Science and Religion Are Incompatible

I will be arguing that science and religion are incompatible.By “incompatible” I mean to say that science and religion are “mutually intolerant; incapable of existing together in the same same subject; contrary or opposed in character; discordant, incongruous, inconsistent” [1] as methods of apprehending truth.Science makes claims about the way things are. Science’s claims about the nature of reality are based on a procedure that involves…Induction: Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.Deduction: Making specific productions based on the hypotheses.Observation: Gathering data, driven by hypotheses that tell us what to look for in nature.Verification: Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypothesis. [2]Religion also makes claims about the nature of reality. But the religious method of apprehending truth does not involve induction, deduction, observation, and verification. Religious claims (unlike scientific claims) are accepted dogmatically. For example:Jesus came back to life after being dead for three days is a factual claim. Moreover, it is an incredible claim. Where is the incredible evidence to back up this story? Well, all the “evidence” we have to support it is the testimony of the Gospel writers, who contradict each other:“How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)? [3]Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone? Yes, according to Matthew. The other gospels are silent on this extraordinary detail.” [3] (See link below for more contradictions in the resurrection story)Here’s a more plausible explanation:“There are…many alternative and non-miraculous explanations for the story of Jesus’ Resurrection. One was suggested by the philosopher Herman Philipse. It seems likely — for Jesus explicitly states this in three of the four Gospels — that his followers believed he would restore God’s kingdom in their lifetime, including sitting on twelve thrones from which they’d judge the tribes of Israel. But, unexpectedly, Jesus was crucified, ending everyone’s hope for glory. Phillips suggests that this produced painful cognitive dissonance, which in this case was resolved by “collaborative storytelling” — the same thing modern millennialists do when the world fails to end on schedule. The ever-disappointed millennialists usually agree on a story that somehow preserves their belief in the face of disconfirmation (for example, “We got the date wrong”). Phillipse then suggests that in the case of the Jesus tale, the imminent arrival of God simply morphed into a promise of eternal life, a promise supported by pretending that their leader himself had been resurrected.” [4]It's not reasonable to believe that Jesus literally came back from the dead based on the testimony of the Gospels. Anyone who attempts to an impartial look at the evidence should see this. Which is more likely: (1) people coming back from the dead, or (2) people making up lies? What's more common: (1) people coming back from the dead, or (2) legends invented to assuage people's fears and disappointments? Many cultures have resurrection stories of some kind.Nevertheless, Christians would claim to be absolutely certain that Jesus rose from the dead. It's the cornerstone of their faith, and it's taken as literal truth. Clearly, the religious method of apprehending truth (through dogma, sacred literature, authority) doesn't work. "Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. For example, how do we know that the Earth is round? It is a logical conclusion drawn from observations such as:- The shadow of the earth on the moon is round.- The mast of a ship is the last thing to be seen as it sails into the distance. - The horizon is curved.- Photographs some spaceAnd science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence. For example, how do we know the earth is round?- Our parents told us.- Our teachers told us.- Our minister told us.- Our textbook told us.Dogmatic conclusions are not necessarily invalid, but they do beg other questions: How did the authorities come by their conclusions? Were they guided by science or some other means?" [2]"Faith" is considered a virtue in religion. It's a vice in science."Doubt" is considered a vice in religion. Skepticism is a virtue in science.The scientific man is open-minded. His beliefs are open to disconfirmation. He's willing to accept that he doesn't know everything, and so he's willing to update his beliefs as he learns more.The religious man thinks he has the "absolute truth" and this belief is rooted into his heart. Certain ideas are untouchable; certain beliefs sit inside their heads like bricks. In this way, science and religion are incompatible.[1] Oxford English Dictionary[2] Michael Shermer, “Why People Believe Weird Things”[3] Bob Seidensticker “Contradictions in the Resurrection Account” http://www.patheos.com...[4] Jerry Coyne, Faith vs. Fact