[AgentofGaming]

I think we're using the same argument with different terms. If I quote it's not necessarily a rebuttal, sometimes it's a rephrasing or extension. Perhaps you're using too many arguable points as one, or I'm not on the same lines of your ordering.

I didn't say science was equipped to handle the reality of god's existence. I'm agreeing with what you're saying that: it's outside the scope.
However I didn't see the contradiction because as I was saying science is negative by default, which led to the remark of the burden of proof. In other words I was trying to say that the status quo of science is nothing/don't know, not assumed existence. I don't believe that using the same basis of to criticize the existence of deities leads to a contradiction, as anything outside of verification can be rejected as baseless.
Thereby giving us the status quo.

Implicit meanings are a bit difficult to comprehend, so we're somewhat on the same lines but in different interpretations.

EDIT: sorry, I can't find the exact words I'm looking for.

[blueback]

Theism: conscious belief in God specifically, and deities generally
Implicit Atheism: “the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it” George H. Smith
Explicit Atheism: conscious disbelief in theism
Agnostic: Rejection of theism and atheism on the grounds that they require an equal leap of faith

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The term "scientific atheist" is not a misnomer, if you take the later points in my post into account. I state that a scientific atheist has no positive belief in the existence or non-existence of God, but the DO have the negative believe that God does not exist due to the nothingess that takes His place when the possibility of His existence is excluded from inquiry.

From you:
scientific atheist 1: no explicit belief regarding God
Scientific atheist 2: implicit belief God doesn’t exist because the “nothingness” is taking up too much space.

It sounds like you are just talking about the difference between implicit and explicit. On the other hand, for someone to BELIEVE something they have to first acknowledge it. If ‘scientific atheists’ don’t even acknowledge that the debate about whether or not God exists is valid, and therefore can’t draw a conclusion one way or another. . .then they can’t believe in one of the conclusions. It sounds like you are applying the phrase “negative belief” to a situation it has never covered before. Negative beliefs usually refers to beliefs which are negative (pessimistic, depressing, angry) in nature, not beliefs which don’t exist.

By this “logic” I can tell you that you have a “negative belief that unicorns do not exits due to the nothingess that takes [their] place when the possibility of [their] existence is excluded from inquiry.” Just because you don’t think about unicorns doesn’t mean you default to belief in their non-existence. The same thing applies here. Just because someone doesn’t think about God doesn’t mean they believe in his non-existence.

I found a reference to ‘scientific atheism’ in google books and it looks like it was invented in the Soviet Union to “free the workers from religious prejudices.” It looks like scientific atheism is not so much a philosophy as it is an activism focused on discrediting religion. That being said it seems to attack on three fronts: 1) philosophical, 2) natural science, 3) historical explanation. So, you know, the term appears to be real in the sense that someone used it before you.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Given this, it does matter if a scientific atheist tries to justify their negative believe with science. They are creating a self-contradiction, claiming their methodology to be restricted to science but holding negative belief in something that science has nothing to say about.

Sure, IF a person claims that science has nothing to say about God, but then says that science proves God’s non-existence, then they are being irrational. On the other hand, if you are forcing the mantle of a belief onto their agnosticism then you are the one making an error.

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The point is this: If you don't consider the possibility that God exists, that is the equivalent to not believing in Him, because rather you positively don't believe in God or negatively don't believe in God, He is not present in your life unless you positively DO believe in Him. And the scientific atheist CANNOT rebutt this because it is a claim beyond empirical verifiability.

Ah! A point! An absence of belief in a thing is not a belief in the absence of that thing. A lack of belief is not a belief of lack. So, you’re wrong. You can’t tell a person what their beliefs are when they state that they don’t have any beliefs. Well, I suppose you can, but you lose credibility when you go around declaring that people believe things when all they said was that they don’t have a belief regarding the subject.

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is such a thing as scientific belief. This is not a misnomer. There reason for this is as previously stated: A lack of belief in God is a negative belief, which is a form of belief.

