Perception doesn't change Reality

Any experienced social scientist knows that by themselves self-reported results don't mean all that much. They are great for getting broad basic information and in helping determine further areas of study. The Pew Research Center is excellent at this type of broad swath data collection. Unfortunately, their results are all too often misconstrued and abused. A recent Religious News Service piece is a great example of this bogus approach. Cathy Grossman's "Do science and religion conflict? It’s all in how you ‘see’ it" does a disservice to one of the recent surveys conducted by Pew. The title isn't too bad but the writing implies things that are blatantly false. Just because a large number of people are able to reconcile conflicting ideas or institutions does not mean the conflict is not there. I have previously written about this issue. Check out my November 6, 2011 post "Science Vs. Religion" Despite people's desire to pretend there is no conflict I have yet to come across a well supported argument that counters the fact the two are opposed to each other by their very nature.

No such "peace" has been made

The Fortune piece entitled "The Pope makes peace between science and faith" is patently absurd. Not only does the author fail to provide any arguments to support the claim the piece routinely slips into a whole slew of logical fallacies. Almost nothing stated stands up to even the slightest fact checking or critical thinking. Reading this short bit of tripe is rather tedious and painful. Kluger starts with a number of cheap shots at atheists and never gets much better in his reasoning. And, of course, a key point never seems to cross his mind.

The very idea that the head of one of the largest Christian denominations could ever bridge the gap between science and faith is ludicrous. For whom is Christianity named? The Christ figure is the antithesis of science and critical thinking. Who in their right mind can truly reconcile the notion that a person can spontaneously raise themselves from the dead? No one who really respects the scientific method can accept the resurrection stories. What about the miracles? What about the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. According to Catholic teaching the Eucharist literally, not symbolically, becomes the body of Christ the moment the priest blesses it. Since when is magic part of Science?

Sorry, Jeffrey Kluger, but you are a complete moron if you think the Pope's agreeing with scientific consensus on a few specific topics qualifies as making "peace between science and faith."

Well intended but...

Despite having criticized Karl Giberson on numerous occasions and even having questioned his motives in the past I think he does mean well in one of his recent HuffPo pieces, "Fundamentalists Think Science Is Atheism." And, even though he is correct about science and atheism not being synonyms he is wrong about virtually everything else in this short piece. Well meaning intentions are not enough.

The very opening sentences of the piece reveal just how ignorant, biased, and deluded he continues to be.
"Equating science with atheism is one of the most dangerous byproducts of America's culture wars. This strange polarization portends disaster, as the country divides into factions that cannot find common ground on the way the world operates."
Seriously?! This false equivalence is what he sees as the "most dangerous byproducts" of the culture wars. He doesn't see the continued interference of a minority of theocratic minded activists harassing and undermining the rights of everyone else as being more dangerous? He doesn't see religious inspired and/or religiously justified violence as more of a threat? As for finding "common ground on the way the world operates", I'm not convinced that is even remotely possible let alone desirable. If someone's views on the world are not grounded in reality why should I or anyone else give a fuck what they think?

I will not go so far as to say that the wishy-washy-kumbaya-lets-all-get-along approach is completely devoid of merit. This approach seems to be all Giberson relies on. The example he uses to show the type of "controversy" he wants to avoid is also very telling. Using the evangelical debate over the Adam and Eve myth as his primary example shows Giberson's own lack of grounding in reality. It never becomes apparent to him that he does an excellent job demonstrating that mixing the two terms "science" and "atheism" and their associated beliefs are far from being the "most dangerous byproducts." In fact, he unwittingly illustrates that willful ignorance and scientific illiteracy are far more dangerous.

All too common disconnect

The headline, "Many religious people view science favorably, but reject certain scientific theories", seems a little contradictory, even silly. Unfortunately, this is neither something new or uncommon. People frequently compartmentalize various aspects of their lives without ever noticing it let alone attempting to fix the problem. And, yes, it is a serious problem. Claiming to respect and accept science while simultaneously disrepsecting and rejecting does have rather negative consequences. This type of disconnect is one of the primary reason all sorets of supertitious nonsense is abkle to flourish in an age awash with useful practical information. It is one of the obstacles that so often prevents us from putting religion in its propere place; a garbage can.

Peresonally, I do not accept the claim that individual actually respect science if they also pay any deference to such things as Creationism. They don't. They in fact can't. Science is not about one theory or another but rather about the process by which such theories are developed and either maintained or replaced.

