“The reason why science and religion are actually incompatible is that, in the real world, they reach incompatible conclusions. It’s worth noting that this incompatibility is perfectly evident to any fair-minded person who cares to look. Different religions make very different claims, but they typically end up saying things like “God made the universe in six days” or “Jesus died and was resurrected” or “Moses parted the red sea” or “dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden.” And science says: none of that is true. So there you go, incompatibility.” — Sean Carroll
The reason why this argument is refutable is because Sean Carroll is a complete blowhard. Looking at myth used to explain the unexplainable to the simple does not prove your point. Claiming that billions of people throughout history are completely and irrefutably wrong with no real relation to your argument does not help your argument.
It should be perfectly clear to any non-dogmatic, truly open-minded individual who recognizes what seems obvious to many — that there is a body (physical) and there is a soul (spiritual) — that religion is concerned with the soul while science is concerned with the body.
Religion and faith are concerned with the unseen and unseeable. Science is concerned with what it can see and classify. To stretch either into the other realm in a way to eradicate the other is irresponsible and ignorant.
And yes, religion does concern itself with some aspects of the body and what is seen, obviously (how to live and what to do). Just as science does concern itself with some aspects of what would be considered the spirit, the unseen. (Psychology?) They are not in any way, though, mutually exclusive.
“I’m very angry always inside me whenever I hear someone make claims for God. If there is a God it seems to me so obvious and so absolutely clear that if he does exist he is capricious and mean and willful… When a child has bone cancer how can you say there is a loving God I know it’s a cliche, but I’ve never hear a satisfactory answer. Yes there may be a creator, though I don’t think it at all likely, but to say that he’s loving, to say that he’s benevolent, to say that he cares for us, or to say that having made us, something we never asked of him, that we should spend our time on our knees in front of him, well it’s outrageous.” — Stephen Fry
I think Stephen’s problem is that he is either forgetting or not willing to accept the added concepts that this benevolent God wants relationship with his creation, not as automatons but as freely thinking and responding intelligent beings as he created us. This requires free will, which allows us to freely reject.
And this freedom to reject a good and loving God creates a space for indifference, hate, and evil. As scientists know with “black matter”, there is no true vacuum, right? So where there is not good there must be something. And where there is not this good and loving God, there must be the antithesis.
But perhaps that’s the answer that is never satisfactory. Perhaps he wants this love to be so completely overpowering that we can only respond in the one way we are supposed to, thus rendering our choices nonexistent.
(And now I must wrestle with the concept that I’m calling all Atheists indifferent and evil, which I know to be quite inaccurate.)
By the way, USG? Did you copy and paste that quote or type it yourself? There are several grammatical errors. Whoever typed it should have really reread what they did. Of course, I’m no better with my own writing.
An Atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, “Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.”
The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, “What would you want to talk about?”
"Oh, I don’t know," said the Atheist. " How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.
"OK," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"
The Atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl’s intelligence, thinks about it and says, “Hmmm, I have no idea.”
To which the little girl replies, “Do you really feel qualified to discuss why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death, when you don’t know shit?”
Evolutionary scientists like to think it doesn’t allow for a Creator God. Just like literal Creationists don’t like to allow for evolutionary creation or development of species. There’s still that whole middle ground.
"…who are we as humans to try to interpret him/her". How very Biblical of you. I think that’s in Proverbs or Isaiah somewhere.