Science and religion are incompatible ways of viewing the world.

I appreciate my opponent's challenge. I'm thankful for an opponent that shows up for every round. I want to make it clear to both my opponent and the readers that I am not simply playing word games. My goal is to reveal a logical disconnect between what science is as an academic discipline and what it is able to confirm about reality. My opponent asserts that my tactic is to "take a carving knife to the conventional understanding of 'religion.'"This is the very thing I meant when I said he assumes religion to be nonsense from the outset. When I try to define it as a philosophy, he dismisses it. My friends, I have offered step-by-step logical reasons to accept religion as a type of worldview, and he has offered nothing but dismissal in return. Is it really I who am intellectually dishonest? His game with my syllogism is fun, but only serves to prove my point. There are all manner of worldviews, all of which are philosophical. They may not be correct, but they need not be correct in order to negate the resolution. The precise point is that worldviews are incompatible with each other because they inevitably make conflicting universals claims. However, they need not conflict with science unless they make conflicting particular claims. ---- I will illustrate this principle using my opponent's examples: 1. "The claim that God created the universe in six days is fundamentally incompatible with what we now know about physics." Whether or not God made the universe is a philosophical issue, as it is something to which the scientific method has no access. Consider the conflict between the worldviews of Naturalism and Christianity. They are incompatible because they make conflicting claims about the origin of our world. However, science itself is neutral on this point. It CANNOT make a claim either way. Science can reveal similarities between fossils, but the conclusion that evolution is true is philosophical. Science can reveal that DNA adapts to changing environments, but the conclusion that evolution is true is philosophical. Creationists might look at the same evidence and conclude that DNA adaptation is limited within animal "kinds" and fossils show similarities between "kinds" but not transitioning between "kinds." Whether or not you agree with Creationists is besides the points. I am showing how philosophical worldviews shape the conclusions without conflicting with the science. My opponent says, "The reason why science and religion are incompatible is that, in the real world they reach incompatible conclusions." This is patently false. Science does not reach conclusions on anything beyond that which is accessible to the scientific method. Only philosophical reasoning guided by one's worldview reaches conclusions. Conclusions about unobservable matters are solely the domain of philosophy. 2. "But as it happens nothing in the human experience can reasonably lead us to conclude that levitation is likely to be true." Science, in experimenting with nature, cannot experiment upon or observe supernatural levitation as science can only operated in the realm of nature. However, the conclusion that supernatural levitation is impossible is only made philosophically. If God exists, then supernatural levitation is not impossible. If God doesn't exist, then it's highly improbable to the point that it can be considered impossible. The point is, science will never conclude whether or supernatural levitation is possible. It can't even access such a notion. 3. "Earthquakes, tsunamis and disease were thought to be the result of sin." (From his Round 2) Indeed, even if meteorological science irrefutably shows that these events are part of the earth's weather patterns, various forces, etc., how can science truly conclude that the forces behind these things are not supernaturally induced? Even if you disagree with the conclusions, it is irrational to claim that science has any sort of access to answer the question either way. Only our philosophical reasoning leads us to conclude whether these events are random or teleological. ----- For kicks, here's a random 50 digit number 07107737463810109246946299771188040674849943592397 ----- Consider Carl Sagan when he said, "The cosmos is all there is, ever was, or ever will be." Carl Sagan was a scientist. His statement opened a very scientific miniseries full of scientific data. But is his statement scientific? Not at all. How can Carl Sagan, or anyone for that matter, possibly know what may or may not exist outside the cosmos. His statement is purely philosophical. Religious people can believe in God (universal) and still be scientific (particular). There is no direct conflict. A conflict only arises when one dismisses the notion of worldviews and fallaciously assumes to be philosophically neutral. I am not playing a game of semantics. I am making a very honest attempt to show that philosophy can be religious or irreligious in nature, independent of the science to which it appeals. This should be sufficient in negating the resolution. Religion and science are compatible.