Still Credulous Connor

After reading his blog for a couple of years it would be nice to think that Connor Wood is finally going to attempt to put some "science" in his "Science on Religion" blog. Unfortunately, reality and skepticism prevent such a welcome idea. Connor has finally found a study that he can apply something resembling critical thought. I actually do agree with many of the points he makes in "Informal Study Finds Bloggers Can’t Tell Fact from Fiction" but his motives are highly suspect and there is no reason to believe he will from this point on be more critical of the studies, surveys, and reports he comments on. It is notable that the one study he actually offers decent criticism of just happens to be the only one he's written about that does not agree with his personal views. Being critical of only those works that you dislike is in no way a scientific or skeptical approach.

On a personal note, I would be quite happy if the study Connor attacks turned out to be accurate. I'd love to see a set of better designed experiments and better collection of observational data in this area. This does not, however, prevent me from acknowledging that "Judgments About Fact and Fiction by Children From Religious and Nonreligious Backgrounds” is very shoddy and nowhere near conclusive.

"...hurting science."?!

Once again Connor Wood has proven just how misnamed his Patheos blog is. His recent Science on Religion post, Steven Pinker: Stop bashing religion. You’re hurting science, is nearly as hypocritical as it is full of shit. He doesn't understand science and he certainly doesn't seem to know much about Steven Pinker either. The piece is so chock full of misrepresentations, conflations, logical fallacies, and errors its hard to know where to start. I will stick to just a few points.

One big mistake, though common enough, is Wood's insistence on using the largely bogus term Scientism. Any time a religious person doesn't like what a legitimate scientist, experiment, observation... has to say they tend to slap the label scientism on it. Either you support the scientific method and therefore science or you don't. If you pick and choose when you accept verifiable results you do not have any respect for the process so stop pretending you do.

This is where another major flaw with this post, and the blog as whole, comes in. Science on religion really should be renamed "Bullshit excuses labeled Science". I have read very few posts that did not include various double standards and a considerable amount of hypocrisy as a result. It is not unusual for Wood to hold science to a high standard, which it should be, but utterly fail to do the same when it comes to religion. The title above is absurd to the point of being funny. Religion, when it isn't directly attacking and disrespecting, degrades and belittles science by it's very nature. The whole notion that there are aspects of life that should be accepted on faith is antithetical to the scientific method. Religious people never demand that religion play nice with science so why should the reverse be automatically assumed. Fuck that. Of course, the idea that science goes out of its way to assault religion, which religion certainly does to science, is a myth. It isn't our fault religion and many of the religious are whiny cry-babies who can't handle where critical thinking leads.

Science and religion really are not compatible. I've written about this numerous times (Science Vs. Religion 11/6/11, among others) and have yet to see evidence to the contrary. If someone can explain how these two institutions are not polar opposites or what legitimate reasons science should take religion into account in any way I would love to read it.

A Year Late and Still Garbage

DiDonato never ceases to demonstrate just how much of a misnomer Science on Religion is for his Patheos blog. Last week's post "Why atheist scientists bring their children to church" seems like a complete waste of time. It isn't just that he is reporting on supposed finding that are over a year old, it is more notable that the research he notes was shoddy crap when it first appeared and it hasn't been improved upon.

I commented on the this "research" in a previous post of my own ("Atheist Scientists and Religious Traditions" December 10, 2012).

Are Weak Allies Better Than No Allies?

There has always been a question of whether atheists and theists can really work together to solve problems and/or achieve goals. To some degree I think it is possible. However, there are topics on which I'm not sure that such an alliance is really viable. I do appreciate that there are many religious people who are willing to stand up for science, at least to some degree. I am not saying I want them to give up on science but I'm not convinced that they are as supportive of science as they seem to think they are.

A recent post by Karl Giberson, who is a physicist himself, serves as a pretty good example. In "Is Evolution Satan's Great Lie?" he does seem to take Paul Broun's idiotic comments about science to task. The impression is only on the surface. At heart, Giberson does seem to be more of a creationist in a lab coat than a scientist. The third paragraph says quite a bit about his thinking and biases in a very short space.

