Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?


Is God a Scientific Hypothesis?

A theory is about explaining and must be backed up by evidence. Theories have to build on and connect with other theories. All theories are tested by working out what we must expect if the theory is true. The power to predict then functions as a test.
Jerry Coyne: ďDoes it really matter whether what you believe about God is true - or donít you care? If it does matter, then you must justify your beliefs; if it doesnít, then you must justify belief itself.Ē

A theory in science or a hypothesis can refer to something proven. Science always wants to know where it went wrong which is why it never admits that proof is proof. Not all scientific theories are equally supported by the evidence.
Is God supported by scientific evidence? Is God a scientific hypothesis? Is the view that science is not about how the universe came to be, but is about the universe that exists any good? Is science about presupposing there is a universe and not how a universe could come to be?
The atheist does not necessarily claim that God is scientifically disproven. If science says it then the atheist is not saying it. Science is.
If there is no disproof of God that does not mean there may be a God. It only means there could be a disproof we may not have.
This is most likely to be a scientific disproof. We have all looked at the logical disproofs and if it is true as religion says that they are flawed then that leaves only scientific proof that there is no God.
What we should think of science
Have this disposition, "Science and reason are methods and protect the truth and us from errors and contradictions. We may not use them perfectly but that is not their fault. I know that science and reason work for they are right methods." That is supposed to be a circular argument. But that is like saying that you feel something cold on the table for your sense of touch says so is arguing that "My sense of touch is right and I know it is right for I feel the cold." It is not the same thing. Even if the cold is not there and its an illusion the fact remains you still feel cold. It is not a circular argument.
God is that which must come first. So it follows that we should bring God into it. But to bring God into it violates the rule, ďIf you need circular arguments to live in the world and think then keep the circles minimal and donít reinforce them with God. A circle cannot be reinforced anyway. It is always just circle no matter how good it is.
Science can test for God indirectly
How would science disprove God? It would naturally have to regard the doctrine of a God that keeps babies healthy as false when they test a baby and find it is sick.
Religion answers that science cannot call God evil for science is not about good and evil. But that depends on what you mean by good and evil. All normal people see it as about what really does or does not give us wellbeing.
Science might not use the terms good and evil but it does not need to. It talks about them in a different way.
Religion also says that science has no way of telling that God should not let the baby suffer because he might have a purpose that makes it necessary. But the notion of divine plans is theology not science. The scientific method orders that we don't complicate things we do not need to complicate. Therefore science is opposed to theology. Therefore a God that keeps people strong and healthy is against science and is a mere superstition.
Science does refute God.
Not every hypothesis needs to be a scientific one?
A theory can mean something as good as proven or something less convincing but which can explain why some cause exists. Science is about what causes what.
The word God tends to be used like a proper name. But it is not. It refers to a spiritual supernatural being. God is alleged to have explanatory power thus God is clearly a hypothesis - if not a scientific one it is still one that impacts on science. Truth is truth regardless of what science thinks about it meaning that you can have several hypotheses some of which are scientific and some of which are not but all are called on to build up a world-view.
Even if God is not a scientific theory that does not mean science has nothing to say about it. It does.
God is meant to be that which alone matters and to be all in all as St Paul puts it. So for God to be all in all he can be or even should be a scientific hypothesis for scientists. He would be one for believers too except in their case he must not be just that. If science is from God then God will be found in science even if indirectly but there will be a clear connection.
Even if you think God is not a scientific hypothesis you must give that view the status of opinion and tell others to believe he is if they think they should.
To say God is not a scientific matter is just an assumption. Science forbids assumptions - it questions them through testing and experiment to get rid of them so that what an assumption says will now be the verified truth and no longer an assumption.
If science finds no evidence of intelligent design or of God then there is no God. Period. And as we have seen the idea of God demands that we take that position. It is not just an atheist thing.
The fact that from nothing nothing comes is the foundation of science. Thus science holds that it is obvious that something always existed and is definite that as nothing comes from nothing no God can bring anything out of nothing. It is not true that science has no interest in how things come to be but only in how they work. And for science how existence works is that as nothing comes from nothing it follows that there was always something.

