# Is Religion and Science Compatible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2014, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519 "2014-06-11T02:06:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/141 "2014-06-13T02:11:05Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > There are some apologist atheist materialists who desperately want them to be incompatible. But no, when it comes right down to it, the two are compatible. 😉 Bah! You smack of desperation. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/142 "2014-06-13T02:54:48Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > Bah! You smack of desperation. When I mirror your reasoning and your argument, I smack of desperation? That was pretty much the point I was trying to make. I’m glad you picked it up so readily! ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/143 "2014-06-13T02:56:38Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > The thing is, though, that there are other equally untestable propositions (“Animals have rights not to have suffering inflected on them. Everyone has rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”) which we generally don’t table as “not interesting at this point in time”. Nobody suggests that people - many of them atheist materialists - who take positions on these are irrational, deluded or behaving in a way incompatible with science. Whereas these suggestions are quite often made about people who take an interest in questions which some atheist materialists find “not interesting at this point in time”. > [@Trinopus](#): > > **Scientifically** uninteresting, but philosophically and politically of much interest. > > Perhaps we should enter “The Philosophic Method” as a third path in this discussion. It isn’t exactly religious…but it also isn’t scientific. > > And “The Political Method” could be a fourth. Your two examples are political issues. I think you’re making a distinction there between politics and philosophy that I hesitate to accept as valid. Politics (“what should we do in relation to public/civic issues?”) is a subset of ethics (“what should we do?”), and ethics is fairly clearly a branch of philosophy. And religion - certainly when it addresses ethical issues - is also a branch of philosophy. Indeed science, or at least the scientific method - is also an application of philosophy. It’s epistemology (“how can we know something?”) Science, if you like, is the branch of epistemology which deals with how we can know things about the natural world through empirical observation. If we accept that definition, it follows that science can tell us nothing about the _super_natural world; not even whether it has any existence or reality. You could take a very strong position and say that science is the _only_ way we can know anything about the natural world. Note that that position is not itself a scientific position since there is no empirical proof for it. But we wouldn’t expect any empirical proof, since the claim is a philosophical, epistemological one. We can demand that such a claim be _consistent_ with what we know empirically, but we cannot demand that it be empirically proved itself. Even if you take that very strong position, though, that still doesn’t offer any basis for saying that science is a valid method (still less the only valid method) for investigating the supernatural. Previously in this thread we have identified (some of) the axioms on which the scientific method rests. The axioms all relate to empirically observable reality. It’s an obvious logical fail to try to proceed from axioms about empirically observable reality to conclusions about things not empirically observable; not even a conclusion about whether they exist or not. I am fine with people asserting that there are no supernatural realities. I am not fine with them claiming that this is a scientific position, or that this position is scientifically proven, or scientifically testable or verifiable. None of these things are true. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/144 "2014-06-13T03:22:57Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I am fine with people asserting that there are no supernatural realities. I am not fine with them claiming that this is a scientific position, or that this position is scientifically proven, or scientifically testable or verifiable. None of these things are true. Has there been anyone here who claims that the non-existence of supernatural entities is scientifically testable, provable, or verifiable? I don’t recall seeing that. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/145 "2014-06-13T03:47:40Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Has there been anyone here who claims that the non-existence of supernatural entities is scientifically testable, provable, or verifiable? I don’t recall seeing that. That seems to me to be Der Trihs’s position: > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And science _can_ actually handle many of those “metaphysical questions” just fine, it’s just that many people don’t like the answers it gives. According to all the evidence gathered by science there are no souls, no afterlife, and no gods, nor is there room in the laws of physics for those things. But people don’t want to hear that so they claim those questions are “beyond science”, instead of accepting “no, there’s no reason to believe they exist” as the answer. