I'm not saying it deliberately tries to obstruct science but it nevertheless obstructs science.
And, to me, religion and God are fairly irrational so any conclusion would never include God, unless someone proved the existence of God.
( mike woz ere 7442200 & 7696970 getter, Thu 6 Oct 2011, 1:24, archived)

It doesn't obstruct science in principle.
Sometimes it morally disapproves of some kinds of experiments, and rightly so in my opinion. That doesn't make it opposed to knowledge of the natural world. On the contrary, quite a lot of good science was done in the Islamic world in the middle ages because of a Qur'anic commandment to "observe nature and learn", they were well ahead of the West in the field of optics, these are the unacknowledged Giants upon whose shoulders Newton stood.

But if you're going to decide that God is irrational from the outset then how am I to proceed? I can only say that it isn't really very scientific, or like the way philosophers tend to carry on. But Godel published a proof of God if you want to look at that.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 6 Oct 2011, 1:31, archived)

I'm of the opinion you really can't believe in both science and religion completely.
Eventually, one will clash with the other. I also don't believe you should be able to pick and choose which parts of a religion you believe in. Either you're all in or all out. Disregarding one aspect cheapens a belief in another aspect.

I can only say 'fair play' to anyone religious who helped to observe and learn nature but I don't doubt those conclusions would have been reached at some point, maybe even sooner than that if people weren't immediately attributing the existence of things to a higher power.
( mike woz ere 7442200 & 7696970 getter, Thu 6 Oct 2011, 1:36, archived)