Originally Posted By: fastlane69
The two disciplines start with different and incompatible perspectives.
This sentence lacks scientific proof and thus is itself an unscientific proposition.
The next line was however:
What I would call true science is totally objective. Whatever a scientific investigation turns up, even if it overthrows previous work, must be accepted as long as the findings pass all tests. Religion starts with truths that cannot be falsified and must be accepted. Any scientific evidence to the contrary is therefore false.
So his starting perspective for science is one that is mutable (and that has been proven in the past and present) and religion as one that has an immutable world view (which again has been proven in the past and present). Both these perspectives can be studied, researched, and tested and thus, it is a scientific propostion.
For being incompatible, it does not suffice that two perspectives are different. They have to contradict each other. This is not necessarily the case with science and religion. Science can be and is compatible with religion; it only is not compatible to _any_ religion.
And that is the point of the article and our previous conversations: that as long as religion doesn't comment on something that is overtly dismissed by science, then religion can be compatible with science. Hence my statement that Jesus dieing on the cross for my sins is no problem (since science makes no commentary on sins or jesus's life) but saying that the earth is 4000 years old is a problem (since that is scientifically impossible).
I dare say we are all in agreement and merely stating it a different way?
