Faith and Reason.

[Neosutra]

So the fact that allegories were used to relate history and records were kept in the form of stories convinces you that there is also a god?

You didnt really answer any of my questions.

[kuronosan]

What definition of god do you believe in then kuro? And what type of scientist are you?

Also, what is the reason for that belief? Do you believe there needed to be a god for this universe to form? Is there some other motives?

I'm a laboratory scientist, actually. Of the microbiological variety.

The definition of God that I believe in is an influence that my conscience has over my being and a supernatural entity that for one reason or the other governs the way my life goes. It's a very scientific idea in my mind. I don't doubt people in the bible existed (or any book), I simply doubt that what they did had no scientific explanation and were "miracles".

To me, miracles are the ability to do what many consider to be impossible. If someone told you today that farting sideways while synthesizing DNA was impossible, and tomorrow you pulled it off, I would consider that a miracle because (at the time) there is no explanation. I consider it knowledge when an explanation is revealed.

So for now, I consider God to be a belief and a niche of faith in my mind, until science can prove exactly why the universe works the way it does.

I simply would rather not believe everything in the world and universe is just totally random and that our entire existence revolves around a series of polypeptide chains that happened to come together at the right time.

The fact that we've evolved to this type of communication, invented what we have, and have progressed as a society the way we have, should say leaps about how evolution works. That in itself is a miracle.

I'm well aware that when I die, I will probably spark out and see nothing. I may reincarnate as something else. My life essence may just simply cease to exist as my molecular structure lends itself back to the environment that helped build me. I simply choose, ignorantly, to believe that perhaps there is something more than emptiness when we pass on.

That is not a wrong belief to have.

So the fact that allegories were used to relate history and records were kept in the form of stories convinces you that there is also a god?

First, I didn't see your questions, I was busy typing.

Second, no. The fact that allegories were used to relate history and kept in the form of stories convinces me that society is just that. Society. There isn't anything that convinces me there is a God. That's what faith is. I'll get to that in a moment, because it's important you understand there also isn't anything that convinces me that there isn't.

Neo, do you remember the stories of Mayans and Incans? When the Spanish first arrived they were revered as gods. To the Mayans, they were gods. A God by definition is not some entity that necessarily had to have created the entire universe in a blink. At the time, I'm sure whoever wrote Genesis had no conceivable idea how the universe was created.

God, by definition to myself, is defined by what is unknown to us and by a mysterious power that binds every individual together. Fate, if you would. If God is a mere concept, and not an entity, then by logical definition, wouldn't that make time itself God?

Anyways, back to faith - faith is immovable simply because you can have faith in anything. You can have faith that your girlfriend isn't cheating, for example. Not because you know she is or isn't, but simply because you need to trust in her right? I'm not saying everyone and their brother should go trusting in a God they don't believe exists.

I'm simply saying sometimes you have to let people believe what they want to believe if it works for them. No one person has the right answer to anything. That's the basis for all science. If we all just believed everything everyone told us, what the hell would we have discovered by now?

Ben Franklin, Jefferson, Edison (thief), and Einstein... even Newton... Galileo being the best example - all of these guys discovered things because they challenged what was known and sought out the unknown.

Again. If belief in religion leads to further scientific discovery, I'm all for that.

[Meian]

This thread was specifically designed for these types of debates Meian, so get the fuck out if you have a problem with it.

Really, if anything it looks like every other topic whenever religion is involved causing a derail {hi2u teleportation thread}

I am a scientist, and I still believe in God. There's nothing wrong with that.

And I don't need your respect, either.

As far as religion goes, the belief is not the problem. It's the defense of that belief that is the problem. If you were to go to any scientist during the age of discovery and tell him the world was round you'd get imprisoned like Galileo was. Scientists are not always right and neither are religious people. What's important is that you have faith in what you stand by.

Science, for me, has never failed me. Then again, neither has my faith in a higher power. That doesn't mean I believe in Jesus or prophets and angels and anything else, it just means God has not been proven to not exist. Logically, his existence can be disproved. Scientifically, it hasn't. For all we know, God could be some alien guy from Zeti-Alpha Prime Quadrant 6 who just came by, farted on a group of phosphates, and began the synthesis of proteins.

The fact that people forget religious books are allegorical is what the problem is. Not only that, the books (mainly the bible) contradict themselves at times.

