Science 'versus' God and Religion

[Oli]

Hi Oli, Nice start!

Hi, thanks.

Give me one example where time is not a critical component for any REAL communications? in other words I am not referring to some religious nuts attempt of implying magical phenomenon where its implied particles communicate with each other..<ROFLOL>

Depends what you mean by "real communication".
Non-locality? Action-at-a-distance is religious nuttery/ magic?

There is no easy way to explain that particles are only theoretical,

Only theoretical?
But they have effects in the real world...

and further more the only way to point out flaws on its theories is by challenging the particles structure and demanding an explanation in detail of its implied form and further more how the form and or its structure interacts with the rest of the universe, eg (the velocities that implies ones forces for said particle correlated with the forces implied to be the Universes and by insisting they conform to strict Physical constructs just as Electronic theory does..

Flaws in its theories?
Which flaws?
You can demand explanations - you'll get what we know.
We're still looking at things, trying to find out more.

Of course Relativity counts! In fact relativity is a critical component in all Physics!

Then why the comment:

Anyway the point is everything in reality must conform to Newtons Laws

Newton was incomplete.

But seeing you asked... Do you remember when a US of A court was with proceedings that ended a teachers career because some religious institute felt the truth expressed by the teacher with respects to evolution was threatening its religious constructs? Man! Did the Americans image really suffer on that one!

No, didn't know about it.
Teaching of science to kids is sometimes hindered in some countries, science qua science isn't hindered.

Then why do I need to provide further evidence?

Because the hindrances are localised, not universal.

Well that school is not the only school hell bent in providing rubbish over the real truth just in order its religious propaganda has full effect on its infected victims!

Locally - not globally.

In fact its because of these religious institutes physics and science is in all sorts of bother!

Not here.

Okay I'll try this one:

Now before we move on with respects of their ongoing separation, lets think a little more in-depth with respects to the WHOLE universes structure keeping in mind the fact that when an air-crafts higher potential with respects to our upper atmospheres lower pressure (potential) is allowed to return to the lower Potential.. Say a window or door is opened! This simple fact provides proof that a void simply is not possible..

No it doesn't, it merely shows that where the pressure is unequal it will equalise at the first opportunity.
Otherwise (your example) every planet that had an atmosphere would be spewing it out into space to get rid of the void.
Get rid of gravity and it might happen.

In fact even Space and or Deep space consists of mass

What mass, where?
1 hydrogen atom per ~30 cubic metres or whatever?

and if it didn't the electromagnetic waves via implied meeting velocities which also implies how mass is possible simply would not be possible!

WTF is a "meeting velocity", please explain.

And for this reason Space really is referred to as a NEAR vacuum..

Because of the 1 atom per....

NOW~ When we deal with the theoretical particles, the above over sight by treating the environment as mass-less is what causes problems, because most assume the area implied as a particle is with momentum, when the facts are the area implied as a particle is actually experiencing meeting velocities which increases the areas potential to which is propagated to where there is a lower potential in mass, just like the above aircraft analogy...

Okay, you're losing me now:
What areas?
What's an "area's potential"?
How do you have a "lower potential in mass"?
Potential what?

 

[srikar]

how many of you say that science is discovered by humans and only belongs to humans.

 

[Oli]

how many of you say that science is discovered by humans and only belongs to humans.

You're quite correct.
My hamster (now dead) has had dozens of papers published.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[LaidBack]

Hi, thanks.

"Particles" Only theoretical?
But they have effects in the real world...


Flaws in its theories?
Which flaws?
You can demand explanations - you'll get what we know.
We're still looking at things, trying to find out more.

The flaws for a theoretical Particle is that the model for it works perfectly on its own, but when one needs to consider the area which includes more than just the Particle in question, problems are brought to the forefront, and I insist don't take my word for it, just research ALL the material you can find on..
"The Standard Model"

Then why the comment:

Newton was incomplete.

Agreed!.. Some of Sir Isac Newtons work was incomplete, such as Gravity where his theory is implying an impossible force as being possible, and to prove how impossible one must refer to his very own theory on Force and Motion, which BTW is the basis for all sound Physics, these laws provide all Scientists and Physicists the tools to decipher truth from a whole lot of rubbish!

Okay I'll try this one:

No it doesn't, it merely shows that where the pressure is unequal it will equalise at the first opportunity.
Otherwise (your example) every planet that had an atmosphere would be spewing it out into space to get rid of the void.
Get rid of gravity and it might happen.


