Science and religion are incompatible ways of viewing the world.

I look forward to a vigorous and hopefully enlightening interchange. 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. My main objective is to refute the notion that science and religion actually make conflicting claims. For this, I will refer to my opponent's definition of science, "the collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method. " The scientific method [2] is very straight forward and is meant to acquire knowledge through direct observation and experimentation. As result, I contend that science is unable to make universal claims, and any such claims made in the name of science falls instead within the domain of philosophy. 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. Science cannot make direct universal claims about reality. Science only brings knowledge about the particulars based on hypotheses which may rely on certain universal claims but cannot ever--in and of itself--confirm their truth. Take for example evolution. Evolution is indeed a scientific theory. However, the claim, "evolution is true," is not scientific; it is philosophical. While one might use scientific evidence to support this claim, only the discipline of philosophy is able to affirm or negate its truth. 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. Having laid this ground work, I insist my opponent is mistaken when he says, "Like science religion is in the business of making specific claims about the nature of reality. " It is here my opponent commits the fallacy of "low" redefinition. [5] Having just defined science to mean a specific academic discipline, he broadens its use as though it encompasses the discipline of philosophy as well. Science is in the business of learning about the nature of PHYSICAL reality, but it cannot make universal claims regarding the COMPLETE nature of reality. For example, whether or not there exists a metaphysical reality is something science is incapable of answering. 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. My opponent seems to be confusing science with scientism: the philosophy that only the scientific method is able acquire knowledge. 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. 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. 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. Of course, it depends on the religious claims and the philosophical reasoning behind them. However, proving any one religion to be true is outside the scope of our debate. I have fulfilled my burden in showing that both being simultaneously true is at least a logical possibility. Therefore, the resolution is negated. 1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. . http://www.sciencebuddies.org... 3. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 4. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 5. . http://www.fallacyfiles.org...