On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 7:30:02 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 05:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:49:03 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Religion requires accepting certain things on faith. Should we
conclude from these premises that religion and science are in total
opposition?

Yes.

You seem to be blinded by your prejudices.

No. I simply recognize reality. Faith-based thinking has never
produced a truth.

"Faith-based thinking" is a slippery phrase. What does it even mean?
"truth" is also a bit slippery. Science doesn't deal in truths. We
used to think it did, but today we understand that science deals with
models that predict observables.

Before we can do that, we would have to ask: *what* things does
religion ask us to accept on faith?

It doesn't.

which causes you to misunderstand what John said. OF COURSE religion
asks us to accept certain things on faith. So does science.

I do not accept any axioms on faith. I'm always open to considering
different axioms, different choices for assumptions behind reasoning.
That is not faith.

It is to me. I accept scientific models until refuted by experimental
observations. I also hold beliefs that are not refuted by such
observations. You hold a belief that there is no God, which would be
destroyed the moment God showed Himself.

"Accurate knowledge." Hmm, that phrase seems to be tinged with private
interpretation.

No. Reality is not determined by interpretation.

Sure it is. "Reality" is unknowable to our senses. We construct models
(maps) of reality, but the map is not the territory.