modern science.

As Christopher Hitchens once said: They are not only incompatible, but irreconcilable.

I think that when a religion is taught through a mythos it can work for a society as long as it's plausible or believable within the science of its time. But when the science of the day proves the myth to be a myth, false, not something that really happened, that shakes the very foundation of the religion. That's when the religion needs to go the way of mythology and allow its lessons to be taught in a literary sense, rather than in a literal sense. We see that happening already, I feel.

Religions based on a supernatural creator, like our Abrahamic Monotheism, which are not supported by the science of the day, and are subject to the scrutiny and skepticism of a modern worldly internet society, should be classified as paranormal.

With the "Rise of the Nones" growing higher in the more educated countries, monothesism will be a thing of the past someday, and the religious texts will be in the Mythology section of the library.

Science is compatible with anything that’s demonstrably true and incompatible with anything that’s demonstrably false. Science does not speak directly to the existence of god(s) one way or the other; it makes no attacks on any of them, but if it attacks the foundations they were built on, then those foundations ARE demonstrably false and it stands to reason that at least THOSE gods who stand upon shoddy premises don’t exist.
THOSE religions are incompatible with science because they attempted explanations that turned out to be misguided. They claimed objective truth, but objective truth doesn’t falter under increased scrutiny and doesn’t wilt under brighter light.
Science is a remarkably simply test; if true, you pass and if not, then not. Anyone that claims that science attacks their religion is just complaining that the test is too hard and admitting that they (the authors of said religion) didn’t study for it.

Science and religion can totally exist in the same way bacon and sausage do. Science explains natural phenomenon, religion explains the motivating impulse behind it all and outlines a system of social behavior to foster the continued survival of a culture thousands of years ago. Some of it is outdated and needs revision, but as long as you let science have its sphere of influence and religion its, they can coexist quite fine. It's when religion tries to do something science has already proven reliably and repeatedly simply by merit of anecdotal evidence from eyewitnesses 1700 years ago regarding events 2000 years and 4 language translations ago that the two start to conflict.

They are as compatible as the differing questions they try to answer. How and why.

No

I think the question you're really asking is "Are science and fundamentalism/literalism compatible?" and the answer to that is so obvious as to not need asking. But the way you have worded your question makes it sound like you are asking "Are science and art compatible?" which is an equally unnecessary question for the opposite reason.

Many great scientists have been religious but it can interfere with their work. Darwin studied for the clergy. Einstein rejected quantum theory "I refuse to believe that god plays dice with the universe". My own namesake lord Kelvin was a bit of a religious nutter. Though this is priceless, how many colours are there in the spectrum of light? Seven you answer as you go though "Richard of York gained battles in vain" Wrong, take a look again (dig out your dark side of the moon album). There really are six but Newton thought 6 was the devil's number so he split purple into indigo and violet to make it 7.

Reading down here it gets confusing when people answer the title of the post without addressing the actual question extrapolated under it.

For clarity here, my answers are based on the question

Shouldn't religion be classified as 'Paranormal : fraud' along with psychics, mediums, spiritists & mystics?

not
Is science & religion compatible? which I have addressed elsewhere and to which the answer is obviously, not under any circumstances.

Put it this way
everything that is described as a godly miracle in the bible, is described as black magic in the same book when anyone other than a Israelite or Christian does it.

Oddly most Christian claim belief in magic is blasphemous, even though the bible acknowledges it enough to order the death of its practitioners

not christian,maybe Hindu,as they believe in other beings from space

There are a lot of good debates on this one. Daniel Dennett does a good job with these.

No they are not. It takes a whole lot of cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics to say they do.

Yes, absolutely. One standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is that the material world can't exist without conscious observers. That's pretty much what George Berkeley, Bishop of Coyne contended in the early 18th century, and it is amazing to me that Bishop Berkeley's theory is still viable three centuries later. Perhaps that explains why Berkeley college at Yale and Berkeley California were both named after him.

Absolutely not.

Science is compatible with religion only to the degree that the religious person is willing to admit that much of the dogma and scripture are nothing more than cultural myth.

Asking a question is often seeking to collaborate ones answer. You may be thinking that Christians cannot be scientific to which I would mostly agree but there are many religions. Some are more open to science for example Deism is very compatible to the scientific method.

It depends on how you define religion. Wikipedia says "There is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion."
Karen Armstrong says the common thread of all major world religions is compassion, and she literally wrote the book on the history of god. There is nothing about compassion that is incompatible with science.

There have been a lot of scientists with religious convictions. This wiki list [en.wikipedia.org]
shows many. Some may be able to separate faith from scientific method. In the end they may attribute their findings to some mystical power but their methods are scientific.