This is what you said “A lack of belief […] is a form of belief.” So, basically, you are saying that , rather then A = A, in fact A = Z. You are saying that a thing is its opposite. When you claim that a thing is its opposite you undermine the very foundation of rationality. Doing so is pretty much as irrational as you can get. In fact, if you are going to use this point to support the rest of your points you need to do a lot more explaining.

I found an article by Michael Polanyi which talks about the beliefs that are present in scientific endevours. He seems to think that scientists are just as irrational as religious types, but scientists pretend they are being rational by hiding behind a lot of fancy words and graphs. It’s hard to argue with the possibility that individuals who practice science also harbor beliefs that are not supported by observable evidence. Maybe they are, in fact they probably do (they’re human after all), but at least they’re trying harder to be rational then the people who cling to their beliefs and try to justify them by positing that reality doesn’t exist.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Science does involve reason and science is not reason. Adhere to your own methods and grab a dictionary before you post. The definitions of science and reason are not identical. They simply are NOT the same thing. This being said, someone who is being truly scientific is being rational, at least about their field of inquiry. But this does not make reason the same as science!

No. You grab a dictionary. I am tired of doing all the work to reference the definitions of words I use only to have the definitions ignored.

If the definitions of science and reason were identical then we wouldn’t need two separate words. Seriously, think about what you’re typing before you waste space on it. Science is founded on reason. In the sense that a house is part of a home, reason is part of science. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. Science is reason but reason is not science.

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This DOES make the scientific atheist the arbitor of propositions about what is and is not, due to my aforementioned argument about negative belief. This is a central thesis of mine that you have yet to see, yet alone rebutt.

You’re right. I failed to see your thesis because I was giving you too much credit. If your thesis really is that a lack of belief is a belief of lack then it is wrong and everything founded on it is wrong.

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I said nothing that trapped me into a belief in irrationality. You threw this into the end of your rebuttal, but there is no support for it, though I suppose it somehow follows from your fallacious understanding of my argument.

Actually, I just proved that you are being irrational based on a better understanding of your position. Feel free to try again.

[Danellian]

Blueback, you are again missing my point. I can rebutt everything you just said with one statement: Lack of assent to a belief in the existence or non-existence of God is not the same as lack of assent to a belief in the existence or non-existence of a unicorn, or anything else, for that matter. I am not making a statement about the psychological nature of belief with that assertion. I am making a statement about the nature of God, and the fact that there will always be a resultant emptiness inside the human soul without the presence of God to fill it. If we not positively believe in God's existence, then He will not fill that emptiness. But, from a purely scientific standpoint, this proposition is entirely out of the realm of inquiry. Also, we can have beliefs without conscoiusly assenting to them. Aren't you at all familiar with psychoanalytic and cognitive psyhology. Both fields demonstrate that human beings hold all kinds of unconscious beliefs that influence our behavior without our conscious awareness of it. So, once again, your attempt to dismantle my argument has failed miserably.

In summation: If we do not positively believe in God, then He will not fill the inner emptiness, which means we will have the subconscious belief that He does not exist, because, on a subconscious level, we will be aware of this emptiness.

[Gavisi]

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In summation: If we do not positively believe in God, then He will not fill the inner emptiness, which means we will have the subconscious belief that He does not exist, because, on a subconscious level, we will be aware of this emptiness.

I've only felt better after becoming an atheist, so I must have filled that emptiness with something good. Probably steak.

[Danellian]

Gavisi, why don't you tell us more about that?

[AgentofGaming]

I don't think he believes in this emptiness like you do.
Either that or belief in god fills his stomach.

[Mechanical Messiah]

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In summation: If we do not positively believe in God, then He will not fill the inner emptiness, which means we will have the subconscious belief that He does not exist, because, on a subconscious level, we will be aware of this emptiness.

So, in summation... one must first believe in god before they can believe in god?

I've been trying to understand the nature of 'belief' from a christian point of view. Check out the post that I made here- post number 112:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Would you care to adress my Clone's bigfoot analogy? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

I've posed the question at the end of said analogy to LOTS of christians... and rarely got any reply. Nobody here has been willing so far.

