Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[Senkaku]

My contention is not that bad things do not help people grow and change, this is proven.

My contention is that it is immoral for an ostensibly benevolent, and omnipotent, God to create a world wherein there is incredible injustice and suffering, such that it is far more damaging than the lessons we learn by it.

What lessons did Haiti need to learn from the earthquake that killed between 100,000-350,000 people? Was Haiti in need of something especially bad so it could "develop" more?
What about South East Asia Tsunami that killed almost a quarter of a million people? How can we say that that allowed for people do do good for others, so it was justifiable for God to allow it?

And that is just two natural disasters! Think of the diseases, and numerous other abhorrent things that occur on our planet.

It is a disgusting philosophy. And, as I said, if God really works in that way, I want nothing to do with an entity with so much blood on its hands.

I disagree in my own experience.

I also disagree with the interpretation that we're meant to be "taught" something by every hardship. Sometimes there is nothing to be learned when something bad happens, good people get hurt. I can't give you any answers as to why those things happened in a spiritual sense, nobody could because that's beyond our ken. But at the very least, such disasters are opportunities to think beyond ourselves and do good for others, whether it happens or is allowed to happen for that reason I can't say, but it's clear from the Christian outlook that's our call to be there for those that suffer.

It doesn't take that serious of a disaster to inspire that sort of reflection. If contemplating why random acts of evil occur and how we can help others through them is the end good produced by a natural disaster, then it seems to me that there's a lot of cases where the harm caused by the principal event significantly outweighs that secondary good.

[Jedi Council]

My contention is not that bad things do not help people grow and change, this is proven.

My contention is that it is immoral for an ostensibly benevolent, and omnipotent, God to create a world wherein there is incredible injustice and suffering, such that it is far more damaging than the lessons we learn by it.

What lessons did Haiti need to learn from the earthquake that killed between 100,000-350,000 people? Was Haiti in need of something especially bad so it could "develop" more?
What about South East Asia Tsunami that killed almost a quarter of a million people? How can we say that that allowed for people do do good for others, so it was justifiable for God to allow it?

And that is just two natural disasters! Think of the diseases, and numerous other abhorrent things that occur on our planet.

It is a disgusting philosophy. And, as I said, if God really works in that way, I want nothing to do with an entity with so much blood on its hands.

I disagree in my own experience.

I also disagree with the interpretation that we're meant to be "taught" something by every hardship. Sometimes there is nothing to be learned when something bad happens, good people get hurt. I can't give you any answers as to why those things happened in a spiritual sense, nobody could because that's beyond our ken. But at the very least, such disasters are opportunities to think beyond ourselves and do good for others, whether it happens or is allowed to happen for that reason I can't say, but it's clear from the Christian outlook that's our call to be there for those that suffer.

But why should I love a God who has the capability to save untold lives, and to alleviate so much necessary and unjust suffering, but refuses to do so?

If I had a cure for Cancer, but instead told someone who had terminal cancer that there was nothing I could do, I would be considered a monster.
The same goes for natural disasters; if I had the ability to have stopped the Haiti earthquake, but just shrugged and let it happen, there would not be a single person on this Earth who would not hold me in contempt.
It would become even worse if I leaned in close and said "Oh, you suffering people just do not understand my plan," or "You need to have an opportunity to think beyond yourself." That would be the height of arrogance, ego, and an apparent disregard for human life.

If God is omnipotent, and if God is benevolent, he is doing a really bad job of being either.

[Salus Maior]

I disagree. Because it's God that commands we care for the sick and for children in such a way, and is our help as we strive for that goal.

Yeah, after he got them sick.

Listen, giving kids a stomach bug or whatever, and making the rest of us take care of them and be nice? That's fine, I see the case for saying we need a little adversity to overcome in our own lives and to make us more caring and empathetic towards others, etc. Maybe even appendicitis is morally sorta understandable - it's serious enough that it really frightens people and demands that we take caring for each other seriously, but it's also pretty straightforward to treat and almost everyone can catch it in time and have it dealt with.