What mass, where?
1 hydrogen atom per ~30 cubic metres or whatever?

Close! but no Cigar! but keep your truth statement as per..

where the pressure is unequal it will equalise at the first opportunity

always in mind..

To understand the universes Physics one needs to fully understand how Force and Momentum are dependent on each other in order they be possible..

By simple self observation, of push and shove, just as Sir Isaac Newton would have done when he developed our strict guidelines in Physics, we should come to much the same conclusions..

Where for a given force we must consider the forces momentum in implying said force, and for that momentum we need to consider the forces that are responsible for implied momentum, everything that is possible is dependent on this force and what ever momentum (velocities) implies and or results from it..

And if we consider Einstein's mathematical Gem to explain mass the above information and or data should make hopefully a little more sense to us..

Try this....

If a two dimensional "c^2" area of Energy equals a mere joule because it consists with a single mass? via E=MC^2 as in E=1 and the area "C^2" consists with a single mass! what is the area equal to?

Not very close to your above figure is it?

But what if the same two dimensional area was with a greater force and or energy to it? would that not imply the mass therein has been compressed?

If one was inquisitive one would ask how is this possible, and indeed not an easy question to answer unless one refers to force and the velocities that imply our forces...

we can do this by referring and considering "c" in our inference to mass, by considering "c" and how it also represents the speed of light in a NEAR vacuum.. why not do a search on "c" and see for your self how it is equal to 299 792 458 m/s and note "m/s" implies {metres a second" Pay attention here as this is critical data!

Lets go back to our two dimensional area of C^2 where in one direction for one second we measured out 299 792 458 metres, but to complete the area so it conforms to a truth statement, we must return to our starting point, anyway it turns out we are referring to two opposing velocities, which further implies for one second we have two meeting velocities in an area, imagine if we only had one momentum and or velocity? we would only have half the Kinetic energy in the area, {take careful note of the inference only to Kinetic energy) if we had two opposing momentum's the result would be an increase in kinetic AND Potential Energy for the area of c^2. I know that last statement may be hard to understand and one may need to understand relativity considerably, because the velocities remain unchanged, but to the rest of the Universe they cancel each other out!

An easier way to imagine two velocities meeting is when two opposing breezes meet and where they meet and experience each other their velocities cancel each other out as far as the rest of the atmosphere is concerned but with respects to each other they remain at the same velocities, such an area is what we refer to as a compression.. and or an increase in potential kinetic energy by way of changes in relative velocities, and what I just described happens with all possible changes throughout the universe where if a higher potential is availed the luxury of momentum to a lower potential lower force (via less opposing velocities) just as you described its outward force and or velocities would continue in a relative manner..

WTF is a "meeting velocity", please explain.

Please re read the above again and keep in mind as to what implies force and or energy

Because of the 1 atom per....

Think of the atom as a compressed area that is exerting in all directions outward, in electronics the core is defined as a theoretical Proton where its positive charge and or potential is implied as a force exerting in all directions outward, the electron being opposite in charge is with a negative force via its respective velocities, and the neutrons are the areas that result with no force and or charge (a relative compression point), To better explain this one needs to involve field theory, but don't worry I wont!

I should point out here and now how important it is to consider at all times what velocities one would expect for all of our forces, and if we do this religiously?? Huh! What the! MY DAWG! did I just state that!????? where was I???

Err~ we should understand mass and how all changes are possible..
therefore to over come the very crude Particle theory,
I stress! We keep in mind at all times how Two forces that meet - Create compression, but also keep in mind for every force what velocities imply the force!

Okay, you're losing me now:
What areas?
What's an "area's potential"?
How do you have a "lower potential in mass"?
Potential what?

If you don't understand my ramblings then I suggest you research In all aspects of Electronics..

I know physics seems hard to understand at first but hang in there!

Just make sure you fully understand the basics that Sir Isaac Newton availed to us in respects of Force and Motion..

Cheers,

Now let me apologies for this Posts wandering of subject in the establishment of my credibility and lets now return to why a non existing gawd can never win this debate..

The Implied gawd does not exist!
So who ever claims of a gawd needs to provide evidence for it..
And need I remind them it must be based on truth in every way..

 

[Grantywanty]

The simple, (also) scientifically verified fact is that religious people were right about a number of things in AREAS OF EXPERIENCE they tended to focus on more than those with jobs in the scientific community.

