I recently wrote an essay exploring why I believe science and religion are inherently incompatible at a fundamental level. This isn’t just about creationism vs. evolution. It’s about truth-seeking, evidence, and dogma.
As a LaVeyan Satanist, I approach this from a position that prioritizes rationality, indulgence, and self-honesty over faith and obedience. The essay challenges the popular narrative that the two can peacefully coexist without contradiction.
I’d love to hear opposing views or additions, whether you agree, disagree, or want to expand on it.
Here’s the full essay on Substack (no paywall):
https://open.substack.com/pub/oscarazrael/p/why-science-and-religion-cant-coexist?r=6v3r0a
I’m ooking forward to the discussion.
Huh?
The oldest mathematical writings were made under the reign of Apothis in ancient Egypt…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra#History
And as we all know Apothis was a false god struck down by his Jaffa Teal’C and SG1 about 20 years ago.
People often claim that science and religion can go hand in hand
Who?
Modern discourse treats faith like a moral good.
Modern in comparison to what? What is the difference to contemporary (moral?) discourse? Also whose discourse?
Religious conflicts have claimed millions of lives
Yes, but that is a weak argument, when we are arguing for science, given that scientific discoveries have led to very significant harm as well.
It’s the inevitable result of a system that claims moral authority without accountability.
I like that phrasing.
Morality does not come from religion.
It was often the framework for morality though, because, as you said, it was or is the moral authority. Assuming no authority is total, moral progression thus was only possible through religion. I’d argue science needed/needs religion in religious societies, because science isn’t a (strong) moral framework or authority.
[Morality] comes from human empathy.
I disagree and assume it is possible through culture. The culture may be informed by empathy, but empathy without culture seems useless (that is not saying culture is rigid and the individual is not cultural and thus excused).
Appreciate the detailed breakdown, but much of this reads like nitpicking semantics rather than engaging with the actual argument.
“Who?” - The many public figures, academics, and casuals who parrot the tired “science and religion can coexist” line. You can find it in everything from TED Talks to lukewarm religious apologetics.
“Modern compared to what?” - Compared to the centuries where faith was enforced at swordpoint and dissent was heresy. That modern. I’m not interested in academic hairsplitting over definitions when the general meaning is clear.
Yes, scientific discoveries have done harm, but those harms are side effects of methods, not doctrines. When religion causes harm, it’s often a feature, not a bug, justified in the text, not the test tube.
Morality predated organized religion. Religion co-opted it. I’ll grant that religious institutions shaped moral norms, but that doesn’t mean they originated them. Culture evolves. Empathy is innate. You can’t argue culture without human minds, and human minds are wired for empathy, not divine decree.
First off, let me clarify that I’m an agnostic atheist and a pluralist. Naturalistic determinism seems to make the most sense to me, but from a social standpoint, compatibilism seems like the best option.
It would be ignorant to assume that all who believe in God lack critical thinking skills. But belief in God does imply that those skills are not being applied consistently.
Some religions do not have gods, and some are atheistic. Furthermore, polytheistic religions can offer explanations and models for the world that fit what we experience (see Ocean Keltoi on YouTube). I’m currently of the opinion that what we experience with our limited senses/tools is all there is to our reality (how would I know differently?), but I think it would be foolish to assume that our senses are synonymous with all of reality.
You say this is an essay about religion vs. science, but from the get-go, it seems that when you say religion, what you really mean is monotheism.
Let’s address the elephant in the room. Most religious belief is emotional, not philosophical.
I think you’d be hard-pressed to justify this claim. First, I think what you mean to say is that most people who follow a particular religion do so for emotional reasons, but given the varied religions throughout the centuries that do not necessarily promise afterlives or operate upon fear, it is hard to justify why people pick Mysticism over Druidry, Wicca over Heathenry, Daoism over Zen Buddhism, etc.
You might want to cite a source here.
Even if religious belief were somehow compatible with scientific reasoning (and it isn’t), we would still be left with the undeniable fact that religion has caused more harm than good throughout history.
Which religion? Religion is not a monolith. Again, I think you mean monotheism (and probably a particular kind). I don’t recall a single time in history when witches murdered entire populations for not practicing magic. Furthermore, religions like Druidry have a history of seeking wisdom and knowledge; they got a lot wrong, but in a sense, they are early practitioners of science.
If you’re going to say religion in general is a net negative, you should point to examples where it has been beneficial and make the case that examples like the Crusades and Inquisition outweigh the positive examples.
Also as a writing side note, see if you can include negative examples that aren’t the Crusades or Inquisition. They get pointed out as examples every time this topic is brought up to the point that it is almost passé. I think you’d have a far more interesting essay if you can come up with other negative examples.
Appreciate you taking the time to reply, but let’s not mistake disagreement for a lack of clarity. The essay doesn’t claim “all religion is evil” or reduce billions of people to caricatures. What it does argue explicitly is that science and religion function on opposing epistemologies: one demands evidence, the other demands belief. That’s not an attack, it’s a structural incompatibility.
You’re right that religion isn’t a monolith. But I’m not writing a comparative religion thesis. I’m addressing the general function of religious belief across dominant systems. Whether it’s monotheism or mysticism, once faith is used as a justification for truth claims, we’ve exited the realm of science.
And yes, some religions pursued knowledge. But pursuing knowledge without the tools to verify it isn’t science, it’s glorified guessing. Druidry may have honored the stars, but they weren’t testing hypotheses or refining models through falsification. That’s the difference.
As for examples like the Crusades and Inquisition being “passé”, history doesn’t get less relevant just because it’s inconvenient. That said, I’ll gladly expand the catalog. Religious opposition to stem cell research, the HIV crisis in Africa fueled by anti-condom dogma, modern-day witch hunts in Nigeria and India… need I go on?
Bottom line: if belief is held above reason, then any religion, monotheistic or otherwise, can be dangerous. That’s not a sweeping condemnation. It’s a warning label.
Substack platforms and enables the monetization of Nazi content:
Do not give substack blogs any traffic! Use ghost.org as an alternative to the Nazi platform.
You’re clearly upset about Substack as a platform, and you’re free to feel that way. But let’s be real: I’m not monetized. I’m not promoting hate. I’m not affiliated with any extremist newsletter. I’m just using a platform to host an essay that challenges religious dogma with logic and reason.
If you want to debate the ideas, I’m listening. If you’re only here to torch the medium instead of addressing the message, then you’re wasting both our time. If you prefer Ghost, cool. But don’t mistake platform purity for moral high ground. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on the domain under which they are hosted.
Removed by mod
