Richard Dawkins

[DemPGH]

How many religions are based on math, logic, reason or science?

Exactly as many as ought to be.

Both of these statements, as well as their implications, are one hundred percent correct, IMO. It's why faith and science on a philosophical level are not reconcilable.

Faith and myth hold truth / meaning for you, or they don't. They don't for me.

Negative, should stay in the lab instead of engaging in atheist fundamentalism.

Yes, yes, and I'm a "fundamentalist" historian, because I don't believe in the hydra, the cyclops, or people rising from the dead. Or this stuff:

[DemPGH]

How many religions are based on math, logic, reason or science?

Exactly as many as ought to be.

Both of these statements, as well as their implications, are one hundred percent correct, IMO. It's why faith and science on a philosophical level are not reconcilable.

Irreconcilable in what can and should be a fairly benign way, however, I'd submit.

Yes, I promise to forego crusading!

I actually think the discussion can be fruitful, but I think the objectives of it should be adjusted from trying to convince each other (either science or religion is on the offense, it seems) to exchanging ideas. Science is about method first and body of knowledge second, and it really disagrees with faith, I think. Faith takes the view, I think, that knowledge is passively revealed, and science takes the view that it is actively built. Then there's the supernatural / natural cause aspect, so I think a lot can be exchanged, but maybe the objectives of the discussion could be adjusted.