[Danellian]

MechanicalMessiah, I don't see that there is a problem presented by our analogy. It's not that there is no evidence, it's that there is no observeable evidence. Anyone who has felt the presence of the Holy Spirit can attest that they know God exists, even if it's something they can't prove to someone else. This might seem like I'm pulling something out of the air that doesn't exist, but it demonstrates that it doesn't match onto your analogy because there is no Spirit of the Sasquatch to indwell within said person. As there is no observeable evidence, science has nothing to say about it. So, if we restrict ourselves to observeable evidence in order to believe in something greater, then we never will believe in something greater.

The free will/determinism debate is very complicated and not easily hashed out. If you want to discuss it, we can, but it will pretty much be another discussion entirely from the one we are having.

That said, I don't see that having experiences that result in our belief in something means we cannot choose to believe it. The reason is that the experience is not the only factor involved. The experience is mediated through the mind, which is another factor in itself. The mind is the medium where the choice is made. I would add that we make more of a choice the more consciously we integrate said experience into our belief system, and make less of a choice the more we subconsciously integrate it into our belief system. This is simply social psychology. Anyhow, the same is true of any experience. You can't tell me that if you say an orangutan standing on your living room table, that you would not believe such was the case. But it's another logical step to claim you didn't choose to believe it. Without more logical backup on your part, your making an assuption based on leaving out a logical step in your argument. Again, if you want to get into this, we can, but it may sidetrack the purpose of this thread. Which could be interesting, or distracting, that remains to be seen.

[Mechanical Messiah]

About free will- I'll think on it. It could make for an interesting thread of its own.

[Bossy Mom]

I just want to post on the original question. I go to church with my daughter (who urges me to go with her), and I am sometimes somewhat put-off by the minister(s) who will not give an inch on the immensity or origins of the universe, the age of the earth and the universe, or evolution! I can easily see how a religious person could believe that God created the universe with the big bang and that one day in the Bible couldn't possibly mean a 24-hour period. Life continues to evolve, change and adapt - it isn't incompatible at all with religion.

[Gavisi]

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Gavisi, why don't you tell us more about that?

I don't know what you mean by an inner emptiness. A feeling that life isn't worth it? Yeah, I've had that at times. But it had nothing to do with religion - it was me overexaggerating a bad situation (Besides, I was a devout Christian during those times). I've grown out of those feelings, and now think that life is good. Even if there are some bad moments.

So what do you mean by an inner emptiness, and why is God the only thing that can fill it?

P.S. The statement about being filled with steak was a bad joke. I'm prone to those.

[Danellian]

Gavisi, I think there is a part of us that always hungers for meaning greater than this world alone can provide. If you look at history, people are always trying to find a way to find meaning, and to fill the emptiness that presents in its absence. So, I think it boils down to all humans wanting to have meaning in their lives. I don't see how we can have that without there being something objective outside this universe to impart meaning to life.

[Gavisi]

What's this "meaning" the world provides, and why is it not good enough? I can't address any of your other points without understanding what "meaning" means.

[Antares]

Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Gavisi, I think there is a part of us that always hungers for meaning greater than this world alone can provide. If you look at history, people are always trying to find a way to find meaning, and to fill the emptiness that presents in its absence. So, I think it boils down to all humans wanting to have meaning in their lives. I don't see how we can have that without there being something objective outside this universe to impart meaning to life.

I agree. I think that humans do tend to want a higher purpose in life. Some find it in religion, and some find it in other places. Although I don't necessarily agree that my need for meaning is satisfied by God, apparently many think so. We all (or most, anyway) have the emotionally need for meaning and purpose, and some people (I'm not insinuating whether this is good or bad) just aren't satisfied with the atheist belief that the world is just 'like that', no hidden meanings, higher purposes etc. I think that people tend to read more to things than there are sometimes.





Camelopardalis added to this post, 1 minutes and 31 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Gavisi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What's this "meaning" the world provides, and why is it not good enough? I can't address any of your other points without understanding what "meaning" means.

I don't think there's any 'meaning', but as I have said before, people aren't satisfied. Those like you and I think that it is good enough, but not everybody works like that.

