Science and religion are incompatible ways of viewing the world.

Let me begin by first defining my terms. Faith- Belief without evidence Religion- A religion is a set of beliefs and practices often organized around supernatural and moral claims, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Science- The collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method. Science and religion are not only different ways of viewing the world; they are incompatible means of viewing the world. Like science religion is in the business of making specific claims about the nature of reality. These claims purport to be about facts. There is one God. There are many Gods. The creator of the universe can hear your prayers. If you do not believe the right things about god you will suffer terribly after you die etc. By necessity there is a conflict between science and religion. Science operates on the scientific method and reason. Sound reasoning, experimentation, and empirical data back up scientific claims about the nature of reality. Religion however seems to be playing a rather different game. Religion, in the most universally recognized sense of the word, operates off of faith and revelation. In science certainty is scaled with evidence. In other words the more evidence for any given proposition the more certain you can be that it is true. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the exact opposite is true in religion. Beliefs in religion are almost universally unlinked to reason and evidence. Indeed certainty in religious claims seem to scale inversely with the evidence. Of course there are some scientists who have taken a different view. Stephen Jay Gould along with being a brilliant biologist proposed the idea that religion and science were compatible. He postulated that religion and science were non overlapping magisteria or NOMA for short. To sum up his argument he stated that science deals with the empirical realm and religion deals with morals and value, therefore they could not be in conflict because they occupy different domains. Sources http://en.wikipedia.org... No doubt Gould had good intentions when he proposed NOMA however it is genuinely an empty idea. Religions don't just talk about values or a purpose for human existence; they make claims. And the problem with NOMA is that you cannot disentangle scientific and religious truth claims. The notion that Jesus had no paternal father is a key doctrine in Christianity and it is also a claim about biology. The claim that Jesus after being raised from the dead arose bodily into heaven is another key dogma in the Christian religion that once again overtly trespasses upon the territory of science. This story involves a variety of claims about history, the human survival of death and apparently the mechanics of flight without the aid of technology. Indeed if a reconciliation between science and religion were to take place it would mean that we would have to square the laws of biology, chemistry, physics, history and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a torrent of iron age convictions. Conclusion Because science operates off of evidence and "religion" operates off of revelation the motion that science and religion are incompatible is affirmed.