If you agree that religion gave rise to what we now understand as science, and accept that many fine scientists - historical and current - have chosen to follow a religion - you're on rather shaky ground by declaring the two 'incompatible'. Clearly, a great many people who have made genuine advances to science have thought otherwise, and lived their lives accordingly.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sun 15 Aug 2010, 10:51, 1 reply)

No shaky ground at all.
It's plain that anyone can separate what they do during working hours from what they believe outside. But the point remains that you can't do decent science (or anything else, for that matter - the same applies for the humanities to at least some extent) at the same time as being religious. The two simply don't belong in the same thought process.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 15 Aug 2010, 18:32, closed)

I honestly don't think they clock in at 9am and mutter 'right, I'm not going to be religious for the working day'. As I understand things, it's more of a means by which one lives one's life. Joe Q. Scientist attempting to cure cancer can, and probably does, achieve some very good, reproducable, scientific results whilst asking guindance from, and giving thanks to, his invisible friend. He might even cite said friend as his motivation for trying to help out his fellow humans, on scientifically-flimsy grounds such as 'love thy neighbour', or similar. It might not form a crucial part of the work he does, but his religion is still going to be there in the room with him as he goes about he serious business of Science. Which more or less means it's not really that incompatible at all.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Mon 16 Aug 2010, 2:27, closed)