The bible is honestly the best example of this. Only the bible would preach love and tolerance one minute and the next condemn the same to hell. These are stories that teach you how to live morally and how to live right. Unfortunately people get so passionate about the lessons they are supposed to be learning that they go and preach to other people and get all defensive and angry when you don't believe them because way back when big meteors rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah.

It's beyond retarded how people will claim knowledge on the bible and just pay attention to the shit they're supposed to preach to others instead of the things they should be applying to themselves.

Having been raised Catholic and attended a lot of Catholic masses, I can safely say that Catholics are probably the most hilarious of all. I refuse to renounce my faith under any circumstances but still something that never sits well with me is why I'm supposed to go tell my problems to some guy in a robe so he can relay it to God so I can be forgiven just urks me. Especially since when I die, apparently I am at the Pearly Gates and I get to confess anyway.

So what's the difference between confessing now and confessing then?

I think religion, physiologically, is good for people. That's why I support it. Psychologically, however, it's very bad in high doses. When abused, it's nothing more than a crutch for people who can't think for themselves and need to find reason in times of insanity.

Why else do you think people who start thinking for themselves start attending church less? They don't need to depend on someone else's point of view anymore.

Some people aren't so lucky.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. Science and Religion aren't a bad mix. Extremes of both are.

I like your view and agree with the last portion especially. I have some extremist religious friends and it is bothersome to deal with them sometimes when certain issues or topics are brought up but they're getting better.

It was interesting you brought up confession. The way I've seen it is that confessing to a priest was like being more truthful in your confession. Heck, if you did something you'd be embarass to say to a priest you may not know personally then chances are you were serious in your feeling of guilt.

Of course, even I, don't really confess to a priest anymore. I do confess toward things I may regret later out of guilt to myself/God and it helps me avoid doing such things in the future (sadly, not quite everything yet). Perhaps I am not man enough to go to a priest and speak of what may be personal "sins" I have done by saying it isn't necessary and that my little confessions at night or after said action is enough, or maybe I really do think it isn't necessary.

I'm a bit of a dreamer, I'd like to think there is more than what we believe out there even after we pass away; aren't dreamers the reasons for such inventions or breakthroughs in technology (that weren't accidents XD)?

[Neosutra]

Believing that anything we currently dont know is a miracle and that everything unknown is influenced by god may not be "wrong" in the "anything people want to believe is ok" book, but it sure as hell doesnt float in the land of rational thought.

And no, evolution is not a miracle. You toss around words like miracle, god, and impossibilities like they are candy. It appears to me you have no definition of god beyond some psuedo outside influencer, and as a "scientist", you already know how weak of a premise that is.

Edit: No Meian, it's hard work and innovation that makes good breakthroughs, not unfounded dreams of enteral afterlifes.

[kuronosan]

Believing that anything we currently dont know is a miracle and that everything unknown is influenced by god may not be "wrong" in the "anything people want to believe is ok" book, but it sure as hell doesnt float in the land of rational thought.

And no, evolution is not a miracle. You toss around words like miracle, god, and impossibilities like they are candy. It appears to me you have no definition of god beyond some psuedo outside influencer, and as a "scientist", you already know how weak of a premise that is.

I think you lend too much importance to religious-sounding words and are forgetting how to communicate with people.

I'm sure you also forget that there are people that believe in more than one god, or believe there are many gods around the universe, or people that believe in no God at all.

Define rational to me. Then think about it from a sociological standpoint, Neo. Rational is all subjective, simply because what is rational to you is irrational to someone else. Subjectively, neither of us are wrong - our points of view are simply different.

I think your problem is you are forgetting opinions are all subjective. When you try to pass your argument off as stronger and as fact, that's not only when you start to sound like a pompous ass, it's when you start to see that you sound exactly like the people you are trying to denounce.

And, as a "scientist", I don't see my premise as "weak". I see it as a means to an end. My greatest glory in life will be when I die and I will finally see if we are all wrong. That day will come for you too.

I'll have a smile on my face at the end; not because I'm in Heaven, not because I've ceased to exist, but because either way I will have finally found the answer everyone was searching for. Sure, I'll be dead, non-existant, and unable to tell anyone or even care for that matter, but it will be comforting to know that when I die, I will be right any way I slice it.