Giving toddlers end-stage bone cancer, where no one could've done anything to detect it in time and no one can save them? Starting wars that result in entire cities full of people being carpet-bombed, or setting off volcanoes that bury whole provinces in ash? All that shit seems a little overboard, if the goal is to make us ultimately better for having gone through it. No one is "better" for having almost everyone they know killed in some freak boating disaster.

We practicing 12th century medicine now?

God doesn't "give" anyone illness. There's scientific explanations for why people get ill, we know where it comes from and it's part of how we learn how to cure and treat them.

As for wars, that's completely humanity's fault, born from our own sinfulness. As for the rest, don't know.

[Jedi Council]

Yeah, after he got them sick.

Listen, giving kids a stomach bug or whatever, and making the rest of us take care of them and be nice? That's fine, I see the case for saying we need a little adversity to overcome in our own lives and to make us more caring and empathetic towards others, etc. Maybe even appendicitis is morally sorta understandable - it's serious enough that it really frightens people and demands that we take caring for each other seriously, but it's also pretty straightforward to treat and almost everyone can catch it in time and have it dealt with.

Giving toddlers end-stage bone cancer, where no one could've done anything to detect it in time and no one can save them? Starting wars that result in entire cities full of people being carpet-bombed, or setting off volcanoes that bury whole provinces in ash? All that shit seems a little overboard, if the goal is to make us ultimately better for having gone through it. No one is "better" for having almost everyone they know killed in some freak boating disaster.

We practicing 12th century medicine now?

God doesn't "give" anyone illness. There's scientific explanations for why people get ill, we know where it comes from and it's part of how we learn how to cure and treat them.

As for wars, that's completely humanity's fault, born from our own sinfulness. As for the rest, don't know.

But he must have designed them, no? Or intended for them to come about?

Even if he did not, then he must be able to solve them. If he isn't, he is not very omnipotent now is he.

[Lawrence Butcher]

I'm going to be heavily semi-related on this, but disculpame.
And also for my English. Its only my 3rd language.

Are Religion and Science Compatible?
Only if it supports the given religion's leaders intention to make more money! ($_$)

In my opinion religion is for people who don't know what to do and too weak to think for themselves/believe in themselves.

Religious people think there is a heaven after we die, so they are calm (mostly; which is good - for others, because they can crush them more easily)
It of course don't stands for the leaders of the religious people. They know there is no "afterlife" or any BS like that; we have to make our own heaven in this burning hell, called Earth.

And there is why the religious leaders live good from the religious people. They know what is up, and they protect the sheep from the ones who want to crush them - for a good amount of protection money (working for them for free is money too).

People are not bad, it is just the rule of nature; if you are weak you'll be outplayed, because everyone want to progress in their life and we basically take the goods from each other (i.e.: if you're stupid, the clever will take away what is yours, or what could have been yours if you would have not been stupid. And here comes why socialism is BS too; because it would mean we save every of our stupids, and i don't want to start on that why its bad, but we're already overpopulated this planet, and saving your weak corrupts the gene pool; not to mention anything else (sociology, and political related issues).

All in all; believing in a beautiful, problemless, and happy "next life", or heaven is literally saying "I have given up. I won't fight for myself, I won't participate in this madness"(which is your life, the only one you have. So you basically wasting it for others own good one way or another).

[Salus Maior]

But why should I love a God who has the capability to save untold lives, and to alleviate so much necessary and unjust suffering, but refuses to do so?

If I had a cure for Cancer, but instead told someone who had terminal cancer that there was nothing I could do, I would be considered a monster.
The same goes for natural disasters; if I had the ability to have stopped the Haiti earthquake, but just shrugged and let it happen, there would not be a single person on this Earth who would not hold me in contempt.
It would become even worse if I leaned in close and said "Oh, you suffering people just do not understand my plan," or "You need to have an opportunity to think beyond yourself." That would be the height of arrogance, ego, and an apparent disregard for human life.