I'll use the example I brought up before about the many ways meditators could control supposidely impossible to control bodily functions. Scientists poo pooed these abilities and then later verified them.

A little humility should raise a question in the scientists' minds (and of course it has in some of them, Rupert Sheldrake, for example).

Perhaps focusing on certain areas of experience DOES in fact give religious people expertise in areas we do not have. This expertise may have led them to understand and have insights about AREAS OF EXPERIENCE AND FACETS OF REALITY we do not have and our methods are not likely to lead us to SO QUICKLY.

Unfortunately most scientists and worse most rationalists assume that they can make educated guesses about phenomena WHOSE POSSIBLE WORKINGS they know nothign about and whose existence they are not likely to experience because of their judgements about what is possilble and what exists.

They make statements about it not being possible because of ____________ some scientific law, without knowing considering that the mechanics of that phenomenon may in fact fit with that law but along lines not hitherto known. Or that the law (such as newton's laws) work well on certain levels but not on others.

Hubris and psychological need.

 

[LaidBack]

The simple, (also) scientifically verified fact is that religious people were right about a number of things in AREAS OF EXPERIENCE they tended to focus on more than those with jobs in the scientific community.

I'll use the example I brought up before about the many ways mediators could control supposedly impossible to control bodily functions. Scientists poo pooed these abilities and then later verified them.

A little humility should raise a question in the scientists' minds (and of course it has in some of them, Rupert Sheldrake, for example).

Perhaps focusing on certain areas of experience DOES in fact give religious people expertise in areas we do not have. This expertise may have led them to understand and have insights about AREAS OF EXPERIENCE AND FACETS OF REALITY we do not have and our methods are not likely to lead us to SO QUICKLY.

Unfortunately most scientists and worse most rationalists assume that they can make educated guesses about phenomena WHOSE POSSIBLE WORKINGS they know nothing about and whose existence they are not likely to experience because of their judgements about what is possible and what exists.

They make statements about it not being possible because of ____________ some scientific law, without knowing considering that the mechanics of that phenomenon may in fact fit with that law but along lines not hitherto known. Or that the law (such as newton's laws) work well on certain levels but not on others.

Hubris and psychological need.

Well stated..

And indeed the unknown or impossible will remain unknown and impossible, and this may be hard to comprehend but as soon as anything conforms to our reality and becomes known or possible it then MUST be conforming to Newtons Laws, because Newtons Laws are Laws that imply to an agreed reality of conformance to truth, this implies there is no avenue for the impossible to become possible unless it fully conforms to a reality of truth...

I guess that leaves two states of minds..

One that does not conform with reality, to those that do..

Its all in ones reality (evidence) and whether the evidence fully conforms to all else via truth and or all facts.

Cheers all,

Peter J ?????,

 

[Cortex_Colossus]

Although many would agree that religion and science are difficult to reconcile, this does not mean they are totally incompatible. A scientific version of God that is accurate and comprehensive would suffice, yet we may still have difficulty accepting this due to our own individual bias. The metaphorical stories of the Bible have always remained separate and distinct from science and thought to provide fulfillment only to that minds that another individual might deem "inferior".
From the earliest origins of Christianity to modern times, politicians have underhandedly achieved positions of power by appealing to religion. The cult effect occurs among humans, but the blame goes to a higher power. There is no indication that the existence of religion has lead to political abuse and the cult effect. Consider that without religion, other means of acquiring power would be employed, so religion could be wrongly accused.
It is irrational to form a God concept based on individual bias, but the same may be said about the disbeliever's (I wish to avoid the label "atheist") concept. The scientist who believes in God might view human behavior as falling under three general categories: determinism, free will and self-actualization. With that, it becomes clear that religion, though a manipulative tool, is not necessarily the manipulator. So we see that the means to spiritual salvation (religion) might have aspects of "purity" but can become meddled with. Although, it may have been intended that this purity remain metaphorical to prevent logical refutation, making it subject to personal questioning.

 

[LaidBack]

The scientist who believes in God might view human behavior as falling under three general categories: determinism, free will and self-actualization.

A Scientist Believing in a gawd? <ROFLOL>

Come on!

Are you serious!?

Let me suggest Such a flawed Scientist will never EVER be employable!
I know I would never employ any one with such a scientifically flawed reasoning and I am sure any one in the Industry will agree with me on that one!