"It is one thing to claim, invoking some authority from outside the mainstream, that evolution has weaknesses. Or that the evidence does not warrant the absolute certainty with which scientists embrace the theory. Or that some of the evidence for evolution has been compromised by recent discoveries. The Discovery Institute, where the heart of the intelligent design movement has been beating for some time, does this every day on its website. In principle one can have a conversation on those grounds."

Yes, evolution has its weaknesses. There is no perfection so that is not particularly insightful and scientist don't tend to think in "absolute certainties." I may not be a scientist myself but I do follow science news fairly closely and I am unaware any recent "discoveries" or "evidence" that compromises evolution. I am aware of a variety of apologists and pseudo-intellectuals claiming to have found new discoveries and weaknesses but they have all been shown to be religious BS wrapped up in science sounding language. I also would point out that if Giberson really believes that the Discovery Institute is conducting scientific research then his grasp on what constitute science is rather shoddy.

He goes on to talk about what some prominent fundamentalists believe to be true without much in the way of criticism. He seems to tacitly accept that Satan is real and that, though they are misguided, these individuals hold opinions that should be humored to some degree. Giberson, of course, never explains why they should be humored beyond the usual tropes and certainly never tries to explain how a supernatural figure can possibly be compatible with science at all.

Giberson's conclusion is also rather disturbing in its implication.

"Responding effectively to what look like crazy rants from people like Broun requires that we understand that, whatever we think of the rant, the viewpoint is widespread and shared by many of America's religious leaders. Evolution and the Big Bang will never win the allegiance of America's millions of fundamentalists on the basis of evidence. This conflict is a culture war pitting good against evil and the stakes are much higher."

They don't just look like "crazy rants" they are and they are potentially very dangerous. Science and reality don't bend to wishful thinking. It should not matter how popular an idea is. He offers no way to deal with this problem. In fact, he seems to be saying that we just let these nut-cases have their way. Is this really supporting science? How much help can someone like Giberson really be in the long run?

There's No God in My Genome

James McGrath doesn't seem to understand that even brilliant people can have foolish ideas. His whole piece, "The God of the Bible and the Genome," is centered around the notion that faith must be reasonable since a notable scientist like Francis Collins thinks it is. McGrath is enamored of a particular quotation of Collins, "The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshipped in the cathedral or the laboratory."

There are two main problems with McGrath's approach. First off, it is a common and particularly idiotic logical fallacy* that he is operating from, Argument form Authority. Just because Collins is well versed in the science of genetics does not mean he knows what he is talking about when comes to other topics. An individual can be an expert in more than one field and still be completely ignorant in any number of others.

Put bluntly, the other problem is that it is a steamy pile of bullshit. There is nothing in the genome that implicates the necessity for a God. The quote itself is quite revealing. It clearly shows how disconnected Collins' ability as a scientist in the field of genetics is from his personal religious beliefs. Not only is there nothing in science to "worship" the very idea is contradictory. Science is a continuous process of investigation. If you are glorifying science you are actively allowing bias to taint and therefore negate the process.

For the umteenth time, Science and Religion are not compatible. People can reconcile them within their own minds but that does not make the institutions of Science and Religion any less the polar opposite that they are.


*I have made numerous references in the past to logical fallacies. If you're not familiar with many of them the New England Skeptical Society has a pretty good summary of the 20 most common fallacies on their SGU site.

Religion as a Source of Cohesion

For a blog that is supposed to be about science, Science on Religion consistently has issues with details, nuance, and complexity. On more than one occasion they have posted on one specific study or experiment without paying attention to details or measuring it against any other work on the same topic. The July 19th post, "The evolution of Atheism", is a prime example of this lack of thought.

The first paragraph, as you would expect, sets the tone and nature of the piece quite nicely,
"Typically, when researchers study religion, they find that it brings various benefits to society: cohesion, cooperation, trust, etc. Religion evolved and persisted because of the gains religious cultures reaped. However, these findings implicitly seem to uplift religious people and make a puzzle out of atheists. If atheism (by implication) hurts the fabric of society, why did it evolve? What’s the evolutionary purpose of atheists? Political scientist Dominic Johnson (University of Edinburgh), rather than offering a definitive answer, instead suggests no less than ten possible hypotheses."

