I believe God made everything; I don't read much more into it than that. Figuring out the how's and when's is part of the fun of being human, and science is the tool we use to answer the questions.
I shall take you at your word that you believe religion and science are compatible. Therefore I must ask you upon what evidence you base your position that your god 1) exists and 2) made everything.
Why don't we just go back and read the old philosophy thread, then?
same reason i play new chess games against the computer rather than just reading old ones.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I shall take you at your word that you believe religion and science are compatible. Therefore I must ask you upon what evidence you base your position that your god 1) exists and 2) made everything.
I believe God made everything; I don't read much more into it than that. Figuring out the how's and when's is part of the fun of being human, and science is the tool we use to answer the questions.
He said compatible. He didn't say he thought God was the scientific answer to the question, or that we should teach God in science class. Not everyone who is Christian thinks their beliefs are scientific truth and asking them to defend it as if they did is disingenuus and fairly hostile. How about we ask you to defend your political position from a scientific position. Could you? I doubt I could. Not everything hyumans do is about science. Shocking, I know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paul took my answer...
Seriously though, my belief is just that. A belief. Beliefs aren't based on empirical evidence.
I believe God exists and created everything. If through the pursuit of science Man discovers this isn't the case, and has hard evidence to back it up, then I will be forced to re-think my beliefs.
Seriously though, my belief is just that. A belief. Beliefs aren't based on empirical evidence.
Not to pile on, but I think the point is more that SOME beliefs ARE based on empirical evidence, and some are not.
True. I should have used the word faith.
@LazarX. Yeah yeah yeah, "but we could all be in the matrix" argument again. Maybe there isn't uniformity in physical laws, maybe we're just one retarded kid's dream. Yet again you're trying to use "there are things we don't know" as evidence that "what we know is therefore taken on faith".
HOGWASH.
He said compatible. He didn't say he thought God was the scientific answer to the question, or that we should teach God in science class. Not everyone who is Christian thinks their beliefs are scientific truth and asking them to defend it as if they did is disingenuus and fairly hostile.I shall take you at your word that you believe religion and science are compatible. Therefore I must ask you upon what evidence you base your position that your god 1) exists and 2) made everything.
I believe God made everything; I don't read much more into it than that. Figuring out the how's and when's is part of the fun of being human, and science is the tool we use to answer the questions.
Yes, he said compatible. If software is compatible with my computer I expect it to run on my computer. If religion is compatible with science, why can't it meet science's standards? Wouldn't that be a rather obvious sign that it isn't, in fact, compatible with science?
That's really bad logic. Science is testable on one level or another. Sure, not everything can be proven, but in the face of overwhelming evidence certain principles are assumed until something can be found to counter or disprove, evolution for example. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that others take it on faith.That's not to say we as a species understand everything. Far from it actually. However, Science builds opon itself. Standing on the shoulders of great men and women as it were. Not every scientist has to re-discover the principle of gravity, but they could test the theory if they wanted to. For a much more detailed explination than i am capable of expressing I recommend you (and everyone else) read "The God Delusionn" by Richard Dawkins.If Testability is your distinction of science, then you'd better be prepared to throw out a big chunk of modern research. Especially in the areas of "string theory" "dark energy" and "dark matter". Most of current research is the setting up of mathmatical models with certain implied matters of faith such as the uniformity of physical laws, how red shift works at great distances. While a lot of everyday macro science is as cut and dried and testable as you imagine, it's a bit different on the cutting edge. Organic chemistry especially in the finer arts of hormone and psychotherapy is simmilarly more of an art form than a predictive science.
In every discipline there are articles of faith. The idea that the universe itself ultimately makes sense is one of the largest. It's becomes more and more untestable the farther you get from everyday scales.
All of those things are presently being tested and analyzed. Nothing conclusive yet, but scientists are looking for answers as opposed to assuming that they know them (aka "it's magic.")
