an argument against "religion hinders science":
religion is motivation and hope; hence the name faith
ironically enough it's motivating in the same way as procrastination is, in that if you moan on about never having a gf in your life you won't get anywhere in life, but if you imagine having a gf in the future it gives you something to work towards
without procrastination rutherford wouldn't have split the atom
looking at religion from a logical makes me feel like a richard but it's the best way for me to look at it
religion as a theological concept does not hinder scientific progress, but corrupt, militant, pro-centralization "churches" do (aka no branches, no sects, etc). think old catholicism vs the many sects of protestantism - while differing, all of these protestants were nonetheless part of an underlying unity, based upon their honest-to-god wills, rather than that of an authoritative body preventing differing thought
modern catholicism is much better now, by the way. i'm not bashing modern catholics.
IMO putting science, an ever-changing and continual area of thought on a pedestal as "true" is foolish. Science, especially in our day and age, changes by the day. What one's perception is proven one day is stricken down the next. What some few, individual scientists' perceptions and conclusions in a day, when even one or any of them happen to hold a grudge against a scientist or is a rival in their work, may ultimately decide what the world must arbitrarily accept as truth over all other things. I am religious, a Christian, and the only fundamental problem with science that I have is that it relies on human error and limited perception, and therefore produces many short-term truths that leave the intellectual high ground on a kind of metaphorical shifting sand. While scientific discoveries make our understanding of our world greater, it also produces a level of uncertainty.
As for your thoughts on "the infinite void and darkness" or whatever, this sounds more like a philosophical debate which religion and science both seek to explain, but in my mind, religion does so more thoroughly. For the sake of time and interest, it's pointless to discuss this in much detail. In no way does the Bible conclude that science is contrary to it. God Gave us minds to think and to understand and to discover. God's second command was to have dominion over the Earth and to subdue it—to do so requires an understanding of it. The Bible embraces the attainment of knowledge and wisdom hundreds of times throughout Psalms and Proverbs. God's fourth command to humankind was to review and name every animal, male and female and classify them by kind. The Bible says "lean not on your own understanding" and later "do not build your house on sand", saying to not rely on inconsistencies or things that change as a source of truth.
You may argue that God is not real and therefore my perceptions developed from religion are void, and I will settle that this is your perception, as well. There is no point in trying to wrangle the truth between two stubborn men. But do you understand what I'm trying to say?
nothing in science is absolute; this is indeed true. good scientists will tell you this. your views on how science is done, however, are untrue. science is, by definition, the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. hypotheses are promoted to theories only when provable and agreeable by the majority of the scientific community. while organized science can be corrupted (see edison vs tesla), so can organized religion (see my response to drydess).
dismissing science as flawed and not to be considered on the same level as religion is simply foolish, because science is at the very core of our minds - it's what we use to understand things that require conscious deliberation, rather than unconscious assumptions and corrections (subconscious visual compensation that makes you not see your blindspots, for example). "where are my car keys?" let's form a hypothesis: they're on your bed. this hypothesis is a valid one until you test it by checking your bed. when you go to your bed, and find no keys, you then have to form a new hypothesis. maybe they are in the couch. you tear up the couch, and find them under one of the cushions. you now have a scientific theory of your keys' location. this is why some people disregard science - scientific theories are confused for theories. a non-scientific theory is often what would be called a hypothesis in science.
science itself does not disprove of the idea of
a god, but there is evidence against
the god. for example, christian tradition and biblical stories being derived from pre-abrahamic pagan mythology and tradition. noah's ark?
Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh a secret story that begins in the old city of Shuruppak on the banks of the Euphrates River.
The "great gods" Anu, Enlil, Ninurta, Ennugi, and Ea were sworn to secrecy about their plan to cause the flood.
But the god Ea (Sumerian god Enki) repeated the plan to Utnapishtim through a reed wall in a reed house.
Ea commanded Utnapishtim to demolish his house and build a boat, regardless of the cost, to keep living beings alive.
The boat must have equal dimensions with corresponding width and length and be covered over like Apsu boats.
Utnapishtim promised to do what Ea commanded.
He asked Ea what he should say to the city elders and the population.
Ea tells him to say that Enlil has rejected him and he can no longer reside in the city or set foot in Enlil's territory.
He should also say that he will go down to the Apsu "to live with my lord Ea".
Note: 'Apsu' can refer to a fresh water marsh near the temple of Ea/Enki at the city of Eridu.[9]
Ea will provide abundant rain, a profusion of fowl and fish, and a wealthy harvest of wheat and bread.
christmas? saturnalia.
etc
furthermore, how does christendom prove itself to be the one true faith, and not islam, hinduism, confucianism, or even dead religions like norse paganism?
"the bible is old" is as much of an argument as "the qu'ran is old" or "the vedas are old", so its ability to withstand the test of time should not be brought to the table here