[AgentofGaming]

I think purpose as far as it ever meant for life, was life itself (otherwise the planet would be empty and species would make themselves extinct).
Unlike other creatures we're not struggling to fill our stomachs anymore.
That's why I think that meaning would be something we create for ourselves (or not necessary at all) and not something we have to seek or have given to us.

[Danellian]

I do understand where you guys are coming from, but I think there has to be a point of balance. On the one hand, we can't have any meaning unless we find a way to it ourselves. If we rely on churches or some outside source for meaning, then it isn't really meaning, it's just a social construct. On the other hand, if our meaning is entirely personal, then it is rendered subjective, devoid of any objectivity, which means it is equally artificial, not real.

[Gavisi]

So if you find meaning by yourself, it's artificial, and if you find meaning through what other people tell you, it's artificial.

Is it right then to conclude that the idea of life having "meaning" is artificial? Seems like the desire for "meaning" is really just a dissatisfaction with life.

[Danellian]

I'm saying it has to be both subjective and objective not to be artificial. It's the principle of balance in all things. Just because something needs balance to be optimized doesn't make it hopelessly artificial. If so, then pretty much everything is artificial.

Just think about it. If meaning is entirely subjective, as you are advocating, then there is no objectivity to it. Without objectivity, what you are saying, by my interpretation, when you say "we make our own meaning" is the logical equivalent to "there really is no meaning, but we can make ourselves feel that our lives are meaningful", which is ultimately saying that objectively speaking, there is no meaning.

Where I'm coming from is this. There is meaning our there. Objectivity matters. But we can't go directly to it, we have no direct link with this something "out there". I think you would agree with me on this much. That's why we have to go through a personal level to get there. That's the subjective element. However, if there is never any objective correlate that we are moving toward, then there is no objectivity, hence meaning is an illusion, and in my opinion, we really shouldn't even be using the word.

I find the perspective of atheistic meaing very interesting, and I don't mean to immediately discount it as though it has no value. I think it does have value, because of the truth it contains that we cannot contact that objective domain directly. I just disagree when said proposition gets to the point of stating there never is any objectivity whatsoever.

I've long been attracted to Buddhism. The reason for this is because I understand that we cling to external things and ideas for happiness, when in reality we are merely trapping ourselves within a prison of suffering that is of our own making. We have to fight our way out of that prison by stripping ourselves of all the illusions and false things we cling to, or else there will be no happiness. But, in the end, if there is nothing objective at the end of the journey, it didn't matter anyway.

I admit that I have problems with being dissatisfied with life. Sometimes it just feels like "what's the point?" and "is this all there is?", and I imagine how I could be happy with what I've got, or how I could have all the things I've dreamed of or be the person I dream of being. I'm not denying any of this. There is a subjective element if me that will always be there, just as there will be in all of us. But that doesn't mean that objectivity is false, just because there are psychological reasons why I really want objectivity in my life.

Your perspective is very humanistic, which is charactaristic of our times. You have to realize, though, that humanism is a relatively recent development. Until fairly recently, the starting point of inquiry was not the self, but rather that objective correlate of which I speak. While the past has it's flaws, with masses being mired in superstition and chained to socially constructed institutions and dogmas, so too, does the present have it's flaws. Now, we have a society where people are increasingly unable to anchor themselves to anything greater than themselves. We have a lot of great technology and material comfort when compared to the past, but we also have much less meaning and connection to the natural environment. Humans, as a collective race, are losing touch with their true place in the greater scheme of things. We are moving from stewardship of our environment toward exploitation of it (not that we were ever perfect stewards, either) and we are moving into a globalistic, technological system that has nothing to say about what our place should be within the greater scheme of things, but doesn't hesitate to give us a place according to it's own terms.

