Science and religion are incompatible ways of viewing the world.

Let me first begin by thanking my opponent for agreeing to debate with me on this very important topic. I hope that our viewers would find this debate to be intellectually stimulating and enlightening. My opponent stated the following. "I would like to remind the readers that the term incompatible, insofar as logic is concerned, means that two things cannot be simultaneously true. [1] Specific to this debate, I am burdened to show that religious claims and scientific claims can simultaneously be true." Hmmm…. A noble effort but I would like to remind the viewers what the resolution actually was. "Science and religion are incompatible ways of viewing the world." We are not debating whether or not religious and scientific claims can both simultaneously be true. In fact I will fully concede that at least some of the claims made by various religions could be true but that would in no way detract from my thesis. What I am arguing is that the methodology behind science, i.e. the scientific method is fundamentally in conflict with the methodology behind religion i.e. faith and revelation. My first, second and forth paragraphs were all aimed at driving this point home. If the resolution were "scientific and religious truth claims are incompatible" then maybe you would be on the right track. I wish to challenge my opponent and anyone reading this debate to think of a question where at first we had a scientific explanation, however inadequate, but now the best explanation is a religious one. There are dozens of questions that run the other way. At one point we had a religious explanation to a question but now the best explanation is a scientific one. If you go back in history for example before we knew anything about the germ theory of disease you will see exactly what I'm talking about. During the middle ages when crops failed and people died of disease what did religious believers think was the cause of all of this misfortune? It was witchcraft of course. Earthquakes, tsunamis and disease were thought to be the result of sin. Ironically many people in well-developed countries seem to still be clinging to this view. The relationship between science and religion has gone one way. It has led to consistent scientific erosion of religious authority on a whole host of issues ranging from physics to biology and history. My opponent stated the following. "My main objective is to refute the notion that science and religion actually make conflicting claims." Any honest reading of the book of Genesis would lead us to believe that God created all animals in their current forms in the not so distant past. This is fundamentally untrue. Here is what we now know about our world. The universe is far older, larger and more magnificent than either the Bible or Koran suggest. We know for a fact that the Universe is approximately 14 billion years old and that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. We also know that humans evolved from non-human ancestors along a continuum with all other forms of life on Earth. Many Christians will scoff at the notion of common ancestry by saying things like Evolution is only a theory and not a fact. Such sentiments are born out of a serious misunderstanding of the word theory when it is used in a scientific context. In science there are facts, which must be explained by reference to other facts. These larger explanatory models are theories. Gravity like evolution is a theory and a fact that is not likely to be overturned even if we were to witness a rock falling upwards. If you doubt that evolution is true then you may as well doubt that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The fact that there are some scientists who proclaim the failures of Darwinism does not in the slightest suggest that there is an actual debate in the scientific community on whether or not evolution is true. My opponent stated the following. "Philosophy is another academic discipline, distinct from science in that is relies on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. [3] Philosophy is therefore not limited to that which is subject to experimentation. In fact, philosophy can readily make universal claims about the nature of reality. Philosophy is also able to use science to support or refute these universal claims. It does not, however, work the other way around." When I say that science makes claims about the nature of reality here is what I mean. Science makes claims that purport to be about facts. Saying that Gravity causes objects to fall is a claim well supported by evidence and it is a claim about the way things behave in reality. My opponent stated the following. "Religion, per my opponent's definition, is a set of beliefs. In philosophy, this is known as a worldview [4], and all people have one. All worldviews are ultimately philosophical as they are comprised entirely of universal claims. Therefore, religion falls within the domain of philosophy, even if it uses science to support its claims." To simply redefine religion as a philosophy and from there assert that philosophy and science are compatible is a maneuver I refuse to let slide by. Religion is more than just philosophical musing; it's a faith with a big promise attached to it. My opponent said the following "As a result, my opponent is guilty of the very thing he criticizes in Gould. It's not that Gould was mistaken in thinking that religion does not make universal claims about reality. It's that my opponent is mistaken in thinking that science can." You're hammering away at a position that I have not committed myself to. I encourage anyone viewing this debate to reread my opening arguments and find where I stated that science could make universal claims about the nature of reality. My opponent's other mistake is that of begging the question. He states, "Beliefs in religion are almost universally unlinked to reason and evidence." The fact that he doesn't actually support this claim is secondary to the circular reasoning behind it. Contrary to what you say I actually do try to support this claim when I wrote "Religion, in the most universally recognized sense of the word, operates off of faith and revelation." Any belief that is supported merely by faith or revelation is by definition unlinked to evidence and reason. If we had good reasons or evidence for our beliefs then it would be preposterous to say that we believed them on faith. I need not appeal to faith or revelation when I make the claim that the Earth is round. "He already assumes that religion is false, ignoring the fact that the debate is about whether or not science and religion can both be true. To simply assume that religion is always false begs the very question, or at the very least, constitutes a straw man argument." It is you not I that is guilty of creating a straw man argument. I will appeal to the fairness of anyone viewing this debate. At what point have I ever assumed that religion is always false? If you find where I said that feel free to quote me and put it in the comments section. My opponent said the following "Despite my opponent's bias against religious thinking, the fact remains that universal claims and particular claims are logically compatible. Religion makes universal claims and science makes particular claims. Therefore, it is possible for both to be simultaneously true." I take issue with your analysis. Religion does make particular claims about reality many of which are in direct conflict with science. Religion, at least Christianity, claims to know about how the universe began and what its ultimate destiny is. Q.E.D. The resolution remains affirmed. Sources http://evolution.berkeley.edu... http://www.scientificamerican.com... All the best, Freeman