That's really bad logic. Science is testable on one level or another. Sure, not everything can be proven, but in the face of overwhelming evidence certain principles are assumed until something can be found to counter or disprove, evolution for example. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that others take it on faith.That's not to say we as a species understand everything. Far from it actually. However, Science builds opon itself. Standing on the shoulders of great men and women as it were. Not every scientist has to re-discover the principle of gravity, but they could test the theory if they wanted to. For a much more detailed explination than i am capable of expressing I recommend you (and everyone else) read "The God Delusionn" by Richard Dawkins.If Testability is your distinction of science, then you'd better be prepared to throw out a big chunk of modern research. Especially in the areas of "string theory" "dark energy" and "dark matter". Most of current research is the setting up of mathmatical models with certain implied matters of faith such as the uniformity of physical laws, how red shift works at great distances. While a lot of everyday macro science is as cut and dried and testable as you imagine, it's a bit different on the cutting edge. Organic chemistry especially in the finer arts of hormone and psychotherapy is simmilarly more of an art form than a predictive science.
In every discipline there are articles of faith. The idea that the universe itself ultimately makes sense is one of the largest. It's becomes more and more untestable the farther you get from everyday scales.
There is a reason it is called string theory. That is because they admit that it isn't proven yet. It is a working hypothysis. Only after it has gone through numberous scientific tests will it come into general acceptance, and if evidence is presented that starts to violate its principals, then the theory will be re-evaluated.
Just like the theory of reletivity was recently challenged and held up against particles measured to be going faster than the speed of light. They retested the experiment a few times at multiple locations and found that it was, in fact, instrumental error.
Just because we don't currently have the ability to test theories doesn't mean they can't be postulated for tests in the future. Our inability to test them means we don't accept them as fact, just as a good workign hypothysis. And even then competing theories can emerge.
in all honesty string theory is a misnomer, it really isn't at the level of a theory. Its still a string hypothesis.
Hmm mm now i want spaghetti.
Science is based on empirical evidence. Religion is not. There is nothing "subjective" about this distinction.
Next!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a reason it is called string theory. That is because they admit that it isn't proven yet. It is a working hypothysis.
Woah! Stop right there. In science, theory =/= hypothesis. That's dead wrong, and conflating the two is a Creationist trick. Also, in science we don't "prove" things. We amass evidence for them. There's a huge difference there as well.
Science is based on empirical evidence. Religion is not. There is nothing "subjective" about this distinction.
Next!
Well put.
Yes, he said compatible. If software is compatible with my computer I expect it to run on my computer. If religion is compatible with science, why can't it meet science's standards? Wouldn't that be a rather obvious sign that it isn't, in fact, compatible with science?
I didn't say they were compatible, I said they weren't mutually exclusive. Like one can be a Christian and study science or be interested in it. They aren't each other's evil twin. They can both exist in the same space.
Not that I don't think they are compatible...it works for me.
Five main arguments to support the existence of God:
1) The cosmological argument – the universe came from something rather than nothing.
2) The teleological argument – the complexity in the universe presents the case for an intelligent designer.
3) The moral argument – true morality comes from God.
4) The resurrection of Jesus – the evidence of the resurrection has not been refuted.
5) The immediate experience of God – experience as evidence for God.
Refute these five points and provide positive evidence that it is irrational to hold a belief that God exists.
Would this thread be active if it was critical about homosexuality? Would it be scrubbed as offensive by the moderators?
"Don't put down other peoples lifestyle" - says moderator X,Y,Z.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1)That the universe came from something does not necessarily mean a divine or omnipotent creator.
2)Just because you can't or don't understand something doesn't make it magic.
3)Since morality has changed over time, and no two societies or cultures have identical moralities, wouldn't that be evidence for MULTIPLE gods. Also this is merely an assertion, not an argument.
4)Lolwut? What evidence? I've never seen any.
5)Purely subjective and doesn't belong in any serious argument.
EDIT: Is it just me or do Aretas's "arguments" sound like they're cribbed from Checkmate Atheists?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, he said compatible. If software is compatible with my computer I expect it to run on my computer. If religion is compatible with science, why can't it meet science's standards? Wouldn't that be a rather obvious sign that it isn't, in fact, compatible with science?I didn't say they were compatible, I said they weren't mutually exclusive. Like one can be a Christian and study science or be interested in it. They aren't each other's evil twin. They can both exist in the same space.
Not that I don't think they are compatible...it works for me.
Methodologically they are mutually exclusive. One must stop with the faith to do science and start with it to do religion. Which isn't to say that people don't do just that, only that they're switching between X and not-X rather than consistently doing X.
Methodologically they are mutually exclusive. One must stop with the faith to do science and start with it to do religion. Which isn't to say that people don't do just that, only that they're switching between X and not-X rather than consistently doing X.