[xhaan]

Originally Posted by rwyatt365 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[FONT=Verdana]Interesting debate. How about trying this thought on for size; Science uses theory to explain the operation of the universe and all of its components whereas Religion uses faith to explain the same. Reduced to its simplest level "theory" is just a guess to explain what happens (albeit, sometimes a complicated guess, and one backed up by repeatable observations often accompanied with mathematic calculations, or "proofs"). Reduced to its simplest level "faith" is just another guess about how things happens, but a guess that is not required to be proven by any rigorous methodology. As such, religion is not antithetical to science – one is simply an extension of the "vision" of the other (i.e. what I cannot explain by science can be explained by religion and vice versa). [/FONT]

Well, yes. Theories should be testable, with defined expectations, and therefore you can arrive at a level of probability. Faith, IMO, explains nothing, there is no probability.. not the same as a probability of zero, there simply isn't one, it doesn't apply. Perhaps it once was used to explain things, like how the Earth came into being. The nature of my faith is, that in spite of all insensitive mechanics of the universe, there is somthing else I can *believe* in. Not just something I can know from proofs or statistics, but something that allows me to feel something, i.e. that God loves me, even though I am not perfect, and that believing in the sacrfice of Jesus purifies me before God. It doesn't have to do with fundamentalism or so many predefined morals for me, except coincidentally or by what I feel that the bible truly teaches, that your faith is of utmost importance because nobody is righteous by their own work. As the bible says, in Romans 14:

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

That's only the beginning of the chapter, but the basic point of it is, if you feel something is wrong but in dispute, then to you it is wrong, and you should not do it, but you should not judge the other person whos faith allows it. Feeling in your heart that something is wrong, and then intentionally doing it anyway, or being tempted to, is where sin ultimately comes from I believe. It is the knowledge of wrongdoing, corruption.

Anyways... I'm going to cut this off here because I've been up for like 40 or so hours straight and am not quite coherent.

[Gavisi]

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Where I'm coming from is this. There is meaning our there. Objectivity matters. But we can't go directly to it, we have no direct link with this something "out there". I think you would agree with me on this much.

I don't agree. Unless you have some proof of whatever's out there?

I know that you can't have proof of the supernatural. So why should I ever think about the supernatural? If you've had a personal experience with the supernatural, that's great. But unless you can come up with proof that others can verify, there's no objectivity to your claim. (And hence, no reason for me or anyone else to consider it)

What is it that gives life its "meaning"? How do you know this?

[Danellian]

There is no objectivity to anything you claim about the world, since you, admittedly, lock yourself into your own perpsective and nothing more than that. From an subjective standpoint, there might or might not be something supernatural. The proposition remains a possibility that there is something supernatural, we just have nothing to say about it. This means that we need to use a different methodology to address this question, not merely the pragmatist framework espoused by Pierce, James, Ayers, and others, who adapted philosophy to fit the framework of an empirical age, and who dictate how our culture thinks.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is no objectivity to anything you claim about the world, since you, admittedly, lock yourself into your own perpsective and nothing more than that.

So. . .what you're saying is that no one can be sure of anything since, after all, they have only their own opinion to go on. That means that no one can be sure of anything anyone else says, because they have only their own opinion.

You are wrong, and I can explain why very simply. You are sure that you exist.

You can't be unsure of your own existence, since the simple act of wondering whether or not you exist requires that you be aware of your own existence. It is, in fact, something you are absolutely sure of. BTW, that is the beginning of objectivism. I suggest you read up on it. I read into several of the ideas you put forward.

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	From an subjective standpoint, there might or might not be something supernatural. The proposition remains a possibility that there is something supernatural, we just have nothing to say about it.

Exactly. This is the point at which rational people go find something productive to do with their time.

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This means that we need to use a different methodology to address this question, not merely the pragmatist framework espoused by Pierce, James, Ayers, and others, ...

There might be a pot of gold in my backyard. I have no way of knowing unless I get up and look.

According to your philosophy, I should stop what I'm doing, and go check my backyard for a pot of gold that I don't know for sure isn't there. Then, when I don't find it there, I should go check my neighbor's backyard. . .and then his neighbor. . .and then his neighbor, etc.

My philosophy says that I shouldn't waste my time chasing after things I have never seen any evidence of. I should get some work done, and maybe accumulate my own pot of gold over time.

