Science and Faith/Religion are NOT Mutually Exclusive

Let's take a look at how I posed my thesis in the Opening Argument vs. How you just summarized it. Then I will move into how you completely ignored my counters, and then I will comment on what you did post. WHAT I SAID One can be a devout person of faith, and be a person of science with no conflict between the two ideas of faith/religion and science. WHAT YOU SAID I SAID Your argument is, "Look at all of these eminent scientists who were people of faith! Therefore, there is no conflict between faith/religion and science." Hmm, someone needs lessons in citations. How irrational of you! Joking aside... You have a misconception of what "faith" is. You're using a straw man argument, and furthermore, you completely ignored my rebuttal in R2 which illustrated 1: How the true concept of the Christian God cannot be proven with evidence as you or I can, as He is "Ipsum Esse" (How were the videos by the way, or the essays by Aquinas? I only ask because you didn't mention them at all) and therefore OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE, much like many other things that are within our reality (aesthetics, art, philosophy, existential meaning, etc.) And 2: the explanation of the limits of both faith and science. You completely neglected to comment on your displays of Scientism. And it's not worth me re-articulating them here because you clearly ignored them! You have no idea of what the Christian God is, otherwise you would have responded to the "Ipsum Esse" argument in agreement or disagreement. I'm not even sure you know what I'm talking about, because you just ran to your New Atheist texts to quote from your hero. Furthermore, you admit in the comment section that you DON'T KNOW about other faiths, and yet I have only provided a CURSORY list of Christian scientists, and we have not even discussed the litany of other scientists across time who were both men of SCIENCE AND FAITH from other religions and cultures! So you CONCEDE that you cannot fully comment on what faith is, as you are unwilling to comment on faiths you are unfamiliar with. So if you have not considered all the possible evidence or viewpoints, shouldn't you, as a man of science/reason, say, "I don't know"? So really what you have done, is ignore 90% of what I said in rebuttal, and just restated what you wrote in R1 hoping we would not notice! REASON OF A CHRISTIAN You, like so many others, have a very shallow understanding of the Christian Faith. If you truly considered the complete picture, even from a mere historical perspective, the history of the Hebrew people, which would then enable you to properly read the Old Testament, and get all the references and literary evocations in the New, and then understand what the Church Fathers were REALLY talking about, then you could start to understand our Faith. The Catholic Church, first of all, does not take the Bible LITERALLY. It never did! We didn't have the Bible for nearly four centuries after the founding of the Christian Faith at Pentecost. So, keeping in mind the word limit, suffice it to say, you have an outsider's perspective on Christianity. Our faith is like a stained glass window. Obscure, opaque, and perhaps ugly and misunderstood from the outside looking in, but you must walk inside to truly understand it. And it is clear you have only knowledge from what other's have told you, and not from what you yourself have studied or ventured forth to gain yourself. You run the same risk of randomly quoting Bible verses and juxtaposing them against popular Bible stories and presenting it like your "get it", as a privileged modern white suburbanite does when he gives a cursory read to "A Raisin in the Sun". I wouldn't date quote mine the Quran and throw it as a Muslim, or do the same to the Holy books of the Hindus, because I don't know the context AT ALL. RAPE ANALGOY I would like to bring up again, you failed to counter the point I brought up that while people may sometimes allow religion/faith to blindly and falsely guide them in sciences, so cant he sciences be misused by people. Your failure to address that point, which is more beautifully illustrated in my opening quote, neglects further comment on breaking down your terrible "shock jock" analogy. Your statistics on scientists. Sweet dude. You have still yet to comment on any scientist I originally brought up, other than you know who Francis Collins is, but you like this other dude better because he says something you agree with and Francis Collins does not. There are still a number of scientists who DO believe in a personal God. LINGUISTICS I am a linguist. Here is a quick blurb on the subject of the origin of human language: "This shortage of empirical evidence has led many scholars to regard the entire topic as unsuitable for serious study. In 1866, the Linguistic Society of Paris banned any existing or future debates on the subject, a prohibition which remained influential across much of the western world until late in the twentieth century.[1] Today, there are numerous hypotheses about how, why, when, and where language might have emerged.[2] Despite this, there is scarcely more agreement today than a hundred years ago, when Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provoked a rash of armchair speculations on the topic.[3] Since the early 1990s, however, a number of linguists, archaeologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and others have attempted to address with new methods what some consider "the hardest problem in science." So unless we find either/or 1: More ancient texts that survived (and that we can properly translate) or 2: Audio recordings from Proto Indo-Europeans...we just don't have the evidence to address the issue. SCIENCE cannot even address this SCIENTIFIC question, due to lack of evidence, is everyone therefore irrational for believing one side of the other on this issue? But here we go again on the limits of science to being, "a systematic study of observable evidence", and not "the end all be all of all decisions and beliefs everywhere for everyone, which encompasses all problems and questions humans face in their existence" as you would have us believe. Science has limits, and where it's limits are other things pick up the slack. For many people, that is called faith. SUMMARY You failed to counter nearly everything in R2. You failed to even comment or discredit any of the men/women of science, who are also full time Priests. Yes, they are shining examples of how you can be fully believing in something beyond what we can observe and a man of science. But you skip commenting on that argument. Last comment, and I will steal it from "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" Little levity to a heavy subject, and please note that I am well aware that Mac's character is satirical, but he brings up an interesting point at the end. So have you yourself poured over the data, the mountains of evidence in each field of science (which changes all the time by the way, I suppose the Earth Centric scientists were just being irrational) and form your own well informed opinion? Or are you just trusting the words, which have been diluted and filtered through so many second hand sources, of men you never met or will meet? Or are you taking what they say, on faith? But now we see the complexity of the word "faith", don't we? Better conduct a science experiment to find the true definition.