Nope! Once one learns REAL truth, A gawd concept simply is shot to pieces simply from all the facts one has to work with!..

I am seriously questioning how such an intelligent individual could have made it past the first month of his scientific education and left still clinging to an overly flawed and inconsistent gawd concept..

WOW!

How in the Universe is that ever possible!????
Surely NO-ONE is that intelligent and yet so Stupid that they are comfortable in contradicting truth in favour of gaining deception as the truth..
why would any one resort to such religious like reasoning?

Oh! :bugeye:

Oh my!
:shrug:

 

[Avatar]

A Scientist Believing in a gawd?
Let me suggest Such a flawed Scientist will never EVER be employable!

There have been many great scientists believing in god and in their search for god through experiment made many scientific discoveries.
I'll name just Newton here, but there are many others.

 

[Nasor]

A Scientist Believing in a gawd? <ROFLOL>

Come on!

Are you serious!?

Let me suggest Such a flawed Scientist will never EVER be employable!
I know I would never employ any one with such a scientifically flawed reasoning and I am sure any one in the Industry will agree with me on that one!

Yeah, if Newton, Descartes, or Pascal applied for a job with my firm I would definitely tell them to take a hike.

 

[Avatar]

See this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVEscMOalnc

 

[LaidBack]

Truth or Deception Err~ Scientific facts Vs Implied God.

There have been many great scientists believing in god and in their search for god through experiment made many scientific discoveries.
I'll name just Newton here, but there are many others.

Need we go there? I don't think it will provide any evidence for ones delusion of a gawd over Science and or Facts..

Agreed, In the past many scientists had no choice, other than to advocate what the religious Mobs mentality dictated, and if we go back far enough, the truth if exposed could even have seen ones precious life permanently snuffed out by the very mob who advocate to a gawd!

That has changed, Well at least in localities that have a low percentage of a religiously infected populous!

FEAR of the religious Mobs repercussions does not influence real scientists to pussy foot around the religious ideals and deception today as it did back then...

Truth & Facts are simply much more powerful and convincing than the unsubstantiated inference to a delusion-ally created gawd.

The only real problem left in the world with respects to this religious infection is their hold and influence in backward localities where their religiously infected leaders have allowed religious Sects to provide a religiously infected University education, those infected students may never know proper truth, unless they seek work as a scientist elsewhere in the world, which is highly unlikely, as such personnel simply have extremely flawed reasoning, and let me say I still cringe to this day over the employment of such an infected individual! {{{shudder}}}

In today's environment away from these failing localities that are heading back to the dark ages via religiously infected education, to be a scientist you MUST advocate and comply to truth!.. if one doesn't, one simply will never experience a successful career as there simply is no room for ANY contradiction.

2~Duh~Loo!

Peter J Schoen.

 

[Grantywanty]

Rationalists who have no deep experience of other cultures, for example, tend to assume that their common sense makes sense. They are unaware of their own irrational (not necessarily false) assumptions of reality. They assume that anyone with a significantly different metaphysical idea could not do their jobs. This is because they are not aware of their own metaphysical ideas. They also tend to picture Bible thumping fundamentalists when they think of a theist. If they had courage they might look at the use of this image in their own psychology.

 

[Avatar]

In today's environment away from these failing localities that are heading back to the dark ages via religiously infected education, to be a scientist you MUST advocate and comply to truth!.

What is this truth you so zelously speak of?
Human mind is subjective and our understanding of what is truth changes.
Newtons laws were absolutely true a hundred or more years ago. Now we have general relativity and quantum mechanics which postulate their own truth. In a hundred years we may have another truth.
To be a scientist means to search for the truth using scientific method.
To advocate and comply with something postulated by humans as "the truth" means that that person is arrogant and irrational, if simply for the fact that the human mind is subjective and it interprets reality, same as religious fundamentalists.

“I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”

(Albert Einstein, replying to a letter in 1954 or 1955; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.)

“The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenatrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties – this knowledge, this feeling … that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself amoung profoundly religious men.”

(Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981.)

 

[Avatar]

Mod note: I renamed this thread " Science 'versus' God and Religion" by adding "and Religion" to better suit the path this discussion has taken.
If anyone is against, let me know.

 

[srikar]

Mod note: I renamed this thread " Science 'versus' God and Religion" by adding "and Religion" to better suit the path this discussion has taken.
If anyone is against, let me know.

