Why do people try and use science to argue against religion?

[TrollyPoly]

Religion poses philosophical questions which science cannot answer because it is a different branch of knowledge. So why do people always say prove it?

It is not a matter of proof but rather of evidence for and against.

Just saying/

 

[AlexL1]

Existence falls under the realm of science. The only real thing in religion disputed bu science is of its claims existence.

 

[mmmm2]

Religion isn't a 'branch of knowledge', it's the superstitious jottings of semi-literate nomads who's world view would embarrass the average eight year old today.

The question isn't science being used to debunk religion, but one of religion being unable to justify itself credibly. The 'hand wavey' philosophical stuff is just a cop out.

 

[Paradox]

Because there are real claims in the package. Adam and Eve v evolution?

 

[WHEATLEY]

Philosophical questions should be logical (or else, why ask them in the first place?).

Science is based off logic.

Yay!

Anyways, you don't have to argue against the philosophy of it all, you could argue against the claims of religions using our knowledge....that we gained because of science.

 

[TheLordofMisrule]

Science describes the real world, religion describes an imaginary world. I don't use science to argue against religion, I state that I prefer reality.

 

[EternalLie]

religion despises questions. it fabricates answers which it cannot support, and then it pretends they are factual. that is philosophy. science studies actuality and reports its findings. religion is the factual basis of nothing,

aa claims 'physical evidence does not exist in the spiritual'. but based on everything we now know, the spiritual doesnt exist period. its just a made up word for for primitive superstitious nonsense and how one can sate his emotions with denial.