If God is omnipotent, and if God is benevolent, he is doing a really bad job of being either.

I'm not asking you to love God. I'm not asking you to do anything.

I don't have any answers for you. As I've already said multiple times. However, I think it's worthy to note that God typically works through people who have faith in Him in the Bible, not usually by random miracles that happen out of nowhere (there are exceptions that I'm sure you want to jump on). It is also worthy to note that in the New Testament it is often stated that the love of God is shown through the same people, and that God works through the people who have faith in Him. So when you see the church at its best and doing good works, that is what you're seeing, at least in our own understanding.

It doesn't take that serious of a disaster to inspire that sort of reflection. If contemplating why random acts of evil occur and how we can help others through them is the end good produced by a natural disaster, then it seems to me that there's a lot of cases where the harm caused by the principal event significantly outweighs that secondary good.

Didn't say it had to, nor did I really say that's definitely why bad things are allowed to happen. As I keep saying, I don't know, I can only muse. Applying meaning to tragedy is a subjective thing; what makes sense to one person probably won't to another.

[Salus Maior]

We practicing 12th century medicine now?

God doesn't "give" anyone illness. There's scientific explanations for why people get ill, we know where it comes from and it's part of how we learn how to cure and treat them.

As for wars, that's completely humanity's fault, born from our own sinfulness. As for the rest, don't know.

But he must have designed them, no? Or intended for them to come about?

Even if he did not, then he must be able to solve them. If he isn't, he is not very omnipotent now is he.

Perhaps it's our responsibility to solve them.

[Mirjt]

@The United States of Iowa

This is going to be addressing some of your arguments. Before I do that I will state my position, I am a Progressive Christian, I believe in the co-existence of most religious faiths and non-religious viewpoints, I am pro-science, I am against using religion to deny science, I am against using science to attack religion, and I am arguing for the compatibility of religion and science. From what I can tell you are in fact arguing that religion and science are not compatible, that a literalist interpretation of the Christian Bible is true without a shadow of doubt (ignoring other religious viewpoints), and that when science and that literalist interpretation of the Christian Bible conflict that it means that the scientists misunderstood something.

I would like to address your arguments.

According to epistemology (the field of philosophy that deals with truth, knowledge, and how we know what we know) it is impossible for anything to have 100% certainty. You can always argue that there is another unknown factor or circumstance, or that God did something we don't or can't understand, that would make scientific conclusions false. However, that is not a good argument, or particularly useful, or particularly convincing. The scientific methods (which may even be flawed) gives us reasonable certainty about its conclusions and will often even judge it own uncertainty or accuracy through instruments like p-values. By the same argument the universe could have been made 5 minutes ago and all our memories and evidence implanted, though that is unlikely if we are using reason and is impossible to disprove and not very useful a hypothesis.

You mention the presence of dinosaurs in cave paintings. I have not heard or seen anything related to dinosaurs in cave painting, but assuming this is true (I also give the benefit of the doubt), it can easily be explained by ancient hominids seeing the fossilized remains of dinosaurs (which is also the only means we have of studying dinosaurs as well), and simply drawing things based off of that. In fact it is thought that some mythological figures, like cyclops (after all the hole a decayed horn may leave in some animals skull can look like a hole for an eye socket) and so on, may be misinterpretations of the fossil record. Also the presence of fossils of aquatic life on mountaintops is not evidence of a global flooding, it just means that at one point the land had aquatic life on it and was once part of the seabed or riverfloor or some other body of water before geologic processes push it up and created that mountaintop.

Someone mentioned that the days in the story of creation are not literal days, but the story itself is literal. They argue that these days (and the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis is also the word or era or period of time) could really be stretches of billions of years. You counter argued that the presence of the words that mean morning and evening indicate that they were literal days (though even if true, does not mean the story itself is literal), but if the days are not literal why would the terms morning and evening be literal.

You also seem to be misrepresenting biological evolution and genetics.