That's what it means to be scientific, my friend. You have to subjectively view both sides and prove both right and wrong.

Darwin was a very religious man, and stumbled upon the greatest scientfic discovery which would eventually lead to modern genetic advancements in the gene theory. There is nothing wrong with a religious scientist.

(but there is everything wrong with scientology)

[Neosutra]

You using poor words to explain your premise isnt me failing to communicate. Go look up the definition of the word miracle and show me how that can be applied to evolution in any way.

You are grasping at straws here. You state that your arguemnt is strong because "it makes sense to you". You are confusing being comfortable with your own beliefs with having a solid rational argument.

Your beliefs do not pass any logical filter, do not yield results to any peer reviewed analysis, and do not even hold any weight as a definitive postulate (do you even know what you believe?).

Im not talking about some psuedo-science word for rationality, Im talking about standards for beliefs. You applying none to your spiritual beliefs is your decision. You applying none to your spiritual beliefs while being a trained professional that is PAID to apply these standards in everyday life is unacceptable. Die with a smile on your face, any man who faces their death and has lived a good life can do this. I dont need a mystical force in my life to be comfortable with the life I have lived.

[Meian]

Good work misreading what I said. What drove them to do that hard work and innovation in the first place? According to you, it must not have been dreams or that "drive" (which is essentially dreams anyway).

And goodness, Maxx and Kuro have been the most civilized posters so far and yet, neosutra, the op, has been the least civilized in his posts jumping and attacking saying "NO THIS NO THAT YOU ARE WRONG ROFL I WINS *sunglasses* YEAAAAAAAAH" to those who are just stating how they feel. Nice way to debate, you must've had good communication skills.

I'll have a smile on my face at the end; not because I'm in Heaven, not because I've ceased to exist, but because either way I will have finally found the answer everyone was searching for. Sure, I'll be dead, non-existant, and unable to tell anyone or even care for that matter, but it will be comforting to know that when I die, I will be right any way I slice it.

Damn you blew my mind that was deep romance for a scientist XD I'll have to steal that from you sometime

[Neosutra]

Good work misreading what I said. What drove them to do that hard work and innovation in the first place? According to you, it must not have been dreams or that "drive" (which is essentially dreams anyway).

And goodness, Maxx and Kuro have been the most civilized posters so far and yet, neosutra, the op, has been the least civilized in his posts jumping and attacking saying "NO THIS NO THAT YOU ARE WRONG ROFL I WINS *sunglasses* YEAAAAAAAAH" to those who are just stating how they feel. Nice way to debate, you must've had good communication skills.




Damn you blew my mind that was deep romance for a scientist XD I'll have to steal that from you sometime

Ya ya ya, the atheists are the assholes berating everyone and the theists are the civilized people being mistreated, we all get it Miean. Somebody give me the "help we are being oppressed" theist pie chart Q.Q.

[kuronosan]

Die with a smile on your face, any man who faces their death and has lived a good life can do this. I dont need a mystical force in my life to be comfortable with the life I have lived.

Neither do I. It's a choice I make.

Not only that, Neo, I think it's clear you are incapable of subjective reasoning. You throw your words around like you are the be-all-end-all of reason when it comes to atheism.

Also, I never stated my words to be strong. I said they weren't weak in my eyes.

edit: Please keep in mind that I'm not usually civil myself. If you read half my posts most of them are pretty sporadic and most of that is because of my ADD making it hard for me to connect my points. It makes it difficult for me to communicate, admittedly.

[Meian]

Thought Maxx was atheist but ok lol

Follow your sig and stop worrying what others think and enjoy life

Yes, kuro, I have the same issue >> But I was referring to this topic heh. Thats enough for me, last mid-term tomorrow so woo I'll go back to worrying about organic >_<

[Maxxthepenguin]

Ya ya ya, the atheists are the assholes berating everyone and the theists are the civilized people being mistreated, we all get it Miean. Somebody give me the "help we are being oppressed" theist pie chart Q.Q.

Did you just call me a theist?

[kuronosan]

Also, Neo. I did look up those words on Merriam-Webster:

miracle
2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

impossible
1 a: incapable of being or of occurring b: felt to be incapable of being done, attained, or fulfilled : insuperably difficult <an impossible deadline>

god
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship ; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

And, just for fun:
candy
3: something that is pleasant or appealing in a light or frivolous way

It would seem that by those definitions of the word, I don't appear to be particularly incorrect in my logic.