Unless their religion IS science.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Five main arguments to support the existence of God:
1) The cosmological argument – the universe came from something rather than nothing.
2) The teleological argument – the complexity in the universe presents the case for an intelligent designer.
3) The moral argument – true morality comes from God.
4) The resurrection of Jesus – the evidence of the resurrection has not been refuted.
5) The immediate experience of God – experience as evidence for God.Refute these five points and provide positive evidence that it is irrational to hold a belief that God exists.
1) It manes no sense to speak of something coming from something when its origin coincides with the origin of time. It's like asking what's north of the north pole.
If you insist instead that everything that exists must come from something you must explain what your god came from or admit you do not actually believe that everything that exists comes from something.
2) Design of various parts of the universe reveals a designer of either no intelligence at all or one what is incredibly stupid or incredibly evil. Take for example the human birth canal, which is practically designed to murder women. So is your god one of the dumb ones, one of the amoral ones, or one of the evil ones?
3) Not even an argument, but let's take it anyway. How would coming from a deity make morality true? Either that means morality is just so because the deity says it's so by divine fiat, in which case it's meaningless (A deity could say that genocide is good one day and bad the next and both statements would be equally true morality by this standard.) and we should ignore it or the deity is simply referring to and analyzing the acts and their consequences in themselves in which case the deity is just doing the same thing all of us are doing and we need him for it as much as we need him to fall asleep at night or get up and take a whiz.
4) This is another non-argument. If you seriously want to rest on the contents of your holy book, I choose instead to consult the Holy Book of Samnell's Posterior and proclaim the argument irrefutable.
5) Your religion's religious experiences are no more evidence for the existence of your god than the religious experiences of the Greeks are proof that Zeus is real. Will you now bow down to him? If you reject their religious experiences, why should we take yours so seriously?
We both know people have all kinds of experiences and we both know they're imperfect at properly interpreting and understanding them. I know I've been mistaken before and I bet you have too. I bet we've both had lapses of memory after the fact as well. Given all of that, we need a hell of a lot more than someone's subjective interpretation of a personal experience (or rather their interpretation of the memory of that experience if you want to get really picky) had in the privacy of their own skulls to conclude anything substantive about the universe.
Now for the positive evidence that it's irrational to believe gods exist? I submit the post to which this post replies. Even being generous, three of five aren't even attempts at argument.
Unless their religion IS science.
Methodologically they are mutually exclusive. One must stop with the faith to do science and start with it to do religion. Which isn't to say that people don't do just that, only that they're switching between X and not-X rather than consistently doing X.
If their religion was actually true and they actually believed it, their religion would immediately collapse into science and cease being even potentially distinguishable from it except in a sort of trivial historical sense.
1)That the universe came from something does not necessarily mean a divine or omnipotent creator.
2)Just because you can't or don't understand something doesn't make it magic.
3)Since morality has changed over time, and no two societies or cultures have identical moralities, wouldn't that be evidence for MULTIPLE gods. Also this is merely an assertion, not an argument.
4)Lolwut? What evidence? I've never seen any.
5)Purely subjective and doesn't belong in any serious argument.EDIT: Is it just me or do Aretas's "arguments" sound like they're cribbed from Checkmate Atheists?
What is Checkmate Atheist? I know Militant Atheist from reading the threads on Paizo.
"Lolwut" is not a reasonable response to the 4th point.
Howard Marshall says it best:
"It is not possible to explain the rise of the Christian church or the writing of the Gospels and the stream of tradition that lies behind them without accepting the fact that the founder of Christianity actually existed."
"Lolwut" is not a reasonable response to the 4th point.Howard Marshall says it best:
"It is not possible to explain the rise of the Christian church or the writing of the Gospels and the stream of tradition that lies behind them without accepting the fact that the founder of Christianity actually existed."
LOLWUT is the only reasonable response to the suggestion that, absent any evidence, a man died and came back from death 3 days later.
Show me evidence.
"Lolwut" is not a reasonable response to the 4th point.
"Lolwut" is not a tactful or terribly polite response. It is however a reasonable response to an argument which most people reject the premise of.
Howard Marshall says it best:
"It is not possible to explain the rise of the Christian church or the writing of the Gospels and the stream of tradition that lies behind them without accepting the fact that the founder of Christianity actually existed."