* Firstly one can believe in biological evolution and a creator deity, in Christianity it is called theistic evolution.

* You also mention that Adam and Eve had enough genetic diversity for everyone, and that does not make sense. Genetic diversity refers to how many different variations there are in the human genome, and how non-comformed our genetic profile as a species is. By definition all the children of Adam and Eve (if they existed, at least as literalists imagine they did), would have had half their genes from Adam and half from Eve, and if they were truly the only members of our species alive at the time, they would only be passing around a small collection of the same genes, with a small number of mutations that likely would be unexpressed, and that is not enough genetic diversity to sustain a species that reproduces by sexual reproduction. (Though, interestingly enough, humans do have extremely little genetic diversity compared to other species, likely due to one or more population bottlenecks in our ancient history, making us almost like clones of each other).

* I hope I explain this well, I may be trying to be over detailed. Evolution is not one species magically turning into another over night, evolution is not a linear process where you can predict the next step and that all species follow the steps. Evolution is the process by which over time, new species come about from previously existing species. This happens to populations, not to individuals. Random genetic mutations introduce new traits to a species or magnify existing traits. Traits that help an individual survive (at least long enough the reproduce, the more often the better) or reproduce, get passed on to the next generation and over time will spread through a population, and traits that harm an individual's chances of survival or reproduction don't get passed on and shrink within a population. Over time the accumulation of specific or novel traits and the changes in the genome expressed by those traits make it so that the species is unique enough that it can no longer reproduce or are at least notably morphological different from other organisms that share a common ancestory. Different populations of the same species may end up evolving along different paths if they are unable to share genetic information with one another for any reason. Even the concept of species is not a strict concept, because species could be described to be on a spectrum. That is why the species of homo sapien, to which we belong, has at least two sub-species, homo sapien sapien (modern humans) and homo sapien neanthralis. That is why two closely related species may still be able to share genetic information either both ways, or only one way, or result in infertile offspring, etc... That is why two species of certain birds that are unable to reproduce with one another can still share genetic information because they can both reproduce with a third species that is somewhat closely related to both of them. That is why we are still considered apes (taxonomically), as there are two kinds of apes, the lesser apes (like gibbons) and the great apes, and the great apes can be divided into four sub-types, the gorillas, the chimpanzees, the orangutans, and the hominids, like ourselves.

* You may ask, that while this process makes sense, how do we know it is true? It is true that we would have difficulty watching evolution play out in real time for species that have long lives, or don't reproduce as rapidly as others, or have genetic safeguards that reduce the rate of mutation, etc... but there are enough species that reproduces rapidly, with lots of offspring, with short enough lives to have lots of generations in a short period of time, that we can observe natural selection and evolution occurring. There is also fossil evidence, other kinds of genetic evidence, etc... I am sure you can look up evidence for evolution and find long lists of evidence, the same applies to the lifespan of the Universe and Earth. Of course some of the evidence is hard to make sense of without background contexts and understanding first, but if you are genuinely curious about the scientific arguments for evolution and the timespan of the Universe, I would hope you would be willing to read up on the subject.

I apologize if this sounded condescending or if I rambled on for far too long.

[The New Last Order]

The last one got locked because it died.
But have at it, is religion and science compatible at all? Somewhat? What religions or views are compatible?
Here is the link to the original thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=475180

I have a challenge fr religious believers.

Stop seeking doctors. If you are afflicted with a disease, pray over it. Doesn’t the scriptures teach the God or the Gods will heal it ? Fine. Avoid surgery or medicine. The Lord or Gods you follow will do it by prayer. Surely as the scriptures say you will live.
This experiment will go on a full year. If there are more healings from it, the Lord or the Gods get all the credit. If not, then one should question the real presence of the Lord or the Gods.

[Senkaku]

Yeah, after he got them sick.