God being turned into a scientific theory
A scientific theory/hypothesis is something that is proven but it is called a theory/hypothesis because science has to always be open to new light. Even when something is proven science has to hold on to a little scepticism - this is to avoid anybody thinking they have proven things when they have not.
For God to be a scientific theory you start with the notion that God is real - he is not an abstract concept. God has properties.
The next step is to decide what God would be like.
The next step is to decide if God just sits there or does anything.
Then we have to work out a way of testing the previous steps. Testing reality to see if it functions mechanically and is not guided or controlled by a God is the most important one.

The only way to test is by observation and by experimentation.
If after all this we find that everything can be explained without a God we are justified in saying that science indicates we must not believe in God. Parsimony is an important principle in science. For example, if a dog gets an eye infection, science does a test and blames bacteria. It does not ask, "Did this dog eat something mildly toxic that helped the bacteria infect his eye? Though the bacteria is there, could it be innocent? Would he have been okay if somebody hadn't being using fly killer around him?" Too many what ifs means science gets nowhere.
God is not a scientific hypothesis in the sense that you are allowed to deny his existence if the evidence is not good enough - the doctrine .
But science also uses hypotheses in the usual sense. God is a scientific hypothesis in that sense.
He is a might.
God is relevant to science as a might at least but only if he is real and not like the fictional tooth fairy. If God is real then he might have scientific importance. Anything that is real may be relevant to science. Many things that are real are relevant to science.
We conclude that if the God theory does not belong in science the way we need to breathe does, it does belong as a might. Then a might is not much good if a God is that which alone matters and to which all things are to be 100% dedicated!
What would a Science God look like?
If nature is designed then science can see that. All it has to say is that it is designed and let others suggest what the design is. Design can be tested. But science does NOT say that nature is designed and is clear that it is is NOT. Science is unjustly accused by believers of bias against God but that is not true for an experiment showing design does not necessarily mean there is a God.
A Science God then looks like nothing! Simple!
Why something rather than nothing?
Religion says science is about the how and religion is about the why. Religion claims that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is not a scientific question. So God is not a scientific answer. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is indeed a scientific question. We know that by a process of elimination. It is not a religious or moral question. If it were, the only question that would matter is why is there objective morality when there might be none. So it is a scientific question.
Religion lies about the question being non-scientific for it is afraid science has disproved God. It wants to protect its idea of God from refutation.
Religion says that God is not just a being but is what he does. He is his wisdom. He is his love. He is his creative power. So if you could show by scientific reasoning that there is no explanation for the existence of energy and matter but that it came from nowhere then have you found God? Yes if the doctrine of creation by God is true. God's activity is the same as God himself. If the scientist won't call it God it is still God. The word does not matter. The trouble is that there is no reason to think God really created for the doctrine of God creating is self-refuting.
Religion says that science can never show why there is something rather than nothing. But it is guilty of telling science what it cannot know. That is for science to decide. Religion is banning a scientific explanation and banning science from investigating that issue. It is a cruel waste of time and money for science to investigate why the universe exists. If the universe came into existence for no reason and popped into existence science is not allowed to know.
Religion fears that this may be the case and is trying to make people ignore science should it be scientifically verified. Religion lies that there is no conflict between science and religion.
So religion by teaching the existence of God is sticking its nose into science.
Is God a scientific theory?
Some people feel that to say that God made all things magically and uses magic to make them work is to advance a scientific hypothesis.
But magic contradicts science and any theologian or scientist pretending to be competent agrees. If magic is possible then it makes as much sense to say the tooth fairy magicked the universe into existence as it does to say it was God. There is no reason to prefer one suggestion over the other.
In fact involving magic would be to abolish science. Science at best would be a hobby not a tool to discern the truth.
If science wants to allow for God even as a tiny possibility, it has to reject the notion of a magical God outright.
The trouble is that if God made all things and used nothing to make them then you need proof that that would not be magic. But there is no proof. All agree that no human being can understand how God could do it. You don't know if you are talking about magic or not. You cannot give any evidence that you are not. And science needs evidence.
Some theologians say that God gives his evidence that he is there in the heart and by changing lives. They say God is best understood as a verb not as a noun. They see a call to believe in God primarily as a call to love for God is love. They do not mean God is just love. They mean that love is somehow a person. That is how God is taken out of the scientific hypothesis category.