Right from the start, and throughout the piece, DiDonato simply accepts that not only is religion benificial but that it is innately and universally beneficial. If he bothered to look into the details of the various studies that have been done he would know that this is not the case. Cohesion and cooperation within a given religious group does occur. However, it occurs within a specif sets of circumstances. Once even a single one of those circumstances changes religion is just as likely to become divisive. In point of fact, many of these studies seem to indicate that once a religious group reaches a certain size and level of stability (from outside influences/threats) it tends to schism. He also overlooks a major reason that atheism is not that much of a "puzzle." 100% conformity or cohesion is never reached. There is no evidence that humans have ever completely agreed on anything. There is always at least a small faction that does not fit within the norm. These outliers would not necessarily agree with each other. There is also no evidence in these studies to reach the conclusion that atheism or any religious minority, for that matter, actually "hurts the fabric of society."

With his starting point being loaded with all manner of biases and logical fallacies it is not surprising that what follows is little more than a regurgitation of Dominic Johnson's views. Johnson does make some interesting points but none of them are that original or particularly well supported. DiDonato only briefly references Johnson's background. If you didn't notice it in the quotation above, he is a political scientist. This is an important field but not by itself of particular authority in regard to evolution. Remember, "evolution" is in the title of the piece. There is nothing to indicate that Johnson bothered looking into evolutionary biology or any other field more directly related to the study and research of evolution beyond lifting a term or two. So, where's the science? I could go on about some of the "ten possible hypotheses" but I'm not sure where to start and it is hardly worth bothering. I'll just give an idea of their nature by pointing out that one of them supposes "There are no atheists." An assertion that requires conflated a variety of unfounded beliefs together without any real reason. Yup, its that ridiculous.

I really wish those who post to this blog (it has more than one author) would either put a disclaimer at the beginning or change the name of the blog. They could forewarn that what they mean by "Science on Religion" is an interpretation of what they think passes as science.

Using Science to Justify Ignorance

Just the fact that some are posing the question, "Does the Higgs Boson Discovery Resolve the Religion-Science Debate?," says a lot. For a start, the "discovery" has not yet been confirmed. As far as I'm aware the various scientist involved with the Large Hadron Collider have not checked all their data or run the various tests necessary to confirm their initial finding. If theists (and the media) were more science literate they would know that there is a big difference between reporting initial findings for the sake of scrutiny and review and a confirmed discovery.

Setting aside that rather significant detail it is also important to note that simply giving a theoretical particle a nickname does not necessarily tell you anything about it. Referring to the Higgs-Boson Particle as the "God Particle" does not prove that it has any relationship to any religious doctrine or the concept of God. It's a nick name and an inappropriate one at that.

A third point involves the very idea of a debate between religion and science. It really isn't much of a debate. There is nothing in the structure of religion that requires evidence at all. How do you "debate" what amounts to willful ignorance? The very nature of these two institutions place them at odds with one another. That is also not really a matter of debate since all you need to do to reach such a conclusion is list their traits and compare them.

Basically, there isn't much of a debate to be had. The Higgs-Boson doesn't apply. And, if there is a resolution it would have to be that Science prevails over religion since it is based on evidence and religion is based on nothing more than wishful thinking, fear, and personal opinions.

Terrorism is not the Reason

"Interest in the scientific study of religion has surged over the past decade. While this development is positive in many ways, it comes largely for an unfortunate reason – global terrorism, exemplified most clearly by the September 11th attacks of ten years ago." There are a handful of things wrong with this statement made by Connor Wood on the Science on Religion blog but I will start with what seems to be the main point. Terrorism is not the main reason for studying religion in a scientific manner. This approach predates his primary example, September 11  attacks, by quite a bit. The development of modern science immediately led to greater scrutiny of religion. To be fair, it is true that the mainstream media has largely ignored this trend until fairly recently. Dennett's book Breaking the Spell was one of the first to get any attention but it was preceded by decades of scholarly research by not only himself but a wide number of others

Whether Wood intended his statement to be delusional and arrogant it certainly comes across that way. Global terrorism is not new, not even here in the US. Unfortunately,terrorism has always been used. Just because the average American had no sense of these horrors does not mean they did not exist on a large scale before 2001. Wood's erroneous piece carries this foolishness over to its basic position, which is not even hinted at in the opening sentences. He never establishes anything resembling scientific evidence that terrorism is explainable through evolutionary theory. He conflates the work of others regarding the evolutionary explanation of religion as a whole with this specific offshoot. For instance, "So religion, while originally merely a random offshoot of other, unrelated cognitive adaptations, is now an adaptive function." There is reason to believe that religion over time became an adaptive function but that says nothing about terrorism. It also says nothing about contemporary terrorism. it could be argued that religion is no longer an "adaptive function." There are, after all, plenty of evolutionary remnants that no longer serve their original purpose. They simply have not become detrimental enough for the evolutionary process to weed them out.

