I think that humans created religion to help them cope with difficult situations in life. Religion gives people hope and a sense of security and gives meaning to their lives. If you take these away from people, many of them will kill themselves. That's why even completely neutral people and scientists know that religion is not based on truth. But they are still very rigidly attached to it.
Discussion
Have you seen what is going on with the Covid cult and the green cult? What about science is neutral? Although the great scientists of the past, like Newton, Boyle, Pascal, etc. were Christians, most scientists today are anti-christian and start from a premise that there is no god and therefore end up "proving" there is no god because of their starting premise. Since this became the starting premise, we have made fewer giant leaps and the predictions of what will be found have been failing.
One example is with the magnetic field of Uranus. Based on Newtonian physics, they could calculate its mass, but couldn't measure its magnetic field. Most scientists calculated a very small magnetic field based on their Big Bang theory. A Nasa pHd Physist, Dr. Humphreys, took the biblical statement that everything was made of water and out of water. He took the mass of Uranus, assumed it had originally been made of water and took the biblical age of the universe of 6,000 years. Using the water dipole magnetic field, he calculated a starting magnetic field and calculated how much it would have declined over 6,000 years. His prediction was almost exactly the magnetic field. The Big Bang physicists prediction was orders of magnitude wrong.
The way scientists work is that they try to discover the truth step by step, as a result, a physicist today knows much more about physics than Newton, even a physics student now knows more than Newton. The more scientists advanced in understanding the world, the more they came to the conclusion that the world could have come into being without God. The reason why most of today's scientists are atheists is because they know more about the universe than the old scientists.
Dr. Humphrey's prediction looks more like a scam than a scientific discovery, check out this link:
There are different kind of scientists with different religions. Some only believe in what they see (materialism), some keep being doubtful. Some great physicians realize the probability of the existence of a superior intelligence (God ?) is significant.
Most science isn't as proven as you think. The two big theories, the Big Bang and Evolution, keep having to be majorly changed because they are poor predictors of new evidence. They have kept the same name but the details have changed majorly. Both theories avoid discussing the details of the initial beginning because it is contrary to science.
There are lots of things made up to support the theories because the evidence doesn't support the theories. For example, comets lose significant mass every time they approach the sun. If the Solar System is as old as assumed, there should be no comets left. They have now made up an Oort Cloud that is so far out in the Solar System that we can detect it and something supposedly happens regularly to knock comets out of the Oort Cloud and into the inner solar system. There is zero evidence of the existence. The only reason it is considered is because something like this has to exist if the Solar System is billions of years old. The Big Bang theory keeps getting more and more complicated and now supposedly the majority of mass and energy in the universe is dark matter and dark energy, two things that can't be sensed or measured in any way. There are so many rescuing devices used it is hard to keep track of them all.
Evolution has been changed because although there are lots of changes within a kind, there is no uncontested (by evolutionists) transitional life forms. Most of the proposed transitional life forms have been later proven to be frauds. The initial formation of life from nonlife is so far out of reach of scientists that most have now given up, but assume some other expert knows how it happened. The only somewhat plausible experiment, the Miller-Urey experiment, used conditions that have never been shown to exist on earth. They then had to instantly remove the compounds formed into an artificial trap or they would be immediately destroyed. They managed to make a tiny quantify of the simplest amino acids in one of their tries (but not all attempts). These amino acids were in a mix of other toxic to life compounds. The amino acids were also right and left handed while life only uses left handed organic compounds. Although they claimed they had proved that life could form on its own, they actually proved that it couldn't. For life you need DNA, RNA, and proteins. You need information. You need only left-handed components. You need all of this fully organized together in an environment that is conducive to life (unlike the environment they used to make those few simplest amino acids). It took a lot of smarts to get a tiny piece of what is needed for life. The more we learn about the cell; the more we realize how it couldn't happen by accident.
Yes, scientists may make mistakes, but they seek the truth in the right way. They theorize and try to find evidence to prove their theories in the real world, religions do the opposite, they give you a booklet and tell you all the truth is in it without scientifically proving it. For example, the Bible mentions that the world was created in 6000 years, while dinosaurs lived on earth millions of years ago and there is undeniable evidence of their existence. Or if scientists still don't know exactly how organic molecules turned into RNA, that doesn't mean the Bible is right, it's just a matter of time, they'll figure it out one day. Scientists are not hostile to religions, they just find that the claims in the Bible do not match the scientific evidence.
Yes, dinosaurs really existed, but not as long ago as we are told. In Job, there are descriptions of two creatures (behemoth and leviathan) which are almost certainly dinosaurs. The description of behemoth matches a sauropod. This is despite the fact that dinosaur fossils weren't discovered until the 1800s. There are also lots of tapestries, carvings, etc. showing dinosaurs with people. They can't have known what dinosaurs looked like unless people actually existed with the dinosaurs. We are now also regularly finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones that can't exist for millions of years, but if these dinosaurs were buried by the global flood in the Bible, then we would expect to see some of this soft tissue.
Most of the so-called ages are determined using circular reasoning. The fossils are aged based o the which rock layer it is found in, while the rock layers are aged based on which fossils are in it. Yes, radiometric dating is used in some rocks (but not the sedimentary rocks in which fossils are found), but that is very inconsistent (different methods give different ages and when rocks of known age are tested, radiometric dating gives much older dates). Also radiometric dating depends on multiple assumptions that can not be reasonably assumed. They require assuming the starting amount of parent and daughter isotope, which we can't know because we weren't there. For most of the radiometric testing based on rocks, it is assumed that there is only parent isotopes initially which insures a maximum age. They require assuming that no parent or daughter isotope enters or exits the sample over supposed millions or billions of years, which is a very unrealistic assumption especially considering most of the isotopes are water soluble. It assumes the half-life is constant over time and condition, which is the most reasonable assumption, but some studies have shown evidence that even this assumption is invalid.
Scientists are like all categories of people. Some are honestly seeking the truth. Some are actively trying to disprove God. Some think for themselves. Some refuse to investigate anything different than the current paradigm because changing the paradigm is unpopular and can cause them to lose their jobs or their research funding. Anyone who questions an old earth is pushed out of science no matter how good their evidence. Maybe even worse if their evidence is good.
We also need to deal with the (still) invisible world. The scope of what we see and perceive is very little compared to everything that is happening in the universe.
I agree. We may have a creator, but that creator is not the God of religions because the God of religions is not compatible with scientific facts.
Yes litterally speaking, but I would rather say the "Gods" of religions, representing each multiple facets of God. Besides, those facets can illustrate God in different levels of abstraction. Except if you are in a religious movement that takes scriptures litteraly, you never know if the story there is trying to depict a "real" event or is a parable trying to explain some cosmic or psychological event in accessible words. Changing plan/perspective sometimes help realize that some facets are really close to scientific hypothesis (rather than facts). I am especially amazed by how quantum physics are starting to describe things that were already described in very ancient hindu texts for instance.
Unbelievably reductionistic.