You must have. Religious terrorism; systemic denial of scientific evidence; curtailment of human rights; racial strife; economic disparity; and of course... actual war.
Other than that, we're just squabbling, polluting the landscape, spreading disease and accelerating climate change. IOW, BAU. — Vera Mont

"Religious terrorism" (https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-en.aspx) is irrelevant to science, and it speaks mainly about anti-terrorism.

"denial of scientific evidence" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3366896/) is irrelevant to religion(not even the word is mentioned).

"human rights" (https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/) is irrelevent to both science and religion!

What is all this? I was talking about the war between science and religion.
Please don't waste people's time, @Vera Mont! And focus on what is discussed.

What is all this? I was talking about the war between science and religion. — Alkis Piskas

There never has been and never can be any war between ideologies, methodologies or belief systems. Wars take place between factions of armed humans. They're usually fighting over resources and territory, but that's usually masked by an appeal to the superior value of one ideology, methodology or belief system over the other. This is done to recruit troops through emotion rather than reason. With modern propaganda platforms, it can be done faster, more effectively and on a larger scale than ever before.
But maybe it's all irrelevant and there won't be time or need for that war, because the really big one, over survival, won't need any cover stories or recruitment.

There never has been and never can be any war between ideologies, methodologies or belief systems. Wars take place between factions of armed humans. — Vera Mont

They're usually fighting over resources and territory, but that's usually masked by an appeal to the superior value of one ideology, methodology or belief — Vera Mont

I doubt this is true and it seems simplistic. How would you demonstrate this?

In most cases turf, flags, resources, are all held on behalf of an ideology which usually takes itself very seriously, whether it be Islamic State or the United States.

In most cases turf, flags, resources, are all held on behalf of an ideology which usually takes itself very seriously, whether it be Islamic State or the United States. — Tom Storm

Sure. Christianity goaded Spain into invading America so that it, Christianity, could propagate itself in the heathen. The Spanish monarchy, using Spanish soldiers as it tools, just killed all those people and carried off all that gold and grabbed all that land to help Christianity along. The human agents involved had no choice in the matter; they were just serving an ideology. It's a point of view.

Sure. Christianity goaded Spain into invading America so that it — Vera Mont

You're almost there. Ideologies must have power to embed their ideology - getting money, resources, land and populations are critical key strategies in consolidating an ideology's status.

Are you one of those cynics who thinks that no one believes in anything, it's just about money?

Ideologies must have power to embed their ideology - — Tom Storm

So, you think abstract concepts are not merely alive and have a will of their own, but also have agency and power to manipulate people? Ho-kay...

Are you one of those cynics who thinks that no one believes in anything, it's just about money? — Tom Storm

In order for anything to be "about money", somebody must first believe in money, which would make it a self-contradiction for me to think that. No, I'm one of those cynics who think that ideologies, like money, like technology, like social hierarchy, like law, were invented by humans and are wielded by humans. Of course people believe things - all kinds of things that no squirrel or shark would be fool enough to believe. Humans have large brains, imaginations, anxieties and egos - they can make up six mutually contradictory theories before breakfast.

So, you think abstract concepts are not merely alive and have a will of their own, but also have agency and power to manipulate people? Ho-kay... — Vera Mont

You bet. Ideas animate people. Ideas are dangerous.

I'm one of those cynics — Vera Mont

Ok - understand. Cynics tend to dismiss things other people don't. That's fine. Arguing this point would probably be like debating the meaning of Nostradamus quatrains.

There never has been and never can be any war between ideologies, methodologies or belief systems. — Vera Mont

Googling warfare of science with theology, one gets 4,380,000 results! I have a whole folder in my PC about this subject from a time in the past that I was interested in the subject. Most probably, this subject --although of a huge importance-- has never come to your attention. Strangely enough.

4,380,000 — Alkis Piskas

wars with no material gain in any of them for a group of humans? Amazing! It must have happened before my time, or I'd have noticed, probably.

But this confusion comes from assigning a characteristic to God that I don't think you fully understand the consequences. What are the consequences of a being who can make contradiction true? I don't think you even understand such a scenario, nor do I, nor do I think anyone does. I'm not sure you, or I, are fully capable of understanding a world in which a contradiction are true. — PhilosophyRunner

Are contradictions not the basis for self reference and agency. For example two humans must be in contradiction with one another's beliefs otherwise they would operate as a unanimous hive mind. Thinking and acting as one. No individualism.
In this way do leaders like queen bees or queen ants or human Kings and Queens not behold a sort of hive mind. As they are in a position if authority and power over what choices are permitted by their subjects (laws and regulation).

