Of course you would, exhibiting much greater arrogance than my worst detractors claim for me.
You can't say God is inconsistent with science without first specifying which God the person is describing; I've read very few materialists who would say no version of God is compatible with science.
+
I might even claim to have been born and bred on the milk of "arrogance", considering it was a fact of my life from my earliest memories as a toddler that unless you had a point of view and could defend it against all comers, you were "nobody". I was indeed the babe of that "genius clan". I learned to play chess before I learned to read, and I took the beatings from my older brothers like a man. On the chess board, on the basketball court, and at the dinner table. I miss the daily exercise. . . . .
But I think you know that my kind of arrogance is not the ignorant kind, not really. I respect people who are willing to stand up for their beliefs, even if they don't take mine seriously. I might be your "worst" detractor, at times at least, but while I ponder the possibility of your "arrogance", I at least put in the same class as my own. You understand the importance of having reasons and methods of presentation in a discussion, and to your credit you connect your positions, somehow, to the underlying data base you consider relevant.
That's why we can have "fun" games in here.
I can say "God" is inconsistent with science in the view of many disbelievers in God who find reasons in science for that disbelief, at least in their specific minds. That is what bugs me about a lot of political rhetoric in "progressive" politics. I'm not sure they have very good ideas of either what science is, or what God may be.
My use of the term in the above post refers to the place-holder value of the term "God", not necessarily to any specifc definition or concept embraced by any religion or even any possible human. It could be anything, from nature in its raw essence to "life-force" in nature, to the cognitive functionality of "life" in all its forms, to some "intelligence" behind "design", to Buddha, to Jesus, to a common Father of mankind or. . . . I susppose the list is as endless as human imagination itself.
The God I consider most relevant is the one that identified Himself to the Israelites, as well as to Abraham and other more ancient and lesser understood characters portrayed in legendary form from our earliest "history". The one that cared, the one that spoke, the one nobody really knows for sure. The one we sometimes love, and the one who gives some of us a sense of personal value and personal belonging to a larger community in the universe. The one so many people have said so much about with so little actual understanding. . . the one anyone can disbelieve in because someone somewhere said something stupid about Him that just makes no sense at all. . . . . sorta. . . . unless we just want to belief, and engage our fantastic and awesome capacity for faith, belief, and love, so that we can imagine we "belong" to Him.
For me, it's the one who understood our need for liberty and freedom, and accepted our propensity for error, for ignorance, for sin, and for every kind of evil imaginable, and the one who took the long view and gave us a way back home, after we have run out our wildness and come to accept that we in fact do have a home.
