Science and religion are incompatible ways of viewing the world.

I read your post and then I read it again. But after a while I began to realize what was going on. What we are really arguing about is words and the definition of words like science and religion. You have taken up a strategy that I have never before encountered but more importantly one that I had not expected to encounter. The strategy you seem to have adopted is to take a carving knife to the conventional understanding of "religion," attempting to remove from its purview all of its claims about the natural world. I have to admit that I think this tactic is intellectually dishonest. For the record I would like to set some things straight before I proceed. I will fully concede that science cannot make universal claims about the nature of reality. Despite the fact that I have never claimed that it can my opponent has repeatedly mischaracterized my position. Moreover I agree with you that equivocating science to mean some type of philosophy is intellectually dishonest. "Any "fact" obtained through experimentation and empirical observation is science. Any "fact" obtained through reason--be it inductive or deductive--is philosophy. " AGREED My opponent wrote the following and quoted me in the process. "Science and religion are not only different ways of viewing the world; they are incompatible means of viewing the world. " How else am I to understand this? You should understand it in the following way. The reason why science and religion are incompatible is that, in the real world they reach incompatible conclusions. Secondly I did not write that science and religion were conflicting worldviews. That claim is simply a farce designed to create the illusion that I am equivocating the definitions of science and philosophy. Even though I don't take issue with your syllogism I would like anyone reading this debate to notice how this syllogism could be applied to any philosophical position. If we define witchcraft as a series of beliefs then it would also fit perfectly into my opponent's syllogism. After all witchcraft does entail beliefs about the potency of magic spells. A. Science is an academic discipline using the scientific method B. The scientific method requires direct experimentation C. Science cannot make universal claims D. Philosophy makes universal claims E. Witchcraft makes universal claims F. Universal claims and particular claims are logically compatible G. By substitution, philosophy and science are logically compatible H. By substitution, witchcraft and science are logically compatible Here's another one for you. Scientology is a set of beliefs which makes it a worldview and therefore philosophical. A. Science is an academic discipline using the scientific method B. The scientific method requires direct experimentation C. Science cannot make universal claims D. Philosophy makes universal claims E. Scientology makes universal claims F. Universal claims and particular claims are logically compatible G. By substitution, philosophy and science are logically compatible H. By substitution, Scientology and science are logically compatible I suspect that your patience may be waning but allow me to use just one more example. Magical thinking involves a set of beliefs about the way the world operates therefore it is philosophical. As such it would also fit into your syllogism. A. Science is an academic discipline using the scientific method B. The scientific method requires direct experimentation C. Science cannot make universal claims D. Philosophy makes universal claims E. Magical thinking makes universal claims F. Universal claims and particular claims are logically compatible G. By substitution, philosophy and science are logically compatible H. By substitution, Magical thinking and science are logically compatible I will now concede that there is no logical or a priori incompatibility between religion and science. Science and religion cannot be declared incompatible purely on the basis of what they are. It would be trivially easy for me to imagine a world where the best scientific techniques of evidence gathering and hypothesis testing left us with an understanding of nature which included the existence of God or other supernatural phenomena. However, I would argue that this is not the world we live in. The reason why science and religion are incompatible is that, in the real world they reach incompatible conclusions. This would be perfectly logical for me to argue and it would not necessitate me reworking any of my original definitions or the resolution. I have written at some length to delineate these incompatibilities but allow me to illustrate a few more. The claim that God created the universe in six days is fundamentally incompatible with what we now know about physics. Christianity also claims that parthenogenesis is really a possibility in human primates and science says that this is nonsense. When religions are not contemplating a purpose for human existence they make dozens of specific claims about the natural world. Jesus died and was resurrected, etc. Seriously, there are billions of people who actually believe things like this; I'm not making it up. So there you go, incompatibility. In order to show that Christianity and science were compatible then you would have to demonstrate, under controlled circumstances, how levitation into the sky is actually compatible with what we know about physics. After all this is one of the claims of Christianity. Jesus himself was claimed to have done this. It is of course true to say that levitation cannot be disproved. But as it happens nothing in the human experience can reasonably lead us to conclude that levitation is likely to be true. In all honesty I would settle for you producing any miracle. To further increase my vulnerability to this line of attack I have just written down a 50-digit number and hidden it in my room. If you or any of your fellow Christians is able to produce this number I will consider it to be powerful evidence for your point of view. Of course your success would be open to a wide variety of interpretations. Perhaps such a miracle would not vindicate the Christian worldview. Such an event may demonstrate that telepathy is an actual power of the human mind and that you possess it in spades. My point is, of course, that it would not be hard to conceive of evidence that would render Christianity entirely compatible with our modern scientific understanding of the world. You may wish to claim that much of my essay amounts to little more than me moving the goal posts back and this may be true. But I would claim that the line of reasoning you have taken, while perfectly sound, obfuscates what is really at issue here namely whether or not scientific and religious claims about specific phenomena can both simultaneously be true. For example, there is no way in all honesty that you could say that Evolution and creationism could both simultaneously be true. And despite what you may believe the truth of evolution is not philosophical and it is objectively true. Speciation can be observed in fruit flies and evolution can also make predictions. It's been an absolute pleasure debating with you. Indeed it is reassuring for me to see that the legacy left by Aquinas is still alive and well. However, I must respectfully disagree with you. The resolution that science and religion are incompatible remains affirmed. Definitions Creationism- Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities. Sources . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... . http://archives.cnn.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... All th