Listen, giving kids a stomach bug or whatever, and making the rest of us take care of them and be nice? That's fine, I see the case for saying we need a little adversity to overcome in our own lives and to make us more caring and empathetic towards others, etc. Maybe even appendicitis is morally sorta understandable - it's serious enough that it really frightens people and demands that we take caring for each other seriously, but it's also pretty straightforward to treat and almost everyone can catch it in time and have it dealt with.

Giving toddlers end-stage bone cancer, where no one could've done anything to detect it in time and no one can save them? Starting wars that result in entire cities full of people being carpet-bombed, or setting off volcanoes that bury whole provinces in ash? All that shit seems a little overboard, if the goal is to make us ultimately better for having gone through it. No one is "better" for having almost everyone they know killed in some freak boating disaster.

We practicing 12th century medicine now?

God doesn't "give" anyone illness. There's scientific explanations for why people get ill, we know where it comes from and it's part of how we learn how to cure and treat them.

An omniscient, omnipotent being “letting” something happen is the same as them actively doing it.

The sensible way to go on believing, imo, is to just give up part of the omni, not part of the benevolence. I’m not sure if I believe in an omni God or a good God, but I definitely don’t think those would mean the same thing in terms of my outlook on religion if I found out.

As for wars, that's completely humanity's fault, born from our own sinfulness.

Fair enough, I just notice other people are fond of saying God took a side in some of them.

As for the rest, don't know.

Didn't say it had to, nor did I really say that's definitely why bad things are allowed to happen. As I keep saying, I don't know, I can only muse.

Isn’t it sort of a cop out to basically make the whole case and then say “well I don’t know I’m just musing” at the end when pushed? I mean, either you believe something to be true about God or you don’t, and you presumably have a case for why you think that thing - either make the case, or don’t, but if you’re participating in the conversation I don’t know why you wouldn’t be making it.

Applying meaning to tragedy is a subjective thing; what makes sense to one person probably won't to another.

Well, have you been describing the way you assign meaning, then? Or just “musing” on *a* way?

[Godular]

As someone who has to watch his father devolve further and further into early-onset alzheimer's by the day, if God exists, he's a fucking asshole.

Everyone goes through hardships, and egregious ones. I still remember to this day what my Papa looked like the last time I saw him, in the final stages of liver cancer, even though he did nothing to deserve that and lived a totally upright and health-focused life.

But that's only one part of life, something we hyper-focus on to the exclusion of others, and while there's understandable reasons for that there's a wider picture where's there's a great deal of good.

I would make the case that any 'good' you see is in spite of, not because of, any god that may or may not exist. If any purportedly all-powerful and all-loving God exists, those tiny tragedies that have no seeming rhyme or reason to them are not the result of unfortunate luck or genetic proclivities, but direct intent. Whether by action or inaction, that tragedy would be their fault.

[Albrenia]

Everyone goes through hardships, and egregious ones. I still remember to this day what my Papa looked like the last time I saw him, in the final stages of liver cancer, even though he did nothing to deserve that and lived a totally upright and health-focused life.

But that's only one part of life, something we hyper-focus on to the exclusion of others, and while there's understandable reasons for that there's a wider picture where's there's a great deal of good.

I would make the case that any 'good' you see is in spite of, not because of, any god that may or may not exist. If any purportedly all-powerful and all-loving God exists, those tiny tragedies that have no seeming rhyme or reason to them are not the result of unfortunate luck or genetic proclivities, but direct intent. Whether by action or inaction, that tragedy would be their fault.

That's why, to me, I find the idea of Zoroastrian style duality more compelling that monotheism. A singular, all-knowing and all-powerful deity is inherently 'at fault' for everything that occurs since they have the power to stop it at no cost to themselves, see it coming, see it happening, and yet do nothing.

[Bombadil]

Everyone goes through hardships, and egregious ones. I still remember to this day what my Papa looked like the last time I saw him, in the final stages of liver cancer, even though he did nothing to deserve that and lived a totally upright and health-focused life.

But that's only one part of life, something we hyper-focus on to the exclusion of others, and while there's understandable reasons for that there's a wider picture where's there's a great deal of good.