[Neosutra]

Thought Maxx was atheist but ok lol

Follow your sig and stop worrying what others think and enjoy life

Yes, kuro, I have the same issue >> But I was referring to this topic heh. Thats enough for me, last mid-term tomorrow so woo I'll go back to worrying about organic >_<

As stated in the OP, there is a time and place to debate the tenates of religion/reason. This thread was made for that. Stop deluding the point and stop reading/posting if it bothers you so much.

I dont go door to door telling people to be atheists. I dont tell my religious physicist friends they are idiots (they arent). I will however, debate religion in a thread ON fucking debating religion.

edit: @ Kuro -> What part of the evolutionary process is extremely unlikely or unusual? Which part of the forming of amnio acids into protiens required magic?

[Sqwunk]

I think you lend too much importance to religious-sounding words and are forgetting how to communicate with people.

I'm sure you also forget that there are people that believe in more than one god, or believe there are many gods around the universe, or people that believe in no God at all.

Define rational to me. Then think about it from a sociological standpoint, Neo. Rational is all subjective, simply because what is rational to you is irrational to someone else. Subjectively, neither of us are wrong - our points of view are simply different.

I think your problem is you are forgetting opinions are all subjective. When you try to pass your argument off as stronger and as fact, that's not only when you start to sound like a pompous ass, it's when you start to see that you sound exactly like the people you are trying to denounce.

And, as a "scientist", I don't see my premise as "weak". I see it as a means to an end. My greatest glory in life will be when I die and I will finally see if we are all wrong. That day will come for you too.

I'll have a smile on my face at the end; not because I'm in Heaven, not because I've ceased to exist, but because either way I will have finally found the answer everyone was searching for. Sure, I'll be dead, non-existant, and unable to tell anyone or even care for that matter, but it will be comforting to know that when I die, I will be right any way I slice it.

That's what it means to be scientific, my friend. You have to subjectively view both sides and prove both right and wrong.

Darwin was a very religious man, and stumbled upon the greatest scientfic discovery which would eventually lead to modern genetic advancements in the gene theory. There is nothing wrong with a religious scientist.

(but there is everything wrong with scientology)

I think the bolded statement is what's most true for me. To answer one of your previous questions/ slash someone elses previous statement (about their first reason for believing, chronologically, is fear of being void or emptiness whatever) is still a driving factor for me.

To me, if there isn't something to look forward to after death, then for what reason should I continue to exist. If when I die, I turn into nothingness and I just cease to exist in all entirety, then, again I don't see any reason in living, or being nice to people or living a good life. Outside of the fact that I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I were a terrible person in the sense of hurting others.

But at the same time, like kuro said, I am almost excited to die (at the same time terrified of course) to finally have an answer to this currently unanswerable question. So I guess my final answer for my reason for having religion is having peace of mind, because, although I am completely fascinated with learning new things every single day, I am uneasy with the idea of perfection. (not to sound lame and quote Bleach, but I suppose what Mayuri says, in his battle with Szayel about becoming a perfect beings (or perfect in knowing everything) the worst thing that can happen, rings true to me)

I am the type of Catholic that, you have previously mentioned as a cherry picker, but from where I am, what my professor has referred to us as, is a "Cafeteria Catholic" basically meaning taking religion like a cafeteria line and choosing the things that make most sense to us to be what we follow. For me I try to follow the most morale things, and the things that I believe lead me to be a better person. Although I'm aware in previous pages morals have already been argued about so that doesn't really need to be brought up again.

As a final note, I think that for possibly something for everyone to laugh at. YouTube - Man in the Box - God Bless You

[edit] Unlike some of you I do not have any formal training in any scientific field, or any theological training. But one thing I always liked from my high school physics class, was something my teacher said. "One of the many things science does, is measure things. But there are many things that can not be measured, for instance most emotions, like love do not have a real way to be 'measured' other than by adding an adjective to it to justify it" Whether you believe that also or not is up to you, the only point I'm really trying to prove with that is, if something exists it can be measured, but we know something like love, anger, and many other emotions exist, but there's no formal way to measure it other than by it's severity or intensity. (or some other descriptive word that I can't think of atm)

[meson]

I followed the rules and read every post... ok not every post, some people have an uncanny ability to say the same thing over and over again in subtly different ways.

