That's a role for of all philosophy. What makes religious philosophy perfect for it? How does the introduction of supernatural claims improve anything?
' "There's no need for religion at all" isn't really an answer to that particular question,'
That's not what I said; I asked why religion at all. If there's a conflict in science and religion, it's that religion typically encourages believing things absent reason (i.e., basing actions on faith).
"That's a role for of all philosophy. What makes religious philosophy perfect for it? How does the introduction of supernatural claims improve anything?"
Like I said, it isn't, it doesn't. Science and philosophy are compatible too?
That's not what I said; I asked why religion at all. If there's a conflict in science and religion, it's that religion typically encourages believing things absent reason (i.e., basing actions on faith).
Of course it does. Its a big problem. Not all religions or religious people make this error.
We're really talking about falsifiable things here. Science sticks to falsifiable claims. Religion sticks to non-falsifiable ones. They get along fine. Philosophy is welcome at the table as well, at any time.
It isn't. Religion may indeed be a subset of philosophy, one of many answers for "why is there something and not nothing?". The simplest answer is and has always been "because there is", but many find this unsatisfying. Cosmologies are like that, you kind of have to pick one and they're all a little bit unsatisfying.
The question however, was "How can science and religion be compatible?". "There's no need for religion at all" isn't really an answer to that particular question, even though it does open a fascinating debate along another path.