Why should I forsake science and believe in religion instead?

[Bloodshadow]

And don't say that "science can't explain everything" or "some things can only be explained as God's doing". How do you know that? While it's entirely possible that a wizard God did it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt), it's also entirely possible that our science isn't advanced enough yet. Emphasis on the "yet". Science actively tries to find out why, while religion doesn't even try. Why should I stop using the scientific method?

[furballdn]

You shouldn't.

[maverixk]

But see, religion is the attempt of people to understand. So you can't say that it doesn't even try, because it is the effort to understand. I'm am very confident that the only thing that I can say right now to get you to even consider religion is Pascal's Gambit, and I'm quite sure that that won't do much of anything.

You don't have to forsake science to choose religion. You may have to rethink some aspects of science, and the same with some aspects of the religion.

If you've set in your mind that religion is the opposite of science, or that religion is led by a wizard, or something along those lines, then telling someone to try to convince you to believe in religion is pointless, because you're most likely as blind to facts that support religion as most theists are blind to facts against religion.

Off topic, I laugh every time you say "a wizard God".

You shouldn't.

I don't believe that BloodShadow is looking for answers like that, so while you may be right, it doesn't really help the topic.

[BluePriest]

You don't have to forsake science to choose religion. You may have to rethink some aspects of science, and the same with some aspects of the religion.

This. The majority of atheists/agnostics in this community seem to be under the impression that religion and science are mutually exclusive when they are not even close to being that.

[Kamietsu]

You shouldn't.

This.

Now let me explain. You lack the faith that is required to walk the path of a religion that requires it. Without faith, religion is pointless. Without faith and belief in the word of whatever doctrine you are trying to follow, religion will just fall apart on you. Lack of faith is not something negative, it's simply just a different path.

As others have said above, you do not need to forsake science in the name of religion. A lot of people like to think science is all about disproving religion, or that it s a part of it when it's not. At all. Science aims to understand that which it doesn't. That's basically it. If it doesn't understand why a statue in some random part of the world cries blood, they aren't going to look into it to try and disprove the claims it's a miracle. They are going to want to look into it to simply understand why it is crying blood.

[TheManuz]

You don't have to forsake science to choose religion. You may have to rethink some aspects of science, and the same with some aspects of the religion.

This. The majority of atheists/agnostics in this community seem to be under the impression that religion and science are mutually exclusive when they are not even close to being that.

But if you accept science totally, you should reject everything that cannot be proved or observed ("observed" is used with its wide meaning, including strumentations). So, (full) science excludes religion, because god is not observable.
On the other hand, religion tells you to accept things that science has proved, so if you (fully) accept religion, you should exclude science.
Of course you can tell you believe in god and creationism and tell you trust science, but this is only an illusion.
You can search the compromise, but the reality is the compromise doesn't exist.

[Kamietsu]

You don't have to forsake science to choose religion. You may have to rethink some aspects of science, and the same with some aspects of the religion.

This. The majority of atheists/agnostics in this community seem to be under the impression that religion and science are mutually exclusive when they are not even close to being that.

But if you accept science totally, you should reject everything that cannot be proved or observed ("observed" is used with its wide meaning, including strumentations). So, (full) science excludes religion, because god is not observable.
On the other hand, religion tells you to accept things that science has proved, so if you (fully) accept religion, you should exclude science.
Of course you can tell you believe in god and creationism and tell you trust science, but this is only an illusion.
You can search the compromise, but the reality is the compromise doesn't exist.

Science doesn't reject which cannot be proved or observed. It just puts it on hold until a method which is can be proved or observed comes into play. A lack of evidence doesn't not disprove something. If that was the case, we'd still be living in the dark ages.

[TheManuz]

You don't have to forsake science to choose religion. You may have to rethink some aspects of science, and the same with some aspects of the religion.

This. The majority of atheists/agnostics in this community seem to be under the impression that religion and science are mutually exclusive when they are not even close to being that.

But if you accept science totally, you should reject everything that cannot be proved or observed ("observed" is used with its wide meaning, including strumentations). So, (full) science excludes religion, because god is not observable.
On the other hand, religion tells you to accept things that science has proved, so if you (fully) accept religion, you should exclude science.
Of course you can tell you believe in god and creationism and tell you trust science, but this is only an illusion.
You can search the compromise, but the reality is the compromise doesn't exist.

Science doesn't reject which cannot be proved or observed. It just puts it on hold until a method which is can be proved or observed comes into play. A lack of evidence doesn't not disprove something. If that was the case, we'd still be living in the dark ages.

We should define the meaning of "reject". I meant exactly whay you said: put it on hold. I know it doesn't mean that is disproved.
So, god should be put in hold. You can't act like god it's real. This is what science says.

Let's suppose there is a miraculous medicine, but it's not tested.
Science says: "It could work, but until it's proved to work, i'll not take it".
Religion says "I believe it works because the package says it works, so i'll take it".
As you can see, science and religion says opposite things.

Swap "miraculous medicine" with "god" and "package" with bible, and it will be more clear.

[OldTrees]

You don't have to forsake science to choose religion. You may have to rethink some aspects of science, and the same with some aspects of the religion.

This. The majority of atheists/agnostics in this community seem to be under the impression that religion and science are mutually exclusive when they are not even close to being that.

Thirded

Additionally I should point out: Science cannot answer "Why" questions. Science is descriptive and thus it will answer any of the other Ws (Who, What, When, Where & How) but it will not give normative conclusions based on descriptive data. You will need another source to answer the "Why" questions be that Religion or another Philosophy like Humanism.

[EvaRia]

Actually, I would say that science isn't the attempt to prove things that aren't yet proven, it is by definition the attempt to disprove itself.

Basically, science as it stands now generally accepts that a God is impossible. So it would have to disprove itself to make it possible. There is plenty of research done that tries to disprove outstanding theories. Generally the ones that stand the test of time are accepted.

Example of something recent: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/23/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110923

[Pineapple]

You don't have to forsake science to choose religion. You may have to rethink some aspects of science, and the same with some aspects of the religion.

This. The majority of atheists/agnostics in this community seem to be under the impression that religion and science are mutually exclusive when they are not even close to being that.

Thirded

Additionally I should point out: Science cannot answer "Why" questions. Science is descriptive and thus it will answer any of the other Ws (Who, What, When, Where & How) but it will not give normative conclusions based on descriptive data. You will need another source to answer the "Why" questions be that Religion or another Philosophy like Humanism.

This. I believe that TheManuz is off-track in his interpretation of the boundaries/overlaps of science and religion. They're the answers to two different questions; to say "the compromise [between science and religion] does not exist" is like saying, "If you choose Answer A on Question 9, then you cannot possibly choose Answer B on Question 10 without making a contradiction," where Question 9 is about your favorite color and Question 10 is about your favorite animal.

[TheManuz]

This. I believe that TheManuz is off-track in his interpretation of the boundaries/overlaps of science and religion. They're the answers to two different questions; to say "the compromise [between science and religion] does not exist" is like saying, "If you choose Answer A on Question 9, then you cannot possibly choose Answer B on Question 10 without making a contradiction," where Question 9 is about your favorite color and Question 10 is about your favorite animal.

You would be right if religion didn't try to answer to "how" questions. "How" is science field.
"Why" is religion field.
Religion saying how (creationism) is in conflict with science. Obviously you can accept only a part of religion and say there is no conflict. But if you fully accept religion, you should acknowledge there is a conflict with science.