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; if there _actually were_ gods and souls and so forth, there _would_ be room in the laws of physics for them. If there actually were “supernatural entities”, there’s no reason to think that they would be any more “beyond science” than electromagnetism is. > > And why should we assume that? Technology in the real world can’t detect the supernatural because there _is no_ supernatural, not because the supernatural is inherently indetectable. The latter claim is a reaction to the consistent failure of the supernatural to produce any evidence of its existence. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, that’s just modern backtracking. There’s been no historical problem with the idea of science being able to detect the supernatural; the idea that science is inherently unable to detect or understand it only arose because science kept consistently showing supernatural claims to be false. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As a reaction to science proving them wrong again and again. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/146 "2014-06-13T04:12:37Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > I think you’re making a distinction there between politics and philosophy that I hesitate to accept as valid. Politics (“what should we do in relation to public/civic issues?”) is a subset of ethics (“what should we do?”), and ethics is fairly clearly a branch of philosophy. And religion - certainly when it addresses ethical issues - is also a branch of philosophy. Indeed science, or at least the scientific method - is also an application of philosophy. It’s epistemology (“how can we know something?”) You’re very likely right. I was trying to distance myself from “right answers from wrong reasoning.” Yes, religious thinking was very much involved in the abolition of slavery in the U.S., but, at rather the same time, religious thinking was involved in Manifest Destiny and the crushing of native cultures in places like Hawaii. > [@](#): > > Science, if you like, is the branch of epistemology which deals with how we can know things about the natural world through empirical observation. If we accept that definition, it follows that science can tell us nothing about the _super_natural world; not even whether it has any existence or reality. Total agreement. > [@](#): > > . . . Even if you take that very strong position, though, that still doesn’t offer any basis for saying that science is a valid method (still less the only valid method) for investigating the supernatural. Also total agreement. It would be, perhaps, a good way to try to begin. Cameras and measurements and documentation and categorization of events: all the trappings of naturalistic science. But the supernatural might simply elude and evade such approaches. Spirits might be able to cause hallucinations, and no one might ever survey Fairyland. > [@](#): > > . . . I am fine with people asserting that there are no supernatural realities. I am not fine with them claiming that this is a scientific position, or that this position is scientifically proven, or scientifically testable or verifiable. None of these things are true. And, again, agreement, with only the proviso that scientific methods might be devised in future to open the door to supernatural research. For instance, someone might develop a photographic emulsion that actually records the images of ghosts. We shouldn’t rule it out as absolutely impossible a priori. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/147 "2014-06-13T05:08:08Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > . . . . . . Cameras and measurements and documentation and categorization of events: all the trappings of naturalistic science. But the supernatural might simply elude and evade such approaches. Spirits might be able to cause hallucinations, and no one might ever survey Fairyland. To my regret, I have to stop the total agreement-fest at this point. The supernatural is not beyond empirical observation because it chooses to be, or because it can fool us. It’s _inherently_ beyond empirical observation _because that’s what supernatural means_. Empirical observation is a natural process; it has no application to the supernatural. We can no more empirically observe a supernatural reality than we can empirically observe the number 2, or the concept of truth. That doesn’t exclude the possibility that supernatural realities might have empirically observable consequences. I might, for instance, postulate that “god is the fundamental ground for the existence of all things that exist”. (And this is in fact a standard claim of the major monotheistic traditions.) _If_ the postulate is true, the consequence would be that natural things could exist. We observe scientifically that natural things do, in fact, exist. This doesn’t in any sense prove the postulate, of course; our observation is consistent with several other postulates. But it is consistent with the postulate. If our postulate is true, the existence of natural things is an empirically observable consequence. But the postulated god is still not empirically observable, because how do you empirically observe a “ground”? > [@Trinopus](#): > > And, again, agreement, with only the proviso that scientific methods