|Rocket Scientists don't always have the answers|
For some though, science is a religion, or at the least, some imagine science can replace it.
I seems some people are waking up to the fact that religion doesn't kill people, politics kills people (The biggest criticism of Islam is it is as much a political system as it is religious.) Getting rid of religion just creates a world of atheists, some of which will find other reasons to run their own power-mad agendas.
An article over on Salon discusses the "new atheists" (Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and others) are (or were, in the case of Christopher Hitchens) are so fixated on the idea that religion poisons everything, they are unwilling to face up to the flawed nature of human nature, and how this plays out in the real world, not their imaginary world built on biased interpretation of religion. It's not always about religion, it's more accurate to deal with these issues in the realm of politics. Religious belief is certainly an influence, but so is colonialism, feminism, capitalism, resource availability, media influence, the monetary system, wealth distribution, class division, and so on, and so on.
Now, I'm making a leap here that should be obvious. It's more correct to say that the new atheists imagine that atheism can replace religion - not that science is religion. Agreed. However, their logic is that science, in their minds, seem to "prove" the improbability of God. There is effectively a direct connection that relies on believing science can explain why and how we got here, and the implications that science might simply be a vehicle God uses to express his will seems even more far-fetched than the billions of galaxies coming into existence in an instant, and life spontaneously evolving from a random chemical soup.
Have a read, it is worth the 3-4 minutes.
Source: Christopher Hitchens' Beliefs challenged
A couple of quotes I liked:
As a poorly-practicing Christian who reads enough science to be functional at dinner parties, I would like to suggest a truce — one originally proposed by the Catholic church and promoted by the eminent Stephen J. Gould. Science, the study of the natural world, and religion, the inquiry into the meaning of life (or metaphysics, more broadly) constitute non-overlapping magisteria. Neither can invalidate the theories of the other, if such theories are properly within their realm. Any theologian or scientist who steps out of their realm to speculate upon the other is free to do so, but must do so with an adequate understanding of the other’s realm.
A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated.” I’m sure scientists are well aware of the problem and working to rectify it.