By "actually existed" do you mean that there was a person named Jesus who lived in Roman Judea or do you mean that god was born, suffered, and died for our sins and then rose from the dead.
The first one of those things is probably true. There is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that at least some of the historical events in the Gospels actually happened.
The second does not provide evidence of god's existence because it is cribbed from the mythologies of pre-existing religions. Jesus was not the first Life-Death-Rebirth deity. Marduk, Osiris and Dionysus beat him to that. Is that a more reasonable response for you?
"LOLWUT" is the 3 INT response.
YOU show me evidence.
Goodnight U.N.
For reference: Checkmate Atheists.
"LOLWUT" is the 3 INT response.
YOU show me evidence.
Goodnight U.N.
This is puerile and idiotic.
Your own point 4 insinuates you cannot refute the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.I ask for the evidence.
You say "YOU show me evidence."
I'm not here to do your work for you. I have nothing to refute because you refuse to present your case. I rest my case on your inability to present one of your own.
"LOLWUT" is the 3 INT response.
YOU show me evidence.
Goodnight U.N.
Did you even read my post? I did provide evidence that the resurrection is mythological.
That is if you need evidence beyond the fact that it is a dead guy coming back after three days (even though Friday afternoon to midnight Sunday is like a day and half tops).
That is if you need evidence beyond the fact that it is a dead guy coming back after three days (even though Friday afternoon to midnight Sunday is like a day and half tops).
Yeah what's with that. Jesus is crucified on a Friday. The thing about crucifixion is that it was considered a torturous and humiliating way to die. It took ages. But okay, let's just hand-waive that and say Jesus DIED on that Friday. He was then buried, at best that night but more likely the following day.
So really, he was there for like...a day. He could have still been alive!
But okay, here's my evidence that, while Jesus was in fact a historical figure (or the fictional, Biblical Jesus was BASED on a for realsies person) he didn't rise from the grave.
Most biblical scholars agree that the other 3 gospels were based on the book of Mark. In the earliest transcripts of the book of Mark, the passage speaking of Jesus' miraculous resurrection wasn't present. The final passage, where a man in a white cloak appears and says that Jesus has gone ahead to Galilee, was clearly written later and in a different hand. It also never depicts Jesus post-resurrection.
So, the earliest work of the Christian genre, one on which the rest of the gospels was based, likely never mentioned resurrection. It was also, at best, transcribed about 40 years after the death of Jesus, and likely more like 70 or 80. You ever play Telephone? I mean, stuff gets garbled, people impress meaning on stories they're told when they need meaning in their life (like in Roman occupied Jerusalem?) and stories change/evolve.
The trolls? Don't feed 'em.
The trolls? Don't feed 'em.
If you troll a troll, who's trollier, the troll or the troll who trolls him?
Look, in all honesty, if I didn't respond to posts which, in any sane world, are troll posts, what would I do on these boards?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trolls? Don't feed 'em.If you troll a troll, who's trollier, the troll or the troll who trolls him?
Look, in all honesty, if I didn't respond to posts which, in any sane world, are troll posts, what would I do on these boards?
I think Aretas is completely sincere, honestly.
Methodologically they are mutually exclusive. One must stop with the faith to do science and start with it to do religion. Which isn't to say that people don't do just that, only that they're switching between X and not-X rather than consistently doing X.
Lol, yep, that is what I do. I sometimes joke that my belief in God swings with my mood but really it depends more on which part of mind I need to engage at the time, the critical thinking or the magical thinking, both have their uses but they need to be pretty heavily compartmentalized for them to do the correct job I need them to at the time and not trip each other up.
1)That the universe came from something does not necessarily mean a divine or omnipotent creator.
2)Just because you can't or don't understand something doesn't make it magic.
3)Since morality has changed over time, and no two societies or cultures have identical moralities, wouldn't that be evidence for MULTIPLE gods. Also this is merely an assertion, not an argument.
4)Lolwut? What evidence? I've never seen any.
5)Purely subjective and doesn't belong in any serious argument.EDIT: Is it just me or do Aretas's "arguments" sound like they're cribbed from Checkmate Atheists?
What is Checkmate Atheist? I know Militant Atheist from reading the threads on Paizo.
"Lolwut" is not a reasonable response to the 4th point.