might be devised in future to open the door to supernatural research. For instance, someone might develop a photographic emulsion that actually records the images of ghosts. We shouldn’t rule it out as absolutely impossible a priori. Again, nope. Anything which _could_ be empirically observed is part of the natural universe, even if we currently lack the technology to observe it. If there exist ghosts that can be photographed by an emulsion that we have yet to develop, they are a natural phenomenon. They may not fit with our concept of nature, but the conclusion from that is that our concept of nature is flawed, and must be modified in the light of the empirically observed evidence - when we observe it, that is. In short, if you could produce convincing empirical proof of the reality of ghosts, you wouldn’t be proving the reality of the supernatural. You’d be proving that the natural included more things than we have hitherto understood it to include. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/148 "2014-06-13T05:08:53Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Depends where you looked. Hunter-gatherer societies have typically **not** practiced slavery, which was uneconomic for their social structures. There’s no reason to think that most ancient hunter-gatherers would have thought slavery morally acceptable. Slavery not being thought efficient is hardly the same as slavery being thought of as morally wrong. The Hebrew Bible certainly considers it acceptable, with limits. Slaves whose slavery had an end date were probably not thought of as inferior, though. > [@](#): > > That was hardly “the” justification for slavery, historically speaking. There have been plenty of societies that enslaved people whom the enslavers **didn’t** consider “inherently inferior” or “more happy without the responsibilities of freedom” (e.g., war captives in ancient Greece). Aristotle considered slaves as inferior to the peasant and even women. > [@](#): > > Humans don’t automatically need a hypothesis of innate ethnic inferiority to justify the practice of slavery in a society. And they don’t need any scientific falsification of such a hypothesis in order to break down the practice of slavery in a society. For example, in the 18th and 19th centuries when antislavery movements were at their height, plenty of scientific theories still endorsed the idea of innate ethnic inferiority of “slave races”. But this was breaking down - and the justification for slavery requires a level of inferiority beyond just “less civilized.” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/149 "2014-06-13T05:15:52Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > To my regret, I have to stop the total agreement-fest at this point. The supernatural is not beyond empirical observation because it chooses to be, or because it can fool us. It’s _inherently_ beyond empirical observation _because that’s what supernatural means_. Empirical observation is a natural process; it has no application to the supernatural. We can no more empirically observe a supernatural reality than we can empirically observe the number 2, or the concept of truth. So none of the descriptions of the supernatural over the last few thousand years in literature and pseudo-fact were actually descriptions of the supernatural? The very inventors of the term had it wrong? When someone observed Dracula turning into gas and blowing in through a door, that became non-supernatural? When Alice grew that was not supernatural? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/150 "2014-06-13T05:59:15Z")
I don’t think Carroll claimed that Alice’s growth was supernatural; there’s nothing inherently supernatural about growth hormone. Alice’s growth was fantastic, but that’s not the same thing as supernatural. And while I haven’t read Stoker, the phenomonem of solid material transforming to a gaseous state is hardly inherently supernatural. Stoker may will have intended his readers to understand or assume that Dracula’s sublimation was the consequence of a supernatural cause, but no amount of hypotheitical empirical observation and investigation of the sublimation could ever have proved that. History _abounds_ with examples of things attributed to the supernatural because they didn’t fit with our conception of the natural, only to be understood as natural when our concept of the natural progressed. Lightning, for example. And if we did, hypotheticall, conclusively prove that, say, a particular house was haunted by the ghost of Mickey Rooney, we could never say that we knew this to have a supernatural cause. The most we could say is that we could not explain the cause scientifically, but scientific scepticism requires us to acknowledge that this could be because of the limitations of our scientific knowledge. The bottom line; if it is susceptible of meaningful scientific investigation it is, by definition, a natural phenomenon. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/151 "2014-06-13T05:59:41Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Has there been anyone here who claims that the non-existence of supernatural entities is scientifically testable, provable, or verifiable? As said, me. Such things have been tested, repeatedly; and failed every time. The believers have over the years just kept moving their goalposts until now they’ve retreated to definitions of God(s), souls and so on that are indistinguishable from them not existing at all. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/152 "2014-06-13T06:21:03Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I can be a scientist, deeply respect the fundamental value of the scientific method, and at the very same time believe that “life is suffering” and/or that “the foundation of morality is the Golden Rule”. > > Another scientist, with equal respect for the scientific method, could easily not believe that “life is suffering” or that the foundation of morality is the Golden Rule (preferring, say, some variety of utilitarianism). > > They could disagree on these things, and science, as a method of inquiry, cannot decide who is right and who is wrong. Ergo, science and religion are not “incompatible”. Basically this. Religious doctrines may include both falsifiable and non-falsifiable truth claims. The former may be assailed by science, but the latter may not - and can not. Religion’s non-falsifiable truth claims stand outside of the realm of scientific inquiry, and therefore remain perfectly compatible with science. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/153 "2014-06-13T11:37:38Z")
\*\* > [@Steken](#): > > Basically this. > > Religious doctrines may include both falsifiable and non-falsifiable truth claims. > > The former may be assailed by science, but the latter may not - and can not. > > Religion’s non-falsifiable truth claims stand outside of the realm of scientific inquiry, and therefore remain perfectly compatible with science. But this kind of “compatibility” is trivial, and adds no weight whatsoever to the fundamental implication sought by eliminating incompatibility, which is that religion owns some type of “truth” which is not threatened by the existence of “science.” If we redefine “religion” to be “observations about human interactions,” or “comments about morality and ethics” or the like, any and all derived conclusions are simply schemas being advanced for how humans should interact with one another. (And exclusively humans, since currently no other species is able to grasp and execute any such schema.) The fundamental incompatibility is that science addresses absolutes and religion does not. Where religion happens to lay a legitimate claim to an absolute, it is science. Where it does not, it is opinion (or philosophy, or social construct or any other floofy term you want to advance that makes opinion sound deeper). What is Right and Wrong is opinion. Not science. What is Moral is opinion. Not science. What is Altruistic is opinion. Not science. What holds Meaning is opinion. Not science. In all of these sorts of areas where religion wants to advance a claim as an approach to “truth,” the kind of truth being advanced is never the kind of Absolute that science uncovers. It is an opinion that humans should not kill and eat children the way animals do. Religion may speak to that opinion, advancing a moral schema for example, but it remains opinion. There is no scientific truth uncoverable about the rightness or wrongness of eating babies, and there is no independent Absolute regarding baby-eating, or slavery, or unkindness or any other religious/philosophical-side claim. The incompatibility of religion with science does not mean that religion is useless. There may be many ways in which the world is a better experience because of religion. But only science is seeking Truth in any absolute sense. A principle in science carries a completely different meaning from a principle in religion. One is a comment about the understanding of how things are, and the other is an opinion. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/154 "2014-06-13T13:05:56Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > But this kind of “compatibility” is trivial, and adds no weight whatsoever to the fundamental implication sought by eliminating incompatibility, which is that religion owns some type of “truth” which is not threatened by the existence of “science.” No. Religion’s non-falsifiable truth claims are compatible with science not because religion actually “owns” some type of higher truth, but because these non-falsifiable truth claims, being non-falsifiable, fall entirely outside the realm of science. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > If we redefine “religion” to be “observations about human interactions,” or “comments about morality and ethics” or the like, any and all derived conclusions are simply schemas being advanced for how humans should interact with one another. Well, moral and ethical truth claims are both good examples of the kind of non-falsifiable truth claims a religion may make. But there are other kinds, too, and I see no need to “redefine” the word “religion” to mean that and nothing else. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Where religion happens to lay a legitimate claim to an absolute, it is science. Where it does not, it is opinion (or philosophy, or social construct or any other floofy term you want to advance that makes opinion sound deeper). There is a real and meaningful difference between the words “opinion” and “belief,” and most religions tend to encourage, well, shall we say, a mixed bag of both. Some of these beliefs may be falsifiable (“the Moon is made of cheese!”). Some may not be (“the Devachan is made of cheese! like, astral cheese! or etheric cheese! or something!”). > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > What is Right and Wrong is opinion. Not science. What is Moral is opinion. Not science. What is Altruistic is opinion. Not science. What holds Meaning is opinion. Not science. > > In all of these sorts of areas where religion wants to advance a claim as an approach to “truth,” the kind of truth being advanced is never the kind of Absolute that science uncovers. > > It is an opinion that humans should not kill and eat children the way animals do. Religion may speak to that opinion, advancing a moral schema for example, but it remains opinion. There is no scientific truth uncoverable about the rightness or wrongness of eating babies, and there is no independent Absolute regarding baby-eating, or slavery, or unkindness or any other religious/philosophical-side claim. Why, yes - but then for all these reasons, religion and science may sometimes be compatible. Because, sometimes, religion deals with the sort of stuff that science won’t and can’t touch. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/155 "2014-06-13T14:07:49Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > No. Religion’s non-falsifiable truth claims are compatible with science not because religion actually “owns” some type of higher truth, but because these non-falsifiable truth claims, being non-falsifiable, fall entirely outside the realm of science. No, that doesn’t make religion _compatible_ with science. It would be compatible if it came up with actual truths. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/156 "2014-06-13T14:10:43Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > No, that doesn’t make religion _compatible_ with science. > It would be compatible if it came up with actual truths. If the word compatible means “able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict,” then yes, indeed it does. Which definition of the word are you using? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/157 "2014-06-13T14:23:55Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > If the word compatible means “able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict,” Well. Has it? No. Science has been eating away at religions’ proclaimed truths since forever. What remains of the christian world view of lets say 1300 A.D. ? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/158 "2014-06-13T14:25:17Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I don’t even understand the question - what could _possibly_ be objective about morality? It’s an opinion! You are simply repeating your premise. How, exactly, are you going to _prove_ that “morality is just an opinion”, other than (perhaps) adding a few exclamation marks after stating it as a fact? > [@](#): > > In other words, would it be possible for someone to have the opinion that it’s morally right to enslave other people? Well, obviously, the answer is yes! You won’t find as many of them nowadays, but just a couple hundred years ago you would have no trouble finding someone to argue that position. And are those that hold that opinion right or wrong? How do _you_ tell the difference? Or to you, do you not tell the difference? > [@](#): > > Almost everyone has the opinion that we should try not to harm other innocent people. It’s so universal that it’s taken for granted by most civilized people. And if you start from that assumption, the question of what you should do in specific situations is informed by objective facts. That’s fine. But realize that at bottom, your fundamental idea that we shouldn’t harm others has is not objective, it’s your opinion. I’m glad that you have that opinion, and I don’t want to be around anyone who doesn’t share it, but in no way is it _objective_. Not sure exactly what is added by stating that this is an opinion you happen to like. Is it right or is it wrong, or to you, is the question meaningless? > [@](#): > > Just show me anyone who claims that the scientific method answers all problems. > > If the questions are about objective facts of the world we live in, scientific epistemology is all there is. But it doesn’t address morality, or preferences, or whether Angelina Jolie is hotter than Roseanne Barr. I will show you such people in this very thread: everyone who is arguing that “science is incompatible with religion”. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/159 "2014-06-13T14:26:09Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Well. Has it? > No. Science has been eating away at religions’ proclaimed truths since forever. > What remains of the christian world view of lets say 1300 A.D. ? Probably more than remains of the scientific world view of 1300 AD. Does that mean science and science aren’t compatible? ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/160 "2014-06-13T14:33:26Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Well. Has it? > No. Science has been eating away at religions’ proclaimed truths since forever. > What remains of the christian world view of lets say 1300 A.D. ? Science has been eating away at religions’ _falsifiable_ truth claims, not religions’ _non-falsifiable_ truth claims. That it can’t, and won’t. Also, what **Thudlow Boink** said, about that last thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519.md?page=9)