This is not to say I disagree with looking into the root causes of terrorism. If we are to have any hope of decreasing its use we need to study it honestly and thoroughly. And, yes, religion does seem to be a key component but is not the only one. We should never overlook any aspect of this heinous and deadly practice. Socio-economic and political issues are also key factors that should be reviewed.

Science Vs. Religion, Revisited

I have posted on this topic on a handful of occasions. The first such post was November 6, 2011. Unfortunately, not much has changed. The topic keeps popping up with the same old misunderstandings and misdirections. Among the recent examples is a post on on the Patheos aggregator. Connor Woods March 5, 2012 post, "Religious Americans: science is mostly okay", rehashes a few specific fallacies but also adds a slightly new perspective to one of them.

Despite the blog being titled Science on Religion, it is rather light on the science. Wood falls for the assumption that if most Americans are religious and most believers in America claim to be supportive of science then the conflict between science and religion must be overly hyped. Not necessarily. As I have previously pointed out the fact that individuals can find ways to reconcile different and contradictory views does not mean there is no conflict. Even though individuals can and do find ways to mitigate these contradictions in their own minds does not mean that science and religion as institutions are not still by their nature opposites. They do clash and must clash.

The interesting twist doesn't seem to be fully understood or even noticed by Wood. He points out that the average American supports science right up to the point that scientific findings fail to fit their personal beliefs. It never occurs to Wood that this actually indicates the opposite of what he is trying to demonstrate. Supporting science only so long as it does not make you uncomfortable is not really an affirmation of science. Science is intended to be as objective as possible. The scientific method does not change to accommodate your feelings.

I don't want anyone to become less supportive of science but I also see no reason to make false claims about public support for science. To my way of thinking this confirms that the two institutions and ways of thinking are not compatible. The "a-la-carte" approach to religion seems fairly common and does not seem to reduce the effectiveness or appeal of faith. On the other hand, this approach outright negates scientific study.

Religion is still entirely subjective and unfounded. It continues to be a top down institution that resists change and encourages ignorance. Science still remains the only method capable of leading to an outlook that is as objective and verifiable as humanly possible. They are not equals and they are not compatible.

Science, Religion, and False "Peacemakers"

Karl Giberson's Huffington Post piece, "The Top Peacemaker in the Science-Religion Wars: John Polkinghorne," is yet another example of just how ignorant people are when it comes to distinguishing between individual perspectives on specific institutions and the nature of those institutions. In a previous post (Science Vs. Religion, November 6, 2011) I pointed out how it is possible for individuals to not find conflict between religion and science but that that is not the same as there not being a conflict.

The notion of a "peacemaker" to the conflict between religion and science is ludicrous. The conflict is innate. These institutions are opposites in many ways. To me this claim would be the same as saying we can have both full light and full darkness simultaneously. We can't! It is not possible. By their basic traits and definitions religion and science as institutions are not reconcilable.

For the record, "peacemakers" like Polkinghorne should be seen as diluting science and blurring the distinct lines between the two institutions. That is a horrible thing. Any theist who wants to argue I suggest trying to live without any modern technology (medicine, computers, transportation, etc...) and instead try living by religious doctrines and traditions alone.

Misused and Abused: Correlation

One of the phrases I have frequently heard being both misused and abused is "correlation is not causation." Technically that is a true enough statement. Unfortunately, the way it is used is frequently misleading, contradictory, and hypocritical. Theists, or theists of a certain stripe, tend to wield it like a ignorant cudgel. Their intention is to change the subject at hand or end the argument outright. They do not get the subtle difference between saying it does not automatically follow that correlation indicates causation and the notion that with further investigation it may turn out that the specific correlation may actually mean causation.

Correlation of events, phenomena, etc. is more than enough reason to investigate. The correlation may indicate causation. There is no way to know whether it does until further investigations are made. Simply stating, "correlation is not causation", does not prove or disprove anything. Using that one set of words to end a discussion/debate or an inquiry of any type is an abuse of the concepts innate to the phrase. It is intended to convey the basic principle of the scientific method. Until you observe, test, review, and retest the statement is essentially hollow.