I would make the case that any 'good' you see is in spite of, not because of, any god that may or may not exist. If any purportedly all-powerful and all-loving God exists, those tiny tragedies that have no seeming rhyme or reason to them are not the result of unfortunate luck or genetic proclivities, but direct intent. Whether by action or inaction, that tragedy would be their fault.

That's not even to speak of the weird evolutionary niches certain insects and animals have found themselves in, if God's a designer he's a complete bastard.

[Albrenia]

I would make the case that any 'good' you see is in spite of, not because of, any god that may or may not exist. If any purportedly all-powerful and all-loving God exists, those tiny tragedies that have no seeming rhyme or reason to them are not the result of unfortunate luck or genetic proclivities, but direct intent. Whether by action or inaction, that tragedy would be their fault.

That's not even to speak of the weird evolutionary niches certain insects and animals have found themselves in, if God's a designer he's a complete bastard.

The horror of life in the wild is something else to behold. I don't think many people consider the suffering of animals as compelling as we do though.

[Jedi Council]

But why should I love a God who has the capability to save untold lives, and to alleviate so much necessary and unjust suffering, but refuses to do so?

If I had a cure for Cancer, but instead told someone who had terminal cancer that there was nothing I could do, I would be considered a monster.
The same goes for natural disasters; if I had the ability to have stopped the Haiti earthquake, but just shrugged and let it happen, there would not be a single person on this Earth who would not hold me in contempt.
It would become even worse if I leaned in close and said "Oh, you suffering people just do not understand my plan," or "You need to have an opportunity to think beyond yourself." That would be the height of arrogance, ego, and an apparent disregard for human life.

If God is omnipotent, and if God is benevolent, he is doing a really bad job of being either.

I'm not asking you to love God. I'm not asking you to do anything.

I don't have any answers for you. As I've already said multiple times. However, I think it's worthy to note that God typically works through people who have faith in Him in the Bible, not usually by random miracles that happen out of nowhere (there are exceptions that I'm sure you want to jump on). It is also worthy to note that in the New Testament it is often stated that the love of God is shown through the same people, and that God works through the people who have faith in Him. So when you see the church at its best and doing good works, that is what you're seeing, at least in our own understanding.

It doesn't take that serious of a disaster to inspire that sort of reflection. If contemplating why random acts of evil occur and how we can help others through them is the end good produced by a natural disaster, then it seems to me that there's a lot of cases where the harm caused by the principal event significantly outweighs that secondary good.

Didn't say it had to, nor did I really say that's definitely why bad things are allowed to happen. As I keep saying, I don't know, I can only muse. Applying meaning to tragedy is a subjective thing; what makes sense to one person probably won't to another.

The problem is not the way he works, it's that the idea of an omnipotent being means that even if his preferred method is to work via human interlocutors, he must have the ability solve problems on his own.

But he must have designed them, no? Or intended for them to come about?

Even if he did not, then he must be able to solve them. If he isn't, he is not very omnipotent now is he.

Perhaps it's our responsibility to solve them.

Well if that is the case then God is either lazy, incompetent or an asshole.

Maybe all three?

[Bombadil]

That's not even to speak of the weird evolutionary niches certain insects and animals have found themselves in, if God's a designer he's a complete bastard.

The horror of life in the wild is something else to behold. I don't think many people consider the suffering of animals as compelling as we do though.

Take the Emerald Cockroach Wasp.

This little fucker will sting a cockroach to temporarily paralyse it. While paralysed it will sting its brain to block the reaction to escape. It then chews the antennas to an acceptable length so it can lead the cockroach, like a dog on a leash, to its burrow. It then lays a couple of eggs in the cockroach that then hatch and.. get this.. eat the cockroach in an order that keeps it alive the longest, devouring the organs last.

Now I'm no fan of cockroaches but, first, there's plenty other animals that are far more humane in their treatment of cockroaches as food, and, second, that's the only point to the wasp's existence, it does fuck all else. It doesn't flower plants, it isn't a vital food for anything, it has no point other than to fuck up a cockroaches week in the worst way possible.

