Being prepared to change ones mind about the axioms you put your faith in is not related to this contention. A scientific argument for why a religious idea is w

Being prepared to change ones mind about the axioms you put your faith in is not related to this contention. A scientific argument for why a religious idea is wrong is equally as irrelevant as a theological argument for why a scientific idea is wrong. If you want to challenge a scientific axiom, you do it using the scientific method, if you want to challenge a religious axiom, then you do it using the relevant theological framework. The idea that one set of axioms is better than another though is quite easily falsifiable. Axioms are the unprovable assumptions on which all domains of knowledge are built, and all unprovable assumptions are equal in their unprovable-ness. > These days, all the arguments have been made, and the only sensible course would be to agree to differ. Perhaps, but I’d say we just understand enough today to know when different ideas are trying to answer different questions. If you generalise science to be a method of explaining the nature of the universe, as we observe it, then I don’t think it’s a contentious point to say that religion generally attempts to answer a completely different set of questions, ones that cannot be explained with science. A religious answer to a scientific questions is equally as irrelevant as a scientific answer to a religious one, and even when they’re in contention, the contention is really only superficial. If you believed the universe was created last Thursday, that wouldn’t necessarily have any impact at all on the nature of the universe we observe today.