Howard Marshall says it best:
"It is not possible to explain the rise of the Christian church or the writing of the Gospels and the stream of tradition that lies behind them without accepting the fact that the founder of Christianity actually existed."
If number of worshipers is the defining factor of a "true" religion then christianity is actually behind a couple of others. Hindu and Buddhism have more global worshipers than Christianity.
On a related note I'm always amazed at how in religious discussions Christians generally talk as if they have the only religion. The main difference between christians and Athiests is that Athiests just take it one god further for many of the same reasons christians refute all gods sans one.Edit: After a quick search I realized I was wrong. According to many sources christianity is the largest by a 11%-ish margign. Though I still feel that has more to do with the tenants of "witnessing" and pushing their beliefs on others, but that's another matter entirely.
However, my second point stands.
Religions: Christian 33.35% (of which Roman Catholic 16.83%, Protestant 6.08%, Orthodox 4.03%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.43%, Hindu 13.78%, Buddhist 7.13%, Sikh 0.36%, Jewish 0.21%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 11.17%, non-religious 9.42%, atheists 2.04% (2009 est.)
"LOLWUT" is the 3 INT response.
YOU show me evidence.
Goodnight U.N.
There is never going to be evidence that something isnt or doesn't exist. There is only ever going to be evidence that something does exist. Logic 101.
If you doubt that I would like you to present evidence that there isn't an invisible intangile silent unicorn standing behind you.
Further, I do have something resembling evidence against the resurrection as a supernatural occurence. Not to burst your bubble, but magic isn't real. Trust me, I wish it was, but it's just not. Show me that magic exists and I'll gladly shout it to the rooftops and we shall bring a golden age of prosperity. But until then try not to confuse fiction and reality.
"If the bible proves god is real then a DC comic book proves that Superman is real. Try again."
There are a fair number of theories which are inherently untestable. Anything along the line of multiple universes or "many worlds" comes to mind. They're posited as mathematical necessities to make certain models work, but they are inherently untestable. You can't travel to other universes or "higher dimensions". Or bring anything back from them.There is a reason it is called string theory. That is because they admit that it isn't proven yet. It is a working hypothysis.Woah! Stop right there. In science, theory =/= hypothesis. That's dead wrong, and conflating the two is a Creationist trick. Also, in science we don't "prove" things. We amass evidence for them. There's a huge difference there as well.
But you can posit they exist, and test that hypothysis. Evidence can be found to show that the model behind the theory is stable or incorrect. New variables can be introduced as we gain understanding of how the world works, and those variables can support, modify, or disprove active hypothosese. Just because we do not currently have the ability to test something we have modeled does not mean we take that entirely on faith or never revisit it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[lazar]There are a fair number of theories which are inherently untestable. Anything along the line of multiple universes or "many worlds" comes to mind. They're posited as mathematical necessities to make certain models work, but they are inherently untestable. You can't travel to other universes or "higher dimensions". Or bring anything back from them.
These are hypotheseses, not scientific theories. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Untestable theories, by definition, don't have that.
The bar for a theory is so high that its neigh indistinguishable from a fact.
|
There is never going to be evidence that something isnt or doesn't exist. There is only ever going to be evidence that something does exist. Logic 101.If you doubt that I would like you to present evidence that there isn't an invisible intangile silent unicorn standing behind you.
Further, I do have something resembling evidence against the resurrection as a supernatural occurence. Not to burst your bubble, but magic isn't real. Trust me, I wish it was, but it's just not. Show me that magic exists and I'll gladly shout it to the rooftops and we shall bring a golden age of prosperity. But until then try not to confuse fiction and reality.
"If the bible proves god is real then a DC comic book proves that Superman is real. Try again."
I generally just reply to this situation with the following:
"OK, I will disprove your god. But first, I'd like to ask you to disprove all the other gods that mankind has ever worshipped. Hell, I'll be nice, you can simply disprove one god each from some selected pantheons...
Please disprove Odin, Apollo, Set, Nyarlathotep, and Kali. When you have sufficiently disproven them, I'll disprove Jesus.
There is never going to be evidence that something isnt or doesn't exist. There is only ever going to be evidence that something does exist. Logic 101.If you doubt that I would like you to present evidence that there isn't an invisible intangile silent unicorn standing behind you.
