Science can be an enemy for a religion.
Yet world without science gets stuck from any development.

It is said Science without humanity is bad science
World needs science with humanity to make it better

HA! Dream on.

Like I said in the beginning of this thread...

sorry Tom, I have to disagree here... science is a quest for knowledge, religion is a test of faith... science deals with reality, religion deals in fantasy... science is about logical thinking, religion is about sentiments and feelings... science has proven most things that are told in the Bible are false, and couldn't have happened...parting the red Sea, turning water into wine, people living for thousands of years....

I do agree with you.
The only exception being that human beings are the ones doing the science and human beings have beliefs and even follow religions.
Since human beings are a reality, belief and faith are a reality.
Belief and faith do not require a religion but most that have belief and faith follow some type of religion.
Personally, I see religion as delusion but I know people can follow religion and still do science.
I see no reason one can not do science and be religious.

is someone considered a scientist if they spend their life trying to prove a unicorn is real? Same thing with a god, it can't be proven or unproven...science was a sin for hundreds of years by Catholics, because it didn't glorify God...I'm sure there's a few smart religious folks out there, but most simply don't care for science, because they're afraid that be proven wrong by the only thing that can, science...

I understand what you're saying.
I agree with you.
Consider for a moment Einstein's Cosmological Constant (His personal greatest failure). He couldn't justify this problem because of his religious beliefs. His religious beliefs didn't invalidate all of his theories. By your assessment, because he was a religious man, he couldn't embrace science.
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/cosmo-constant.php

Fantasy and belief drive scientific discoveries.
You might be interested in checking out this site...


http://www.technovelgy.com/

Even religion drives scientific discoveries.
Could the Flood have really happened?
Discovery of large underground aquifers.

Religion poses a theory and science seeks to either prove or disprove it.
Which results in science being done.

The Earth is the center of the Universe.
Science looked to see if it was.

Science and religion work together to try to explain reality.
There are still a lot of things that can't be explained.
As long as there are things that can't be explained, both science and religion are needed.

DISCLAIMER:
My reference to religion is on the aspect of belief and imagination.
NOT the subscription to following a prescribed doctrine.
That type of religion is a social strategy to make followers comply with rules. An attempt at unification thru belief.

Religion does not deal with fantasy.
Religion is beyond sentiments and feelings, not sure why you are trying to confine it to only two things.

Science absolutely HAS NOT proven that most of things told in the Bible are false.
Quite the contrary, science is in harmony with the Scriptures or misunderstood.
To say that science proves most things (if any at all) in the Bible are false is an outright lie .

Now you can say you do not believe in miracles , which science has nothing to do with , but you shouldn't make a blanket statement that science disproves most of the Bible .
That would be unacceptable and untrue.

are you telling me to think differently than I do? how many people do you know who's lived for a thousand years? Closest evidence I know of to a world-wide flood is the snowball earth from a couple of billion years ago, no evidence of anything more recent...what about turning water into wine? No evidence means no evidence, doesn't mean to just make up random crap, that's not science, that's just child behavior... Whenever someone looks at a mountain and can't understand how it got there should never mean a god did it, just means those people lack logical thinking and no urge to look for the real reason why things are the way they are...

science and religion can work together, the Vatican owns a huge telescope named Lucifer in Arizona, but I can't really trust anything they say they've learned about it because they're focused on a god...plus, I've never really heard anything discovered or learned from it...just one example, there's more... I think to be a true scientist, you have to not be thinking about god, but about whatever it is you're studying...if you're thinking about a God, then they would miss things they wouldn't have missed because they wanna be right about God...it's called projection, where they make something a reality in their own mind...an easier way to explain it would be a cheater accusing their partners if cheating, even though the partner isn't, because that's all that's on their mind...

There isn't one recorded person in the Bible that lived a 1,000 years.

There is ample evidence that there was a great world wide flood as depicted in the Genesis account.
Actually quite interesting if you look into it.

Billions of years ago?
In theory only.

I already covered the turning water into (fruit juice) wine.
It is called a miracle. The first recorded miracle performed by Jesus, who is God in the flesh and quite able to perform miracles.

Regarding your last statement about the mountain, so those who exercise faith in God are illogical thinking people?

No urge for the real reason why things are the way they are ? (From the last part of your quote)

Who are "those people" in your quoted post?
How do you know whether or not they lack the "urge" for the real reason why things are the way they are?

Had to look up the VATT, never heard of it.

~ wiki
Had to look up Lucifer


the Vatican owns a huge telescope named Lucifer in Arizona
No, they don't.

I refer to
Baloney Detection
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html
How to draw boundaries between science and pseudoscience
...and Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit
http://www.openculture.com/2016/04/carl-sagan-presents-his-baloney-detection-kit-8-tools-for-skeptical-thinking.html



These are all in Sagan's words:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations.

If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified…. You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

Has anyone studied Science of the Mind, they try to bring religion and science into line.