Nad R wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

He asserts that all religions are in conflict with science. I'm a
member of one that is not. I know of plenty of others that are not.

Correct. Name your religion.

Mine is a tiny one named Asatru. It would be amazing if you'd ever
seen the word. The nearest historically linked faith of any size is
Hindu. There are plenty of signs of ancient Asatru in modern
Anglo-Germanic civilization - Regional Thing evolved into jury and
country fair. National Thing evolved into parliment. The days of the
week got the names of the major deities. Number of members is a very
different story. There are tens of thousands of us in the world.
Extremely tiny.

None of the heathen/pagan polytheist religions of the world have a
conflict with science. They all lack the error of biblical inerrancy or
literal truth in their stories. The largest is Hindu, then Shinto and
so on down into smaller and smaller population faiths. National
Geographic has tended to call them "animist" rather than polythiest.
Generally polytheist faiths don't care whether you believe if the
deities of their pantheon exist. It's not about that.

There's also Buddhism and probably other deity-irrelevant faiths. I
don't know if Taoism or Confucicism fall in this category. It's been
too long since I've read the Analects or the Tao Te Ching.

The basis of all science is that the theory must be "Testable".

And the basis of most religions is that which is not testable. Which
puts them not in conflict.

God based creation beliefs are not testable. It is a belief that cannot be
testable.

Exactly. Whence not in conflict.

You are mixing up Philosophy with Religion.

No. You are trying to define religion as only those two that you
disapprove of. Not a game I'll play. Playing that game doesn't make
your restricted definition either correct or useful. The JCI folks want
to claim to define the space, but they do not define the space.

One can have Philosophical views with out religion.

One can. It's called the agnostic approach.

Religion in my book is a belief in one or more gods

It is irrelevant that you allow the JCI folks to define the space and
then that you reject them. That's a optional element in the list of
features.

Where does the WHY come in when it comes to ghost, spirits and the non
existent after life. This is the realm of religion, not science or
philosophy.

Philosophy is not a branch of Religion. Religion is a branch of Philosophy.

They are overlapping sets. Neither is a subset of the other,

I will agree philosophy can assign moral values to legal maters and a way
of life.

And that's only a part of why they are overlapping sets with neither a
subset of the other.

Gardening has nothing to with religion.

For millennia relgions have taught gardening as a path of life.
Gardening does in fact have much to do with religion. Gardening is
possible without religion. Not the same thing. For that matter
religion is possible without gardening. Who would want such a religion.