Statement & Argument — Do scientists believe in religion? Arguments: I. Yes, practicing science does not inherently obstruct personal faith. II. No, religion and science do not go together.

Introduction / Context:
The statement asks a universal yes/no about scientists’ belief in religion. In Statement–Argument items, strong arguments must be precise, qualified, and evidence-relevant. Overgeneralizations about entire professions or all religions typically weaken arguments.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Scientists are a diverse group with varied personal beliefs.
• “Religion” spans many traditions and interpretations.
• No specific institutional or doctrinal conflict is provided.

Concept / Approach:
We test whether each argument convincingly supports a universal claim. A robust argument should either provide a principled incompatibility (e.g., methodological naturalism vs specific dogma as practiced in a setting) or a clear compatibility framework with conditions. Blanket assertions are weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Claims science does not obstruct faith. This is a broad assertion without conditions (e.g., when interpretations conflict with evidence in professional contexts). It is too general; weak.Argument II: “Religion and science do not go together” is also overly broad; many scientists are religious, many religious views accept science. Again, weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
If I had specified domains (methodological naturalism in research vs personal metaphysics) with boundaries, it could be stronger. If II had identified irreconcilable doctrinal claims directly conflicting with scientific method, it might be stronger. As stated, both fail the specificity test.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Declaring either as strong would overvalue blanket statements.

Common Pitfalls:
Arguing from stereotypes about scientists or religion instead of precise claims.

Final Answer:
Neither Argument I nor II is strong.