For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes
for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs
that are beyond the natural world.
I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement.
Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what someone wrote down 1000 yrs ago), how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another? We have absolutely zero credible evidence of a creator, an afterlife, or Santa Claus. Pick your religion, what method do you use to evalute it's 'factualness' vs some other religion? Usually the answer is that it's what you were first exposed to. This world would be much better off without the concept of an afterlife. Focus on the here and now, it's all we get.
I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what someone wrote down 1000 yrs ago), how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another? We have absolutely zero credible evidence of a creator, an afterlife, or Santa Claus. Pick your religion, what method do you use to evalute it's 'factualness' vs some other religion? Usually the answer is that it's what you were first exposed to. This world would be much better off without the concept of an afterlife. Focus on the here and now, it's all we get.