I was raised under the oppression of Christianity. I was told sex was evil outside of marriage and that non-believers go to hell. Then I went to college, dropped acid, had a long face-to-face conversation with God where he told me to chill the fuck out. No one understands Me and you won't either.

This thread is titled Faith and Reason, but from the 7 pages so far I think it should have been called Scientific Method v. Religion. Religion, as far as I can tell, is nothing but an evolutionary tool that has been developing since we started talking to each other, and maybe before. Simply put, cultures that could organize and get the most out of their tribesman/clansmen/citizens were better at killing other tribes/clans/civilizations. Religion is a very effective tool for controlling a citizenry. Turns out, that if you can put a sword in a mans hand and convince him that eternal glory awaits him for fighting valiantly, he will fight harder. Turns out, that if you tell people they will go to hell for not paying taxes, they will pay taxes, and so on. Turns out, that if you have a centralized faith among your citizens then its easier to for cohesion. And over the ages, the societies that have succeeded at this lived longer, killed more enemies, and their genes and ideals on with a greater magnitude than those societies that did not.

I was going to write more on reason and faith and how religion exploits both as does science. Then I was going to say that science is a new religion when viewed from an evolutionary perspective. Societies that champion science will be more likely to survive than those that do not. I was going to write that, then I decided to drink instead. So maybe Ill be back to extrapolate when my BAC is better elevated.

[Denchi]

Yeah, I wish we would all get PHD's and work on spaceships too, but seriously, there's always gonna be the guy who decides he doesn't wanna build spaceships, that doesn't make him happy, what makes him happy is sodomizing young girls. It's gonna be up to all you scientific geniuses to explain why sodomy to 14 year old girls isn't fantastic without claiming anything ethical in nature. "Uh, well, the girls brain doesn't develop until they're 18. Fully. In some cases. Most of the time. But seriously, I just think being happy should be our goal. Oh... sodomizing girls makes you happy? Well fix that. Why? My scientific method doesn't address this crap! I thought we were all supposed to be building spaceships!??! Where's Plato?"

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I was discussing your initial, mindboggling statement


I clearly showed how edits and amendments are made to run with the times, specifically with the Catholic church. I cited a specific example. Notice, you are clearly talking about texts. You are saying the ideas and beliefs derived from said texts never change. You derive ideas and beliefs from the interpretations of the text, and it's not "more strict" or "less strict" in most cases. It's simply different.

God, it's so hard to make somebody with such a strong belief that religion never changes change his belief, despite real evidence.

I see what you're saying and I disagree. No edit has been made to the basic text or teaching of a religion. If we're talking about Christianity, there were various accounts or gospels that told different stories of Jesus or his disciples.

Adding to a text without going back and saying "this was wrong, this is what it is now" is not a change or an amendment. This simply does not and has not occurred with religious text. I stand by that statement I made.

I realize that good can come of religious belief as well as bad, and good and bad of science. That's not my angle. When the Bible says kill fags or adulterers or don't eat beef on Friday and depending on where you are in the world these laws are or aren't abided by means the base text has not changed, just its application. Huge huge difference.

No example you gave in your initial response disproved what I posted or what my point was. You can not find one single religious text ( with the exception of Buddhism which I feel is more of a scientific approach to spirituality ) that goes back on itself in the manner that science does and says "this was proven to be wrong, doesn't work, isn't the word of God, etc, and now this is the new truth."

All you pointed to were additions and interpretations.

But bluntly I think the problem here is that what you and I consider a change or progress to religion in different terms so we're describing a white wall in two different colors to each other and not getting why one doesn't see the other color.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Yeah, I wish we would all get PHD's and work on spaceships too, but seriously, there's always gonna be the guy who decides he doesn't wanna build spaceships, that doesn't make him happy, what makes him happy is sodomizing young girls. It's gonna be up to all you scientific geniuses to explain why sodomy to 14 year old girls isn't fantastic without claiming anything ethical in nature. "Uh, well, the girls brain doesn't develop until they're 18. Fully. In some cases. Most of the time. But seriously, I just think being happy should be our goal. Oh... sodomizing girls makes you happy? Well fix that. Why? My scientific method doesn't address this crap! I thought we were all supposed to be building spaceships!??! Where's Plato?"

