This is a good question and i think every scientist whether they are religious or not will have an answer to this 🙂
My own personal view is that i think science has disproven some of the events that religion is based on. But since religion is the belief in these events and people, i think people will continue to believe them no matter what science says. for example, Evolution has been shown to happen (scientifically) but some religious people still believe that this is not the case. Other people believe that the story of creation is a not literal course of events, but that the various days of the week etc are a metaphor for evolutionary time.
i think science and scientists will always question the basis of religion and seek to find proof for it. But equally i think people will always believe in and find comfort in religion.
I think people should be allowed to believe what they want though and should not have either view forced on them. But thats just my opinion :).
Excellent question though. I would like to know what you think 🙂
I don’t know, but it’s not something that really bothers me.
Hi angeredwalrus. I’m a scientist, and I don’t believe in any of the gods that been proposed throughout humanity’s history. I accept that there are some people that do, even that some scientists do, and I’m willing to accept their beliefs so long as they accept my lack of same.
One of my favourite authors is Kurt Vonnegut. In one of his books, there’s a “Church of God the Utterly Indifferent”, founded on the notion that if there IS a god, it doesn’t seem to care that much about us one way or the other, so it doesn’t make that much difference whether we worship it or not. Seems as good a belief system as any.
As my colleagues have already pointed out, science can potentially disprove some of the events in religious stories (or at least, come up with different stories that are equally plausbile) but I don’t think science can disprove the existence of a god. I don’t think it has to. The believers are making the claim, so the burden of proof lies with them. I think that nature itself is wonderful enough without having to make a claim for anything supernatural beyond it. I have no need of that hypothesis.