[Danellian]

Blueback, a pot of gold is something tangible. As I've already said, I'm talking about the intangible. The scientific method is great for dealing with the physical universe. Why do I have to keep repeating things? Let's just not open that can of worms, I don't want to get into an argument about posting styles. Just leave it at this: I have said this before.

Regarding finding something productive to do with your time, I find your philosophy to be impractical because there are no real conclusions about how we need to live our lives, only hypotheses. I don't view ethical reliablism as practical, but rather, a rationale to not have to live up to a higher standard.

[Antares]

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Blueback, a pot of gold is something tangible. As I've already said, I'm talking about the intangible. The scientific method is great for dealing with the physical universe. Why do I have to keep repeating things? Let's just not open that can of worms, I don't want to get into an argument about posting styles. Just leave it at this: I have said this before.

Yes, religion is talking about untangible things, but the logic works similarily. Think Russell's teapot. Or better yet, if you want intangible, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (You can't touch her, smell her, see her, taste her or hear her. In fact, she's in every way undetectable). The very idea of her is quite absurd and I'm sure no one here would hesitate to dismiss the possibility of her existence. If she's invisible, how do we know that she's pink? But we can't prove otherwise, but it's called a belief after all. If we've never seen God, how do we know that he's the Christian God, the Greek Olympians, Baal, Osiris or someone else? It's equally unable to be proven as the IPU, but it is for the believer to prove to the non-believers that she does in fact exist, but notice, hardly anything tangible or logical can come from the 'proof'. Isn't that the case with religions today? The same concept goes for God. I think that's what Blueback was trying to say, except with a different example. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[terencec]

Originally Posted by Rei To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I just think non-atheists can't study science in the truest sense. How can you be motivated to know how/what/why when you think at the bottom of everything is God's work? On the other hand, how can you trust/have faith in your religion if you believe science keeps explaining things differently from what your religion says? I think (no offense) that non-atheists are a closed-minded bunch. They restrict their thinking to God. They have strong sense of what is "right" and what is "wrong" when the study of science requires one to look at everything with a neutral point of view. Like Thomas Aquinas, they accept what science supports God and reject what doesn't despite proof; and bend science to work with religion. I guess there are exceptions, but I really can't understand where they stand... essentially they're sitting on the fence and will fall on one side or the other eventually. Agh, I'm going to go off topic from here so this is where I stop.

I think to study science, one should not prefer God exists to God does not exist. He/she should be open mind.

However, non-atheists tends to explain everything by religion because of their (strong) belief. They may not be "neutral". They tend to be bias. So "in general" I do agree that non-atheists (even atheists who do not believe God exists) have a difficulty studying science in the truest sense. Ideally, one should be "neutral" when he/she studies science before they can find evidences or arguments that suggest one way or the way.

Science and religion don't contradict at all. You're making an assumption. This is not a valid assumption. I can find more evidence when I have time some other day, but for now i reference you to MIT's head of Nuclear Physics and Engineering, Dr. Ian Hutchinson. He's a Christian who doesn't see the two as conflicting at all. Btw, you're claiming science is always consistent. That's bullshit, actually. It's just got a very high rate of consistency. Seriously. I'll expand more if I remember. PM me if someone reads this in a few days and I haven't replied. (I have notes on this at home.)

I know the Einstein did not believe in God for sure. He used the word "God" in many of his papers. However, God just means "physical laws" for him. He used to be "very" religious when he was young, later he did not believe any personal God. I won't say he was right or not. Even Einstein was not always right, he also made some mistakes in physics (e.g. he claimed black hole could not exist)

Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965)
"Although both of my parents were raised Jewish, they did not raise me to be religious. Later in life I became, and remain, a devout atheist. All of those religions teach blind faith and I see too many holes in their arguments. I might believe a religion if its argument logically connected to me, but the only system of thinking that leaves no doubt in my mind is the system of scientific analysis. So you could say that I am an adherent to the religion of science."

I don't understand why science is not always consistent. What does it mean? Are you talking some physics theories are based on possibility? If so, The possibility is already "built into" the theories. So they are still consistent.