Why? There are plenty of things in the Bible that we can or could prove to be wrong actually.
if you can conclusively, you'd be the first. forget Catholicism for a second, and Christianity is basically the belief that Jesus died for our sins and rose again, and that believing in Him let's us get into Heaven instead of Hell. other things like historical accuracy of the Old Testament are neither vital nor able to be disproven by going back and checking out if it actually happened.
find me a possible way of proving that wrong. until then, like i said, there will always be a religion with no proof against it as long as there is Christianity.
It has to do with proof in a different way. Religious people have their 'faith' as their "proof". Obviously this is 'not good enough', as it can not count as scientific evidence. Hence it's never compatible. It has nothing to do with assuming to be right or be able to disprove religion.
no one thinks faith == proof. faith is belief without proof.
No pun intended, but all of those options are a bit funny in my opinion. If the person really would be a scientist he would be aware of how theories can be proven wrong and how there is no scientific proof in favor of religions.
actually the point is that there is no scientific proof against them (or at least all of them). therefore: science and religion are not incompatible because a scientist can be religious without compromising his/her ability to reject a theory when it is soundly disproven.
however if facts disprove things you have previously believed in, then you should adapt your view.
that's what i said. if your religion is disproven and you agree with the proof, adapt your view. but the new view no longer conforms to your religion, so you cease to have that religion.
those three options cover everything: the first two are choosing science OR religion, the third is choosing science AND religion, but there is no room to choose both AND not change your religious view.
a scientist doesn't need proof for everything they're told. if he/she did, he/she would be plagued with terribly trust-less relationships and have a very hard time spawning new scientists
believing in things without being given proof is called faith ("hell no... scientists can't have faith can they?").
science and religion are not incompatible.
i'm sure that's pretty straight-forward now.
julz