Further, I do have something resembling evidence against the resurrection as a supernatural occurence. Not to burst your bubble, but magic isn't real. Trust me, I wish it was, but it's just not. Show me that magic exists and I'll gladly shout it to the rooftops and we shall bring a golden age of prosperity. But until then try not to confuse fiction and reality.
"If the bible proves god is real then a DC comic book proves that Superman is real. Try again."
I generally just reply to this situation with the following:
"OK, I will disprove your god. But first, I'd like to ask you to disprove all the other gods that mankind has ever worshipped. Hell, I'll be nice, you can simply disprove one god each from some selected pantheons...
Please disprove Odin, Apollo, Set, Nyarlathotep, and Kali. When you have sufficiently disproven them, I'll disprove Jesus.
I forget the exact quote, but Dawkins said that Christians are just like Athiests, except Athiests take disbelief one god further. Or something like that.
Methodologically they are mutually exclusive. One must stop with the faith to do science and start with it to do religion. Which isn't to say that people don't do just that, only that they're switching between X and not-X rather than consistently doing X.
I'm puzzled by this. While there is certainly a scientific method to verify a hypothesis, there isn't really a faith-method with clear rules to follow to validate your choice of faith. If there was, then I suppose we could compare them and decide.
That having been said, followers of a like faith do, question, discuss and validate each other's experiences on a fairly regular basis. It's why people go to church. Is this what you mean?
In space you can't hear Citizen Aretas arguing with Citizen Meatrace.
Five main arguments to support the existence of God:
1) The cosmological argument – the universe came from something rather than nothing.
2) The teleological argument – the complexity in the universe presents the case for an intelligent designer.
3) The moral argument – true morality comes from God.
4) The resurrection of Jesus – the evidence of the resurrection has not been refuted.
5) The immediate experience of God – experience as evidence for God.Refute these five points and provide positive evidence that it is irrational to hold a belief that God exists.
Would this thread be active if it was critical about homosexuality? Would it be scrubbed as offensive by the moderators?
"Don't put down other peoples lifestyle" - says moderator X,Y,Z.
1. I don't think there are many scientists who claim the universe came from nothing. The generally accepted hypothesis is the Big Bang, which was clearly something, it was just something that at our current intellect/technology, we can't understand.
2. The universe isn't actually that complex. A man-made example would be computers. Everything a computer does is made up of 1's and 0's, can't get much simpler than that, yet incredible complexity is the result. DNA is a natural example, there are 4 options, but 2 of them have to be paired. Yet every living thing on our planet uses the same thing to arrive at incredible diversity. Because of our limited understanding we sometimes need complex models to explain them though.
3. I've shown scientific evidence in other threads that to a certain degree humans are naturally moral. Our specific culture modifies and interprets that morality, but our bodies are hard wired to respond to it. If you ask me nicely, I might dig those posts up, but I highly doubt you'll ask nicely.
4. There is a lot of evidence that the story of Jesus is probably inaccurate. There is no surviving physical proof of his existence, so I'm not sure exactly what it is we're supposed to be refuting. From my point of view, reading the story from a historical perspective, it is easy to see how a charismatic leader died, then his followers in their grief, used the best tool they had to get through that loss, their religion.
5. I feel no immediate experience of God. I can't tell you what you feel.
I think Aretas is completely sincere, honestly.Agreed, and that scares me.
I went with troll because it was the more...polite...possibility.
If he truly is sincere...well, there is nothing I can say that he won't just take as confirmation that atheists are out to get him. Anyway, I have to go to the store to pick up more mustache wax...you know, for the twirling.
I'm puzzled by this. While there is certainly a scientific method to verify a hypothesis, there isn't really a faith-method with clear rules to follow to validate your choice of faith. If there was, then I suppose we could compare them and decide.
You actually kinda just hit on why they are mutually exclusive right there yourself.
The simplest way I can explain the key difference between science and faith is that they take completely opposite approaches to a subject.
One starts at the beginning and works toward the end, the other starts at the end and works toward the beginning.
One is evidence based, the other certainty based. The two approaches are incompatible.
I kinda get that, but my point is, science is a tool, and faith is more of a behavior. These things can't be mutually exclusive because they aren't the same category, the same thing, really. It's not an either/or. You don't (or shouldn't) use them for the same thing, you can't use faith to validate a hypothesis. You can't use science to prove a person's faith is invalid. This doesn't make them mutually exclusive, they just serve two wholely different purposes.