>>17056325>Why have these two concepts always seemed to be diametrically opposedHave they been?
I'm no expert, this seems like a question for sociologists, but they are too buisy dealing with trannies and niggers and whatever else, so as a scientist (geneticist), i'll give my take.
Science and religion are not asking or asnwering the same questions, so they neither confirm nor reject eachother.
Science is a method designed to build models of how the world works.
Religions are collections of moral phylosophy designed to guid people to act in mutually beneficial ways.
Science makes no claims about moral phylosophy so there is no conflict there.
Some religious texts have some claims about how the world works, and that does some times contradict scientific models.
But this is only a problem for people who fail to understand that religious texts are collections of anecdotes aimed at teaching a moral lesson, not actual descriptions of the world.
If you read a story about a blue dog learning how to be kind to strangers, you are not going to say that story is anti science because there are no blue dogs. Nor will you think dogs aught to be blue lest they be cruel to strangers.
A personal stroy: durnig my university education of several years (BSc in biology, MSc in molceular genetics cellular and developmental biology, and PhD with thesis on the epigenetic control of ageing) i had two professors, who acted as leaders of the university culture. Both men i truely respect.
One was the professor of organic chemistry. A deeply catholic man, who would mention ocasionally that a world so beutifull he thinks must be seen as devine, and regardless of your religion you should treat the world as something special, beautifull and your felow man as prcious.
The other, a professor of evolutionary biology an atheist, who would say, that the world is vast and life is incidental, and rare, and should be trated with respect.
These two men also respected eachother.