One can argue monarchy is unjust as it erodes absolute free will but similarly monarchies are hierarchal and orderly systems of conduct and civility - just as the judicial system and government of these days are. Absolute free will could potentially lead to chaos and disorder.

People have "conflicts of interest" or contradictions/paradox all the time and so argue or fight with one another over who's is more correct either through logic/reason or through ethics.

To use an extreme to illustrate this imagine both the most outstanding citizen and the worst criminal. Are they not in direct contradiction with one another's beliefs? The citizen wants order and peace and cooperation and servitude to the greater good, the criminal on the other hand wants chaos, self interest and my an "every man for themselves" ethos, for those to serve them and then alone.

I think the contradiction between being "selfless" and "selfish" is really the key in understanding the root of all evil and the root of all good. Logical paradoxes in philosophy, science, religion and society at large depend on who's asking.

Change ones perceptions, ones own beliefs, and paradoxes are dismantled or built in accordance with their assumptions.

Googling warfare of science with theology, one gets 4,380,000 results! I have a whole folder in my PC about this subject from a time in the past that I was interested in the subject. Most probably, this subject --although of a huge importance-- has never come to your attention. Strangely enough. — Alkis Piskas

I agree Alkis. I think the basis of war is irreconcilable and aggravating contradictions in values, beliefs or "personal truths" as to how true reality ought to be, to the point of brute force and personal attack/violence.

Such is that between those that need something to be observed to believe it exists (scientists) that are blind to the existence of abstractions like ethics, empathy and other peoples minds - all of which can't be proven with objective measurement, and those that claim intuition, common sense and moral imperative is the way to go (spiritual/religious folk) which are blind to what is right in front of them - those things that are clearly testable and consistent through objective experiment alone.

The irony of it is that they are both of observing the same reality as eachother just through different lenses. They both cherry pick what they think is correct and use this to invalidate the opponents views.

Could it not be the case that the actual Truth of things is approachable from any perspective, and by that I mean it should be approached from all perspectives available? Afterall if it is indeed thr ultimate truth it wouldnt likely change depending on the observers bias. They woukd just be seeing it in partiality not totality.

Are contradictions not the basis for self reference and agency. For example two humans must be in contradiction with one another's beliefs otherwise they would operate as a unanimous hive mind. Thinking and acting as one. No individualism. — Benj96

I don't see two humans having two different beliefs as contradictory. They are two different people, and thus there is no contradiction if they have two different beliefs any more than two different cars being two different colors.

It is true that if I held a different belief to you, I could contradict you, so contradictory is used in the sense you describe. But the use of the word in terms of God I took to mean true contradictions - for example a car being only blue, and not blue at the same time. That is impossible in terms of how we think of the world normally.

The following two statements are a contradiction.

1. The color of the car is blue and only blue
2. The color of the car is not blue

They both can't be true at the same time based on the way we currently view the world.

I don't see two humans having two different beliefs as contradictory. They are two different people, and thus there is no contradiction if they have two different beliefs any more than two different cars being two different colors. — PhilosophyRunner

I meant their beliefs in reference to reality. If person one - a scientist, believes what is true about reality is only what can be measured repeatedly and consistently by anyone anywhere using the same objective method of measure (such as the laws of thermodynamics, physics etc) but another person believes not everything in reality is observable using only objective measure.

Their two beliefs are in contradiction. One believes only things that can be observed can be believed. The other says things that cannot be observed can be believed.

Another example. Person one believes time travel into the past could be possible but would lead to the grandfather paradox. Another person believe time travel into the past is not possible and so there is no such paradox. Again we see that their beliefs about what is true of reality are in conflict.

Lastly, if two different people having two different beliefs is not contradictory then how could they ever argue with one another about them by picking out logical flaws in one anothers beliefs. Person one who believes for example that tomatoes are a fruit based on their taxonomic classification and morphology may say this to another person that never puts tomatoes in a fruit salad and therefore doesn't think they are a fruit but instead a vegetable.

Who is correct? And who's logic is more sensible? I'm not saying contradictions between people are not tolerable of course they must be allowed to exist. "agree to disagree" in such a sense. But what I'm saying is they do exist.

1. The color of the car is blue and only blue
2. The color of the car is not blue

They both can't be true at the same time based on the way we currently view the world. — PhilosophyRunner

I think they can. The colour of the car is blue and only blue (in a world where no one is colour blind, or in a world where only what you see is true) is correct.
The colour of the car is not blue (when we consider others see blue differently than ourselves) is again correct.

In that way two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time. The difference is relativism/perspective from different observers. We must add some knowledge to the set of contradictions to dissolve the contradiction.