But it doesn't work and they are being disingenuous. Science can measure and test if people become better people than expected or possible.
Also, if God is a verb we would expect to see his activity and mark on the universe. But we don't. We don't see anything indicatory of intelligent design.
It is more important for us and the universe that God be thought of more as a verb than a noun. Thus we can be sure that there is enough there to call God a scientific hypothesis.
Creation "Science"

Catholicism says God created and designed all things. By God it means a being who is more than just good but who is actual goodness. In other words, if God is a person then good is a person. This makes no more sense than saying that the word "the" is a person. God is impossible by definition. It is no good to science. Science needs a coherent definition of God.
If there is a creator then it does not follow that he is God or entitled to be worshipped. He is an it. If we needed anything to account for creation, at most we would only need an intelligence. We do not need this God.
Creation is a magical explanation for how all things come to be. It is a lazy explanation. Where would science be if we reasoned magically all the time? What if we said the local witch gives you the stomach bug and that God takes it away? Science in principle is opposed to such laziness. The fact that believers use a magical explanation for creation and not for other things shows that they just want the magic to be safely confined to an event in the long gone past.
The religious claim that God made all things and put creation through so much travail just to make us is arrogant.
Some say that we have a purpose in life but refuse to say that simply making us might be the purpose. They want to go further than saying we are must made for the sake of making us and make out we are also here to prepare for Heaven or something. But ultimately we did not need to be made so we are made for the sake of being made. Even if you did go to Heaven that could be collateral!
Suppose you throw a brick through a window just because you can. If you do it because of other reasons too it does not follow that you are not simply just doing it because you can. You still don't need to do it.
A creator or an intelligent designer is a matter for science because science presumes that something cannot come out of nowhere and that it was chance that led to all things seeming designed. Note - it does not say chance designed all things! Even if God cannot be dissected in a lab or found by scientific equipment, science can find his activity. If science cannot find the man who is doing up your garden, it can discover that somebody is doing it. The religious claim that God is not a question for science is simply a lie. 
God is the ultimate supernatural being. His supernatural power is boundless. Even if he never does miracles he is still supernatural in himself. A witch is still magical even if she never uses her magic.

The supernatural means a power that can change the way nature works. For example, it can cause a man who is dead a week to come back to life. It is bigger than nature.
The concept raises some questions.

Could the supernatural only work in restricted ways? Perhaps it can cure brain tumours but not lung cancer. Perhaps it can start life off but be unable to look after life. The fact that we can see does not mean we have eyes in the back of our heads. The supernatural being bigger than nature does not mean it is unlimited. It may only be bigger than nature under certain conditions.
How strong is the supernatural? Is it able to make you live if you are dead a day? Is two days too late? How long can you be kept alive?
Is it able to raise an ant from the dead but not a man?
Is it able to make it look like a man rose from the dead by making his coma look like death?
The supernatural can work on nature for it is stronger than nature. But that does not mean it actually does work on nature. It may be able to and not bother.
If the supernatural seeks to act on nature, perhaps there is another supernatural power that blocks it from doing so? Given all the conflicting magical and supernatural reports in the world, one might wonder if the supernatural is able to agree with itself!
Even if science regards the supernatural as possible, it does not regard it as a useful concept. Not all true things or things thought to be true matter. Science only cares about what is testable in principle and in practice.
The supernatural by definition is neither.
What is useful comes first. Science then is superior to religion and supernatural beliefs.
Religion likes to tell us that science can never say, "Miracles do not happen". But if science says that then what does it mean? Does it mean, "Evidence or not, there are no miracles"? or does it mean, "There is no evidence that miracles happen." There is nothing wrong with that if it has looked at the evidence and found none. Religion of course never mentions this. It seeks to give the false impression that miracles have been found to be compatible with science and that science does not believe in miracles for it does not care about the evidence.

