Do the religious want scientific enquiry to end?

No! It's a lot less complicated than you think.Religion is all about undemonstratable (if that's a word!) dogma, and power. There always has to be something to a religion that you cannot tie down, that you cannot demonstrate. That's its secret of success.If everything about a particular religion were to be proven (capable of being repeatedly demonstrated, for example) it is no longer a religion - it becomes science.That's why religion and science will never be compatible, although religion will always try and use science wherever it can to try and gain a bit of credibility, in the same way a conjuror will show you there's nothing up his sleeve while he's hiding something behind his back.

IsanaqiI presume you meant to say "That is NOT to say one needs belief in a deity ...".I think we can probably agree that science is not concerned with the meaning of life and that religion may to some extent be concerned with that, although it does not have a monopoly on that issue.In my opinion, it is not necessary for anyone to have to use religion to find some meaning or purpose for their life. Religion may be one tool for finding some kind of meaning or purpose, but it will always be a meaning and purpose that it is founded in unsubstantiated dogma - often complete nonsense. Is that a good thing?And so I still have to argue that science and religion are not ultimately compatible because, for a religion to survive, it must always have some slippery facet that escapes possible scientific analysis. As stated in my previous message, religion will use science where it can to its advantage, but can never fully embrace it.

IzanagiSorry I got your name wrong!I maintain that religion CANNOT abandon its dogma and just concentrate on instilling hope and optimism. Something that ignores dogma and just concentrates on helping people is an example common humanity and nothing to do with religion. Religion by definition must always be tied to belief in a deity or some other superstitious, unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiatable) belief. The only way to perpetuate a superstitious belief is through dogma and indoctrination.To answer your original question, I don't think the religious generally want all scientific enquiry to end. As I said, they use some of it to suit their purpose, but they will always shy away from full scientific enquiry of their beliefs (or adapt their beliefs to avoid scientific enquiry). It's a game that will be played as long as religion exists.

IzanagiI agree with a lot of what you say. However, it depends a lot on what "religion" actually means to an individual.It comes down to whether you regard your particular religion as just a feel-good bit of nonsense that helps you get through the day, or whether you are a fundamentalist who literally believes in the creation stories or whatever else is preached by your religion. But the fact remains that even if you are not a fundamentalist and you allow observed evidence to overrule religious dogma wherever that may be possible, there will always remain some of the religion's dogma that cannot be touched by science. If any religion's dogma was completely open to scientific analysis, then it would either be disproven or proven. If it were proven, it would just become part of our common knowledge (or already be part of our knowledge), and therefore no longer be anything supernatural or religious.I do think it is very interesting how so many people seem to believe in God and at the same time (in my opinion) not believe in God. For example, I'm convinced that there are many people who accept the scientific view that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, that we evolved from other species, etc, and yet at the same time (or maybe just on a Sunday) they also believe that God made the Earth in 6 days and made Adam out of dust, etc. I mean, that's exactly how I and I'm sure most other people here in the UK have been formally educated in recent decades! Most our esteemed political leaders will go to church, sing hymns and say prayers to the good old Judeo-Christian god, and yet they'd never publically deny scientific evidence that directly contradicts part of their religion's dogma. What's going on?Enough said, I think.Edited by tuffers, : No reason given.