what makes science a red herring when it comes to the questioning of a gods existence, or lack thereof? The people claiming science is incompatible with religion should clearly make their case first. "D00D I DO'NT BELEIVE IN GOD I BELEIVE IN SYUNCE!!! G0D IS A MYTH INVENTD BY ANCHUNT GOAT-HURRDURRS WHO DID'NT UNDERSTAND SYUNCE BUT NOW WE HAZ SYUNCE AND SO P0EPLE DO'NT NEED TO BELEIVE IN G0D ANYMORE JSUT LEIK I DO'NT BELEIVE IN PNIK UNUHCORNS LOLOLOLOLOL!!!" I'm sure everyone reading this thread has encountered minor variations of this same "argument" dozens of times, yet not once has anyone connected the dots to explain SPECIFICALLY how science and religion are incompatible. If you're not going to bother to explain the matter thoroughly and with care in mind, what is there to be gained from trotting out the same cliches the upteen-and-first time? The most coherent of these arguments seem to be based on the supposition that the Abrahamic God is simply a way of explaining natural phenomena, like Helios driving the sun-chariot across the sky. In this case you're unable to argue against the popular conception of God, since you have grossly misapprehended what the popular conception of God is. The fact that people say they "believe in science" is a pretty good indication that they have misapprehended what science is as well. Science is a method, not a doctrine. What people who "believe in science" actually believe in is scientism, and their profession of belief in science isn't really worth a whole lot. "Belief in science" is a very different thing from concrete knowledge of science. Here's a thought experiment: Let's say you have one person who is a Christian and a scientist, and another person who is an atheist and has very little working knowledge of science, but proclaims that they "believe in science". Which person do you think has the more "scientific" worldview? Which individual do you think fellow "science-believing" atheists would hold in greater esteem?