As science endorses a healthy attitude of doubt to the point where it describes proven facts as theories, it will doubt miracle claims more than anything else. Science is actually based on the "theory" that miracles do not happen. Its unspoken methodology is that all things are to be doubted and the supernatural is to be doubted most.
It is said that science can never say, "Miracles can never happen," as that would be claiming that science has disproved the existence of God. Even if God doesn't do miracles, if he is God he will have the power to.
Religion is lying. Science denying miracles happen is not the same as denying the existence of God.
Moderate Christians say that science should say that a miracle claim must be critically examined as thoroughly as humanly possible before it may be decided that it is possible that a miracle has taken place. They say that miracles are not cases of God showing he has power over nature and is stronger than it. But they are about God helping us through them to understand what kind of God he is so that we might learn from him and be better people and more conformed to his character. They see miracles not as intervention but as interaction. God must be bad at interacting then for he doesn't do that many miracles!
Christianity is not based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ but on the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Even if Jesus was alive after his crucifixion, the theologian cannot prove that this was a miracle and if he can prove that, the next burden is to try and prove that God did it. This of course is impossible. Science canít explain how God who is spirit can interact with matter. Spirit is not matter. It is not matter with parts. It is not matter without parts. It is really nothing - like the Emperorís New Clothes but the believers canít see that.
Robert Ingersoll wrote: "Science has nothing in common with religion. Facts and miracles never did, and never will agree." Christians call that statement dogmatic and answer "There are more things in Heaven and on earth". So let us try, ""Science has nothing in common with religion. Facts and faith in miracles never did, and never will agree." That stresses that it is more important to condemn belief in miracles than miracles. And it is. Faith in something cannot turn it into a fact if it is not a fact. Faith gets in the way of seeing the facts. If science cannot account for what seems to be a miracle it will call it unexplained not a miracle. Miracles are about faith not science. Even if science could prove a miracle it cannot comment on what is doing it or what did it. That bit is for faith.
The best theories in science are the best because of the good evidence they are supported by. There are theories that are not as good. God is one of the worst theories for the concept is put beyond the reach of any scientific, moral, spiritual and religious test. For every spiritual person who experiences God's loving presence there is another who experiences the non-existence of God like a Buddhist would.
Science does not have a theory of God. Therefore it regards God as disproven.

The notion that science has no way of touching on God is untrue. It has. It has shown that God is a false hypothesis.
Science ignores possibilities and cares only about facts and probabilities. It rejects the notion that there was any intelligence such as God guiding evolution for it says evolution did not need guidance. Evolution looks and acts unintended - period. The notion of guided evolution is not science.
Religion teaches that God is activity. So his being able to exist without the universe would not mean that he is not part of it. He is not part of it and he is. He is part of it by acting on it and in it. The religious attempt to put God outside of nature is really about trying to put God outside the expertise of scientific investigation. They suspect or know God does not exist and want to protect their delusion.

Theologians who lie to promote God and who say God is right to let terrible things happen to babies are guilty of a terrible wrong. They are using dishonesty to make God seem plausible. If the problem of evil is solvable, it is not solvable if you have to resort to such tactics. Even a believer would have to see that you are deliberately condoning evil. There is malice in your heart.

Science will always matter more than religion or anything else because it checks its data and self-corrects where necessary and that is what it is all about. Science then in principle is superior to any human ideas about God.