First of all let me know Science Or god

 

[LaidBack]

What is this truth you so zealously speak of?

Inferences, Statements and intricate details that fully comply to the majorities constructs and or concepts, where even the maths simply reaffirms the physics is implied as a truth statement

Human mind is subjective and our understanding of what is truth changes.
Newtons laws were absolutely true a hundred or more years ago.

Indeed Newtons Laws no thanks to religion was up to only 20 years ago questioned, BUT much of it still is the bases for PROPER Physics, and as we progress, Models that don't fully comply to truth yes indeed are replaced with models that do work in reality as well as in theory, which suits me as all those religious Universities don't stand a chance with their rubbish!

Now we have general relativity and quantum mechanics which postulate their own truth. In a hundred years we may have another truth.

Yes I agree as I have worked with such a model which was kept under lock and key (contract) via its massive edge over ones competition who may be still referring to the extremely flawed "Standard Model" what with its magical graviton and other whimsical Particles that don't need to comply to proper physics, and yes Relativity at first seems to contradict much of Newtons Laws, and let me point out Quantum Mechanics "QM" with its inference to uncertainty and unexplainable and or over looked details is in its final days because of those lacking details and non compliance to some of the basic Physical laws.

As mentioned earlier, there is already an advanced model used in the Electronics Industry which does fully comply to all of Newtons Laws on force and motion and whats more it had to, that and both of General and Special Relativity so that our calculus for the velocities for Gravity and Mass with respects to the Electromagnetic spectrum we were working with gave us accurate results

To be a scientist means to search for the truth using scientific method.
To advocate and comply with something postulated by humans as "the truth" means that that person is arrogant and irrational, if simply for the fact that the human mind is subjective and it interprets reality, same as religious fundamentalists.

And with that last remark you have pointed out how religion is able to infect those who are not capable of sound reasoning..

Here's a simple test to separate two realities, one who is with sound reasoning the rest well what more is there to be said, Insist on the details and on the truth!

This leaves one who is either simply referring to truth, or the other is twisting the truth to some delusion, what is your reality? a twisted delusion or a sound one, where there is no need for twisted reasoning and or addition of deception?

OK here's the Test..

At one of the Poles where it is Winter and before you have a bucket half full with water, what would be before you the following 24 hours if there was no sunlight for at least 23 hours?

A body of water or a body of ICE?

My reality has water with out seeing the light of day not as a body of water but rather as a body of Ice.. do you agree with this truth statement?

An individual with a twisted reasoning will disagree with me and insist just like it is implied in the first page of the Bible in Genesis where the gawd is shimming over a body of water, not ice mind you! but water! keep in mind all heat is only possible via mass and its interactions via the electromagnetic spectrum, (Light)

Now is my reasoning based on truth and facts or is the Bible based on truth and facts?

Someones reality is not adhering to what is REAL truth, who's reality do you think is the deluded one?

The gawd and or Author of the bible, or the facts backed by decades, nay! centuries of observations which I rely upon? facts that any-one's own sensors can provide the proof for them selves, that is what truth is!

who's reality is from the dark ages? who's is closer to a real reality?

So whats the REAL truth? What would you see before "YOU" every winter with only a few hours of lacking sunlight or does your reality have what the Bibles gawd has insisted and or declared as truth?

There are the two realities!

And guess what? I am aware of both of those realities! so who's reality is more limited and or narrow minded?

one with all realities in mind or one that stubbornly refers to a twisted reality and gross oversights!

Avatar please dont take my post specifically to you, but rather withrespects to reasoning...

 

[Grantywanty]

Mod note: I renamed this thread " Science 'versus' God and Religion" by adding "and Religion" to better suit the path this discussion has taken.
If anyone is against, let me know.

I can see why you did this, though I don't see my position as 'versus' (however polemic and antagonistic I may occasionally be). I certainly do think that Science has its place and is very good at determining and explaining certain things. I see no problem believing in many scientific models and especially their application in certain situations, for certain types of problems etc and as having an effective methodology (however vastly more varied than most scientists want to admit (see Arthur Danto). I also believe in certain phenomena hitherto not explained by science and believe that there are other ways of getting knowledge that also work. So for me, as with many past and present scientists it can be Science and God, or Science and ________ (any of a number of phenomena or beings or processes now generally poo pooed by some members of the scientific community and those who I have been calling rationalists, for want of a better term.)