It is also contradictory since most of the theists who enjoy using the phrase to attack any science based arguments they come across will never apply it to their own beliefs. Nearly all of our understanding of the early formation of Christianity is based on correlation, at least to some degree. Many of the religious based reform movements we now associate with the early Christian church contain elements that predate the time frame that Jesus Christ presumably lived.  A number of early scriptures that reference Christ can also be read symbolically. There is reason to believe that they require a physical being. Some of the specific early groups may not have actually been "Christian" when they initially formed but rather became "Christian." Correlating all these elements is widely seen as the cause both of the "Christ" figure we eventually named Jesus and the early Christian faith. This may be true or it may not be. It may be true that without correlation there never would have been a Christ figure to latch onto.

Correlation should encourage and inspire inquiry not stifle it.

Science Vs. Religion

It seems that this debate will never end. I think part of the problem is that there are actually two very different perspectives that people tend to argue from without being aware or acknowledging it. Those who insist that there either is no conflict or does not need to be one tend to argue from an individualistic perspective while those that insist there is and must be a conflict argue from an institutional perspective.

When approaching the question of whether science and religion oppose each other from an individualistic perspective the answer becomes as varied as there are individuals making the argument. It is true that from this view the two do not need to conflict. However, it is very subjective and misleading. We, as human beings, are capable of rationalizing and harmonizing what ever we want. This does not mean the conflict does not exist it just means for specific individuals the conflict does not exist. A scientist may be very good at conducting research within their given field without ever mixing personal views into it. It is possible to compartmentalize different aspects of our lives. It amounts to keeping two aspects as separate as possible. If they never intermingle or only mix to the slightest degree then avoiding conflict is rather easy.

If you look at the argument from an institutional perspective there really can be no argument. The two conflict and must conflict. In most respects science and religion are opposites. In terms of structure, religion is top down while science is bottom up. Most religions do not allow the average believer any say in who leads the religion or in what doctrines or rites are to be followed. It is determined at the top and those below are simply expected to adhere. Without multiple individuals and groups constantly conducting research and experiments there is no science. Constant testing and review by those within a field create the consensus that leads to further developments. It is this process of constantly reviewing what has come before while seeking further information that makes science what it is.

Science is as much a process as it is a body of knowledge. It is constantly self-correcting and therefore changing, progressing. Religion does change but very slowly and usually with a great deal of resistance and difficulty. It is not self-correcting. In fact it tends to be self-insulating. It frequently claims infallibility and that it possesses eternal unchanging truths. When forced to change most religions rarely admit to error they just make a preposterous claim that it has found new insights or perspectives based on the old one. Usually, this new "insight" amounts to a semantics game. The terminology and presentation change but the underlying philosophy is essentially the same.

Despite frequent claims to the contrary, Science does not have any sacred texts. Origin of the Species is not the bible of evolutionary biologists. It is an important work for historical reasons but the theory of Evolution has progressed far beyond what that one book contains. Every work of science no matter how important a role it may have played is subject to scrutiny. Virtually every religion has at least one sacred text. Religions may seek to interpret the text in slightly different ways over time but in the end it is never question that the text is divinely inspired and therefore must contain truth. Scrutiny is generally avoided if not outright forbidden. In science, the very notion of "received wisdom" is abhorrent. Wisdom can not simply be handed out like a door prize. Simply following a text, doctrine, or leader is no way to discover what is true.

Science has no holy men. Those who are afforded considerable respect are done so for their work. If they do not follow the strict standards of scientific research they will lose respect. Clergy are given respect simply because they are clergy. They need never demonstrate any insight or skill. That isn't to say there are not talented clergy. I know there are but that is not the same as earning respect rather than having it handed to you simply because of the position you hold.

In the end the knowledge gained from science is tested and reviewed constantly. It is based on objective standards. the "knowledge" from religion is based on faith. it is based on blindly following those who happen to be in leadership positions or have gained a following. Religion is highly subjective and therefore with little foundation. From an institutional perspective, science and religion really are opposites and do conflict. In this way the argument is foolish. Individual rationalizations do not make religion rational. Religion is simply a matter of opinion and can never rise beyond it. Its structure does not allow it to ever rise above its own subjectivity.

Science must conflict with religion. I only hope that it will eventually supplant religion entirely. Religion is one of our species dead ends.