Stantis is not being honest about the science/religion dispute. Using the name “God” and citing Psalms frames religion exclusively in Judeo/Christian terms, as if religions didn’t exist that worship many gods or other types of beings. By having Winslow describe a straw man version of religious folks, Stantis is pushing a straw man version of science.
And belief in a god can involve awe but isn’t the essence of such belief or automatically part of belief, as deism shows. Obviously it’s possible that gods exist. The issue is that when religions assert that gods exist, they’re making a claim that deserves scientific scrutiny like anything else – it’s no different from asserting the existence of a previously undiscovered planet. There might not be conflicts between science and religion if the latter didn’t make claims of fact that can’t be empirically verified.
Stantis is not being honest about the science/religion dispute. Using the name “God” and citing Psalms frames religion exclusively in Judeo/Christian terms, as if religions didn’t exist that worship many gods or other types of beings. By having Winslow describe a straw man version of religious folks, Stantis is pushing a straw man version of science.
And belief in a god can involve awe but isn’t the essence of such belief or automatically part of belief, as deism shows. Obviously it’s possible that gods exist. The issue is that when religions assert that gods exist, they’re making a claim that deserves scientific scrutiny like anything else – it’s no different from asserting the existence of a previously undiscovered planet. There might not be conflicts between science and religion if the latter didn’t make claims of fact that can’t be empirically verified.