Why Science Can’t Replace Religion

[intaglio]

13. A more honest article would be

Why Religion cannot replace Science.

Religion absolutely requires ignorance of the way the world works. Wherever science shows that a religious precept cannot exist (the Firmament, for example) then religion has to abandon that previously firm belief or deny the science or propose excuses by the trick of special pleading.

Look at what the concept of "deep time" which allows the vast timescales of elemental production, stellar evolution and even geological ages; religious response has been either
1) denial (fundamentalists such as Ken Ham); or
2) acceptance thus denying the literal truth of the holy book; or
3) special pleading, e.g. holy writ is entirely true but our perception of holy truth is at fault.

The problem is that science is making inroads into the areas that religion has come to regard as its heart, morality and spirituality. The simple assertion that the discovery of the Higgs cannot cannot produce the same magnitude of feelings as religious architecture is insulting to those who do find that discovery hugely uplifting. It ignores the awe inspired by the machine that enabled that discovery. Vast numbers of people find the entirely technological achievement of Curiosity Rover enormously uplifting.

Essentially the article is making a number of blind assertions without one speck of evidence - but that's religion.