edgarblythe wrote:Nobody's redefining anything. If you want to believe in God you are free to do so. It doesn't hurt science for anyone to be religious. What hurts science is if the religious want to subvert the truth to fit their faith based beliefs. That's the only area of conflict.
I think Edgar has it partially right - but he has unfairly excluded those scientists that tend to see thier data (subvert the truth) to fit thier athiestic (faith based) points of view.
A case that has come to mind is when Stephen Hawking translated the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to mean that God could not be omnipotent. (If God used eyes to see things that might be true.)
As far as this question goes - when the scientific revolution hit Galileo and he decided that Aristotles final causes could not be observes empirically he did a very good job of defining religion out of science.
Science only accepts the five senses as being valid sensory perception - they also only accept repeatable and independantly verifiable evidence as evidence.
This seems to kick in the butt Miracles, mystical 'experiences' and the like.
Hume seems to have put a large nail in the coffin of religion and science ever getting along when he agreed with Tillitson's argument against transubstantiation that "A weaker argument could never destroy a stronger." - So evidence of say Christ coming back from the dead - would never be able to override the millions of times we have not seen this happen.
I think that empericism has defined itself such that religious evidence is simply not counted.
TTF