Must science and religion be at war?

Im more of a mindset similar to Jerry Coyne than Gould or Ken Miller. Science has us accept only that which is made evident through testing and evidence and falsifiability. Religion, on the other hand, has us dispense with this side of our brain and just "buy it " .

I have no arguments with scientists who adapt both science"s rigor and religions faith for themselves. I just cant do it. I have all kinds of arguments with Ken mIllers worldview.
After all Gould was an Orthdox Jew, so he never had to bother himself with all the religious baggage and mumbo jumbo that Christianity carries with it. He could afford that opinion with nightime comfort.

I dont see a state of war existing with most religions, but there is a declared war between science and Evangelist Christianity where they wish to insert their worldview as a scientific truth.

So, they are not entitled to their opinion? Are rules of engagement to be followed?

Not that I agree with their insertion of anything.

As long as their opinions dont insert themselves into my schoolyard, they can believe anything they wish. Its in the US Constitution.

Although I find Gould's use of the word "war" too dramatic, I agree with the core of his point: Science and religion must necessarily conflict whenever they speak to the same issue. In science, a belief can be only as good as the evidence supporting it. In religion, by contrast, the strength of a belief need not be supported with any evidence. Indeed, the leading world religions regard it as a virtue to keep your faith despite evidence.

I don't see how these two views on reality can be reconciled. At best, you can prevent open conflict by compartmentalizing.

Both religion and science, I believe, seem to deal in the preposterous to any cynical person.

The more preposterous one's religious beliefs are may often give the believer a degree of specialness, for such preposterous beliefs. Same with science.

But, if there was a God, he would have made the Earth flat, I believe.

I think we are in agreement... but let me clarify a point (that I have made elsewhere).

Science has nothing to say about "human purposes, meanings and values". This is an error made by far too many people-- pretending that science can shed light on what is right and wrong or good and bad.

Religious people don't not have a monopoly on mumbo jumbo.

Correction: Apparently my reading comprehension took some time off when I submitted my last post. The useage of the word "war" was Kuvasz's, not Gould's. So I now find myself not agreeing, but disagreeing with the core of Gould's point. In particular, I disagree with the following distinction he makes: "Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world. Religion operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings and values."

I'll admit that this distinction might be politically useful. It builds a bridge to religious people who are theologically liberal, and might join Gould in the fight against creationists. But as a view of reality, I find it utterly false. Religions have always spoken to the factual character of the natural world. To this day, miracles play an important role in the Catholic church. For example, in order for the Church to declare you a saint, you need at least two miracles on your resume. (You also have to be dead, of course.)

So if some churches have recently backed off from speaking to factual realities of nature, that doesn't define what they are. It merely describes what they currently do, after they've lost every debate about facts that science has engaged them in. I think they would get back into the reality game as soon as they saw a chance of winning a debate on reality.

Ive no disagreement on that, but IF one is religious to a specific "ism", the religious person must accept certain highly improbable points of "faith" . WHy is that?

People can be spiritual and totally uunreligious. Almost All the faiths revolve around the exitence of a supreme being. An entiry who cannot be sensed, measured, or calculated. Jus buy it. Then when church is done, go back to your EDAX and push for a 5 point calibration curve to resolve your need for accuracy at extremely low levels of detection.

I must admit I don't not comprehend this statement.

I consider Gaia a spiritual theory more than a scientific one. It requires a belief in a universal connectedness in all things of the planet.

Conservation of mass and energy , in their extreme, become centers for spirtuality.

No mumbo, but a little jumbo I admit.

I agree with fm. It is perfectly possible to have a concept of "holistic spirituality" without it being "religious". I take "religion" to involve "sacred texts" which prescribe shared rituals, specific beliefs and rules of conduct. The concept of "evidence" does not distinguish science from religion because all "evidence" lies within the selective vision of theoreticians working with shared paradigms, whether those paradigms be termed "religious" or "secular".

Once proven supernatural event happening in the universe since time and space begin and you can throw out the very foundation of science.

All religions seem to be base in one manner or another on claims of supernatural events so you do have a conflict between the followers of the two world views on it face.

personally I see a conflict between physical and metaphysical. I also consider "spirituality" to be metaphysical.

If its truth you want, Dr Nobody's philosophy class is right up the hall.

I don't think science and religion can be at war any more than calculus and poetry can be at war.

The only war being fought is in the minds of people who want to force one into the mold of the other.

The issue of people who cannot reconcile their religious views against reality, has little to do with science (even though they blame science) and more to do with simple delusional psychology.