I confess that my first reaction to Argos’s question was to think ‘Well, of course one thing has got nothing to do with the other!’, but then I realised that I was only looking at the “hard” sciences.
In math, or physics, or astronomy, I do think religious beliefs and science are pretty much orthogonal these days, although it wasn’t always so (Tycho’s model of the solar system comes to mind).
But, even today, I think religious convictions and science sometimes clash against each other in the “softer” sciences. For example, inspired by my numerous disagreements with Sitchin supporters like A.DIM and Outcast in these forums, I finally decided to get Samuel Noah Kramer’s
History Begins at Sumer. I’ve been enjoying it, even though Kramer's writing can be a bit dull at times.
One of the subjects he of course mentions is how certain Biblical tales have Sumerian predecessors. He even goes so far as to say that the Biblical version was based on the Sumerian myth! (Can I use this word without offending Sam5? :P) However, he’s always very quick to add that the Biblical version of the tale is superior. Isn't that a matter of opinion?
Once, he even said that about a text which, he admitted, had still not been well translated at the time, and whose translation was likely to be improved upon further research. So how did he know that the text would be inferior to its Biblical counterpart?! [-X
