On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 7:24:41 AM UTC-5, 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.

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.

Because we should accept nothing on faith.

Then you have no science. In fact, you have no LIFE.

To do so is to reject reason.

Not at all. Such a position is arrogant nonsense.

Faith is an epistemological system that can never reliably produce
accurate knowledge.

"Accurate knowledge." Hmm, that phrase seems to be tinged with private
interpretation. Science deals with models that allow prediction of
observable events. Models are maps, and we know that a map is not the
territory it purports to describe. "Accuracy" is a relative term, and
"knowledge" is what we gain by living and growing.

If faith is involved, then the search has already failed.

Then everything is vain. As John pointed out, science requires faith
in certain things, too: "Scientists accept on faith that the laws of
nature are consistent and intelligible."

This was certainly a problem for Saint Albert with the development of
quantum mechanics, which he himself started.

“If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics,
you do not understand it.” -- John Wheeler

“It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
-- Richard Feynman

We can predict a LOT of things with QM, so if "knowledge" means that,
then science gives us "accurate knowledge," but if "knowledge" means
"understanding" then science doesn't give us "accurate knowledge."

Some of the biggest questions in cosmology today are (1) What is dark
matter? (2) What is dark energy? (3) How can general relativity and
quantum mechanics be made compatible? (4) Did time start at the Big
Bang?

Quantum field theory is the most accurate map we have of the small,
but we have no idea how far "down" it reaches. Does it go to the
Planck level? What's below that? Is there a "below that"? String
theory says no. General Relativity is the most accurate map we have
of the large, but it doesn't tell us what dark matter and dark energy
are. Cosmologists take of faith that the FRWL metric accurately
describes the universe, but does it? Spacetime is a model, and we
don't know what the heck it is.

“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite
different.” – Steven Carlip

Then everything is vain. As John pointed out, science requires faith
in certain things, too: "Scientists accept on faith that the laws of
nature are consistent and intelligible."

This is simply not true. If observation and data call into question a basic law of nature, human understanding of science would change but would continue.

On the other hand, just to use the Abrahmic religions as example, the belief systems simply could not continue if one accepts the archaeological evidence that 13 Jewish tribes after a long period of captivity in Egypt wandered into the Levant, that Jesus was both human and god, or that Mohamed's writings were inspired by some infinitely powerful being.

A good current example of what was considered a fundamental base of science being scattered without destroying scientific inquire itself is the current challenges to Darwin's theory of evolution from developments in biochemistry. Data no longer supports that evolution must occur over generations as Darwin and successive generations believed. While this is certainly shaking up evolutionary inquiry, evolution as a branch of science does and will continue to exist.