Fundamentalists also assume that they must discard things like evolution to maintain their belief in God (or the Bible, which they unfortunately assume is error free and not culturally biased adn worse).

This is not an either/or situation.

I experience phenomena predicted and explained by science.
I experience phenomena predicted and explained by INTUITIVES. I prefer that
term to religious people or leaders since we tend to think of the big monotheisms and organized 'churches' when we think of religions and they are at least as problematic for those they consider us pagans or worse as the scientists are (who tend to think of us as irrational, too emotional, afraid, projecting, stupid and so on.)

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Mod note: I renamed this thread " Science 'versus' God and Religion" by adding "and Religion" to better suit the path this discussion has taken.
If anyone is against, let me know.

yeah yeah stealing my ideas , i suggested that it must be science VS religion and not "god" in post #4.


peace.

 

[LaidBack]

I can see why you did this, though I don't see my position as 'versus' (however polemic and antagonistic I may occasionally be). I certainly do think that Science has its place and is very good at determining and explaining certain things. I see no problem believing in many scientific models and especially their application in certain situations, for certain types of problems etc and as having an effective methodology (however vastly more varied than most scientists want to admit (see Arthur Danto). I also believe in certain phenomena hitherto not explained by science and believe that there are other ways of getting knowledge that also work.

keep in mind if you choose to ignore certain facts, this may limit your reality..

For example since around the 70's Universities have introduce into the educational curriculum "The Standard Model" this model refers to THEORETCAL Particles that don't fully comply to Newtons Laws, the results today is that many post graduates hold a view that these THEORETICAL particles adhere to what we should expect in reality they honestly believe a theoretical particle is REAL rather than just theoretical, anyway the most brilliant students are offered research projects funded by these Institutes who advocate to this model, the rest of the students who complete their course enter into the work force and quickly learn the THEORETCAL Particles although they work in quantum Theory, in reality the theoretical particles are not the proper reality, The electronic Industry is aware of two models where one does not consider beyond the theoretical particles area via "The Standard Model" whilst the other considers beyond the theoretical Particle and further more insists all of the Area comply to Newtons Laws..

Anyway there again I point out two realities, both are close to the others reality but one is over looking details in one direction while the other is ignoring details that don't concern production and engineering challenges and or problems..

So what has this to do with your above statement?

Well you inferred to some unexplainable, and your choice is to refer to what a Peer Pagan has to say about it.. now if your unexplainable observation has been addressed scientifically would you still prefer the pagans explanation? or would the details simply be way over your head? No matter what reality you decide upon, have you considered that some realities actually twist truth in order to benefit the sect much like the Religiously funded Educational institutes have done via their introduction of concepts and or theoretical constructs that conform to a reality infected with concepts of magic and or miracles such as "Gravitons" and "uncertainty principles" and how about the sneaky injection of Strong and Weak forces via over looking relativity's explanations are just some of the prime examples of differing realities..

Its for this fact science has still many inconsistencies, and this suits religious deception just fine..

So for me, as with many past and present scientists it can be Science and God, or Science and ________ (any of a number of phenomena or beings or processes now generally poo pooed by some members of the scientific community and those who I have been calling rationalists, for want of a better term.)

Fundamentalists also assume that they must discard things like evolution to maintain their belief in God (or the Bible, which they unfortunately assume is error free and not culturally biased and worse).

This is not an either/or situation.

I experience phenomena predicted and explained by science.
I experience phenomena predicted and explained by INTUITIVES. I prefer that
term to religious people or leaders since we tend to think of the big monotheism's and organized 'churches' when we think of religions and they are at least as problematic for those they consider us pagans or worse as the scientists are (who tend to think of us as irrational, too emotional, afraid, projecting, stupid and so on.)

That's wrong!

In most species there are genes that simply wire some of the species with different ways of reasoning, in a Pack or a herd these highly intelligent end up being leaders and or Problem solvers, and the rest of the Herd are wired without this burden or perhaps they are wired with other redundant functions and or instruction sets, and they simply follow the leaders and or the one who has reasoned the grass is sweeter and greener where I have just been so therefore, I better amber on back there and graze there a little longer, the rest simply follow via their wiring, if they ALL had this reasoning, each would go their own way, which can introduce problems that outweigh the benefits of a single leader and or problem solver, just take a look at any physics forum and what happens with the clashing of realities, so just because one is stupid in one aspect doesn't mean one is totally stupid every which way!