Well done god, you sadistic little bastard.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

I don't think talking about whether God is loving or not has anything to do with the topic of whether religion is compatible with science.

[Bombadil]

I don't think talking about whether God is loving or not has anything to do with the topic of whether religion is compatible with science.

Well the thing is.. if no one can agree on what god is or not then he's utterly irrelevant. As I've noted before, it's not a question of compatibility, it's a moot question, they're entirely different things.

[Albrenia]

And again I wonder off topic. Sorry.

I'm still of the opinion that they're not inherently incompatible, although the specifics of individual religions or believers can make it so.

[Bombadil]

And again I wonder off topic. Sorry.

I'm still of the opinion that they're not inherently incompatible, although the specifics of individual religions or believers can make it so.

I mean.. science requires nothing of religion to exist and religion requires nothing of science to exist.

[Mirjt]

I would make the case that any 'good' you see is in spite of, not because of, any god that may or may not exist. If any purportedly all-powerful and all-loving God exists, those tiny tragedies that have no seeming rhyme or reason to them are not the result of unfortunate luck or genetic proclivities, but direct intent. Whether by action or inaction, that tragedy would be their fault.

That's why, to me, I find the idea of Zoroastrian style duality more compelling that monotheism. A singular, all-knowing and all-powerful deity is inherently 'at fault' for everything that occurs since they have the power to stop it at no cost to themselves, see it coming, see it happening, and yet do nothing.

The first thing that comes to my mind when I think of the sort of duality your describing is actually the beliefs of the early Gnostic Christians, and texts such as the Gospel of Judas. The Gospel of Judas was not included in the canonical Christian Bible, and many, though not all Gnostics considered the Gospel of Judas to be sacred. In the Gospel of Judas it describes there being two Gods. One true God whom is love, and Jesus being the son of the true God, and one false God that was created as an agent (like an angel) by the true God. The false God is the one that created the Earth, is one who is not all-good, in fact it is vengeful and angry. The true God in an effort to rescue us, sent us Jesus to save us. Here is a video from a YouTube channel Religion for Breakfast (which goes over religious studies, not theology), that talks about the Gospel of Judas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Tv2vY3ga3g .

[Jack Thomas Lang]

I mean.. science requires nothing of religion to exist and religion requires nothing of science to exist.

So? That doesn't stop them from being compatible. They can and do coexist, all the time in fact. for a large part of Human History. .

[Mirjt]

I don't think talking about whether God is loving or not has anything to do with the topic of whether religion is compatible with science.

That is a good point, though the problem of evil/suffering is a tangential to the topic of compatibilty between religion or science, so it could have some merit for the discussion at hand.

[Bombadil]

I mean.. science requires nothing of religion to exist and religion requires nothing of science to exist.

So? That doesn't stop them from being compatible. They can and do coexist, all the time in fact. for a large part of Human History. .

Typically compatible does signify a degree of working together, whether a program is compatible with my OS assumes some need for them to work together. This is more like asking whether a banana is compatible with my OS, sure they co-exist, but they serve entirely different purposes and the question of whether they're compatible is moot.

Even if I take the exact definition.

adjective
(of two things) able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict.

Ok, well then no, they're not compatible, clearly.

[Mirjt]

So? That doesn't stop them from being compatible. They can and do coexist, all the time in fact. for a large part of Human History. .

Typically compatible does signify a degree of working together, whether a program is compatible with my OS assumes some need for them to work together. This is more like asking whether a banana is compatible with my OS, sure they co-exist, but they serve entirely different purposes and the question of whether they're compatible is moot.

Even if I take the exact definition.

adjective
(of two things) able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict.

Ok, well then no, they're not compatible, clearly.

A lot of fighting and misunderstanding can occur when people are using different definitions for the same words (as valid of those different definitions are). Thank you for your clear and precise definitions. They help to provide context for your argument.