Social standards can explain this in a cognitive way and science isn't just physics and chemistry, it is also psychology.

Explaining how this situation would adversely effect the victim and her relatives, as well as the punishment to the offender can achieve the same if not better results than saying you'll burn in a lake of fire for eternity.

20 to life is a lot scarier than an intangible scary story. It's not as black and white an issue as you'd like to paint it.

[_chuchu]

I see what you're saying and I disagree. No edit has been made to the basic text or teaching of a religion. If we're talking about Christianity, there were various accounts or gospels that told different stories of Jesus or his disciples.

I disagree and agree with Maxx about there having been edits to religious texts over time and based on denomination, the collection can slightly differ. These kinds of things are explained on the History Channel in documentaries like Time Machine: Banned from the Bible and Banned from the Bible II.

I personally disliked religious beliefs to be forced upon others (or myself) while growing up because some of it I did not agree with. It's like having a gun held to your head saying, "follow or you will suffer for all eternity." I think it's also silly that someone can cause extreme harm to others, yet be forgiven if they change the road they are on. Maybe I find it hard to be forgiving, but why treat others ways you would not want to be treated?

I also don't believe that someone has to attend church to really be saved if that's what they believe, but rather they can be if they do their best to choose to lead an honest, well-to-do life if that's what they want to believe.

Edit: I also think that instead of being forced to believe things that are not so concrete, people (and parents) should allow others and/or their children to figure out what they want to believe. That's not to say just about anything, but if the kid gets outta line, obviously discipline may need to be applied

[kuronosan]

Social standards can explain this in a cognitive way and science isn't just physics and chemistry, it is also psychology.

Explaining how this situation would adversely effect the victim and her relatives, as well as the punishment to the offender can achieve the same if not better results than saying you'll burn in a lake of fire for eternity.

20 to life is a lot scarier than an intangible scary story. It's not as black and white an issue as you'd like to paint it.

Although religion hasn't always scared people into making the right choices, it certainly has influenced more people to do the right thing than "25 to life" has.

Although I agree with what you're saying in a subjective sense, a person that is going to commit a crime is going to commit it regardless of the spoken or written consequences because it is part of a physiological process that many people cannot control either due to biological or environmental influences.

Religion, however, influences people in a positive way by commanding that you treat people as you would want to be treated and that you love them as you would want to be loved. Laws, and therefore, reason, was written with the idea that they must be obeyed for the greater social good.

The positive about religion is that the laws are infallible because they are based on what is considered socially moral and right to do in order to live a meaningful and good life.

The negative about straight laws is that they are based only on logic and are completely fallible. If your fingerprints are there and someone claims to have seen you then you are guilty, even if you aren't. Suddenly serving 20 to life for something you didn't do doesn't seem so fair does it? By adhering to religious laws, you are guaranteed to at least be treated fairly by whatever it is you are believing in. It's designed (in theory) to be a perfect system.

God, for example, if he existed, would not take a woman's case for spilling coffee on her fucking lap and then trying to sue God for making coffee hot.

I'm somewhat glad you took the logical and reason approach and not the scientific approach. There's a reason there's a separation of church and state and you gave some pretty good examples.

The negatives to religion, of course, is if the person in question doesn't give a shit about burning in hell for any reason (hence, they become cafeteria catholics, as the other person said) and simply choose what beliefs apply to them, then they are going to do whatever they want anyways.

These sorts of people aren't governed by religion or reason. They are governed by selfish motivation and nothing short of an ass-kicking or traumatic event will change that. Some people don't ever change.

The truth is, while religion has created a lot of problems with wars and beliefs and holy attrition and all of that other jazz, religion (and faith in a higher power) has also had a very powerful positive uniting effect on society. That is something that science cannot do (at least for the time being) and unfortunately because people are not perfect they cannot all be reasoned with.

People are more afraid of what they don't understand. Don't let most Christians fool you. They're just as terrified as you are that there may be nothing after death. They just have faith that they will get the deliverance they are promised. Why else do you think they're so hypocritical? They're humans!

Science is comforting because there isn't much you can't figure out. That's why it's easy to say Science is provable and religion is horseshit. Unfortunately, faith is something that no scientific explanation can debunk. It's a physiological and psychological necessity.