Why does Science try so hard to disprove religion when it in itself is also a religion?
88621
Many scientists avoid the subject of religion and rather simply try to gather evidence, build models (hypotheses or theories), test them, keep the ones that succeed, throw out the ones that fail, rinse and repeat.\n\nAs one accumulates these evidence, it lends credence to the probability to the models (theories) being true.  This means that these models are consistent with what evidence is collected with respect to the past and that it may predict new kinds of evidence that may be found in the future.\n\nThe problem is that some people get into semantic word play with the word "theory" and think that demonstrating a flaw or a lack of explanation in the "theory" invalidates it totally making it false.  If you replace the word "theory" with model (which maybe scienstists should do), it reduces the ability to attack it.\n\nAnd, as for the "Big Bang", there are models which, if correct, say that the "Big Bang" was not necessarily the beginning.\n\nI think one problem people have with these "theories" is that they lack the experience, study, and knowledge of the evidence to appreciate their validity or not and so reject them simply out of hand because they are not consistent with their own belief system.\n\nHere's the problem.  If I say that the grass outside my window is green and you say "I don't believe you", that does not invalidate the fact that the grass outside my window is green.  It just means that you refuse to accept the evidence.  Your statement of disbelief does nothing to disprove the evidence.\n\nNow, given that the stories in Genesis are inconsistent with the evidence of the universe, you have a choice.  Accept them as allegorical and still find value in the teachings of the bible or whatever your religion might be. Or, you can see it as an attack on a literal interpretation of the bible.  But, these scientists didn't set out to attack the bible or religion.  They just set out to interpret the evidence and found that words in the bible didn't provide sufficient explanation to intepret the evidence and create consistent models.\n\nIt is only folks that think a word for word literal interpretation of the bible is required to be religious that find that science is an attack on religion.\n\nIt is possible to interpret the bible as guide for how to live one's life without ascribing to a word for word literal interpretation.  It just depends on your interpretation.
407385
both are plausible. faith and science cannot disprove the other. you can try all you want to use God to explain science and use science to explain God but in the end you will find that science happens through the will of God.\n\nkeep in mind that humans have souls and animals do not. perhaps our souls (something not bound by the laws of science) are the image of God while our physical appearances are only our animalistic aspect. \n\nwe are God's creation, but also made in their image.
652223
The more eccentric a religion is the more they need to "push" it onto others.  If you feel that you are constantly being "convinced" about religion, maybe it is time to revisit your faith.
258906
The Bible only proves anything if you already believe.\n\nSimilarly, science only proves anything if you believe in it.  \n\nThis point is usually missed by people on both sides of the argument; hence all the disagreements.
22619
Being religious does not blind people to truth. It constrains and biases their thinking just like culture, social context, upbringing, education, etc. do. I think all of us, whether religious or not, are biased in the way we think and to that extent distort truth.\n\nWhat is unique about religion is that a set of things are held to be true on the basis of faith rather than scientific reasoning.
173278
Wait a minute people! Let's be honest with Pastor. \n\nOf course evolution, and the rest of science, requires a kind of "faith." In fact it requires two inter-related "faiths," or constructs not subject to further analysis.\n\nThe most rudimentary one is rooted in the concepts of logic. Or, put another way, scientists "assume" certain elementary building blocks of logic, for example axioms. They also have a qualified "faith" in the scientific method.\n\nThere is a  difference between this "faith" and what the asker is referring to as "religion." Scientists require predictable, reproducible results from their theories. Luckily for religious & non-relgious folks alike, scientists are NOT faithful to the particulars of a theory. In fact, when empirics call for it, a whole theory can be discarded by the its very authors. It has a self-correcting dynamic - BECAUSE IT DAMN WELL HAS TO WORK IN THIS WORLD. \n\nThat last element is inimical to most religious dogma. That "faith" requires a vast array of perpetual and unchanging tenets. It even provides for the logically impossible by positing forces necessarily beyond the reach of reason. \n\nThis gives that "faith" a great advantage over science. It is impervious to any force that pretends to question it.
943714
Memetics, mostly. Religions employ fear, and have been naturally selected to do so in the meme pool, which has helped them to survive. \n\nThe second biggest reason is indoctrination of children. "Get 'em while they're young and won't know any differently" way of doing things.\n\nBeyond that, there is a vast body of MISinformation about science (particularly evolution) that clouds the progress of those who do dare to question their religion. Sites like "Answers in Genesis," and books like, "The Case for Christ," deal in intellectual dishonesty and bad science. \n\nAnd, unfortunately, without having been exposed to principles of rational thought or logic, most people that read such things and accept them without checking the facts.
175150
For the person who mentioned it, science disproves your god and your bible. I would respect people who were religious if they would just say, "There is no proof or evidence; it is just my faith."\nOh, and to the person who wrote it, Einstein was an atheist.
735315
Those who follow rationality do not object to religion existing, but to the way the religious claim to have special knowledge.  In fact people follow religion without really understanding it or knowing why it exists.
838226
i think this person is trying to say that science (physics) and religion (10 commandments) are opposing forces and that while most people order their world around science, this person prefers to use religion...now why they think the 2 can't coexist is beyond me
690719
Scientists often fall into a fallacious tendency, after studying and describing something according to the methods of their discipline, to believe that their appraisal of it is somehow more real than the thing itself. \n\nMany liberals say science replaces religion as a sort of guide for mankind.  Science is amoral.  Take Germany-they had the most advanced society on the earth for the first half of the twentieth century.  They also gave us death camps-even with their scientific brilliance; their science could not provide a moral compass.  Science is not replacement for religion.
581980
Religion and science are not in opposition. They only look at life from different perspectives.
434320
God and religions requires belief which comes from a leap of faith.  With so many variations of beliefs, faith in God is totally subjective. \n\nScience is a method of proof, utilizing verifiable facts, evidence and substantiation.  We have yet to prove or disprove an existence of any Gods.
673120
Some people don't have a dedication to religion, and belief its made of false yet myths that are nonsense. For some people they were forced into religion younger so they deny it, or simply just don't want to accept the truth. And they find mockery of christianity entertaining, and believing the bible of made of nonsense which is false its based on the truth. Good luck though
1080350
If you think religion has all the answers - good for you, Just don't use pseudoscientific theories with HUGE logical lacunae to try and disprove anything even remotely scientific alright?
109314
As an atheist, I have tried to grasp how believers in a god can actually believe. Many religious people have deemed this annoying and respond with hostility because their faith comes under question. And contrary to what people above me have said, we DO have beliefs. Just different (which to some people means none at all). I believe in science and proven fact. I have discussed my beliefs, and come under attack, because if people of faith can understand where I stand, they can further help me understand where THEY stand.
396082
Because those people are afraid that if you think about religion in a scientific manner then youll raise questions that cant be answered by religion.  \n\nA real person a faith shouldnt ask you to forget what you learned just because it might challenege their ideas.  Religion isnt perfect and neither is science.  They may or may not work together but as of right now we dont know the ultimate trusts about both subjects so its very hard to tell when they really do agree or disagree.\n\nLearn both sides and decide for yourself what is true. Don't let others make you think that blind faith in either is necessary or okay.