Quora: Is Religion a problem for Science?

Someone recently asked the question "Is religion a problem for science?" on Quora - this was my answer....

To be honest, there are a few ways to address or interpret this question, so I’ll do the best that I can.

1. Is the existence of religion a problem for scientists who study the creation or origin of the universe, or of life itself, because religion answers their scientific questions?
1. This interpretation is something I’ve seen remarked on in multiple religious classes where those who are religious presume that the answers they offer through their particular religious creed are more important than any scientific studies - no matter what the scientific results are.
2. Is this a problem for scientists and their work? Potentially, yes - but it isn’t a guaranteed problem. The problem arises mostly when a scientist needs to publish findings or conduct research that contradicts the answers provided by a culturally popular religion. There is widespread push back against their findings that can cause hate mail, threats, uninvited forced missionary efforts by supposedly well-meaning persons, rejected funding for continued research, etc. Galileo is a prime historical example of this problem.
3. In this interpretation of the question I would not say that the existence of any religion creates a problem for the data studied by scientists, issues only arise when the people or culture that relies on a religion interacts with the scientists.
2. Do scientists, who are also religious, face problems that force them to choose between their science and their religion?
1. Yes. When scientific data conflicts with religious answers there is inevitably going to be some kind of “trial of faith” and every scientist that encounters this problem is going to face it in his or her unique way. This problem typically has only four types of solutions:
1. The Faith will be changed to fit the Science
2. The Scientific data will be changed to fit the Religion
3. Both the Faith and the Science will be changed to compromise with each other
4. The question will dropped entirely, placing the answers from both Faith and Science in a category for “Unsolved Mysteries”
2. An LDS Apostle (Mormon Church) named Henry B. Eyring was a theoretical chemist who has spoken repeatedly about balancing his faith with his scientific work, for the most part it appears that he has, when confronted with contradictions, opted to use solutions III and IV (listed above). This is highlighted by the following quote from Henry B. Eyring (Goodreads):
1. “There isn't anything to worry about between science and religion, because the contradictions are just in your own mind. Of course they are there, but they are not in the Lord's mind because He made the whole thing, so there is a way, if we are smart enough, to understand them so that we will not have any contradictions.”
3. Do Scientists have personal issues with Religion being upheld as irrevocable truth despite a fundamental lack of supporting evidence for the claims of that religion?
1. To be honest this answer depends wholly on the affiliation of the scientist. A scientist who is active in a religion will be less likely to criticize the unsubstantiated claims of his or her faith (no matter which faith it is, there are always at least some unprovable claims made by that religion); however, a scientist without strong connections to a particular faith (or one with a bad history with faith) will likely be more willing to call out a faith’s particular issues. Either way, this may be reduced to personal bias, something a scientist should strive to avoid in his or her work, despite the difficulty in doing so.
2. Truthfully, however, any scientist committed to the discovery of truth through the scientific method will fault any person or organization that demands unquestioned acceptance of unsupported claims - religious or otherwise. Still, a scientist should not always be dedicated to disproving a religion’s claims, as that is not always a worthwhile endeavor. Instead, a scientist should be dedicated to discovering the truth and to promoting the documentation of that truth wherever needed.
1. There are some claims made by religion that can neither be proven nor disproven - discussions regarding these cases can be particularly difficult to manage. It is important to remember that in such cases, a “lack of evidence FOR” is not the same thing as “evidence AGAINST” - and vice-versa, a “lack of evidence AGAINST” is not the same thing as “evidence FOR”. Advocates for or against a particular claim made by a religion should recognize the futility of such a debate and learn to accept that some answers are not currently obtainable, no matter how hard one searches for an answer.
2. Sometimes a claim made by a religion will simply be demonstratively false, and in such cases it is a scientists’s duty to provide the evidence necessary to prove that religious claim false. For example, if a religion makes a particular claim that physical beings (people or otherwise) are living on Earth’s moon, it is a scientists’ job to dispute that claim using the documented facts discovered about the Earth’s moon and the necessary conditions for life, etc.
3. Unfortunately, there are cases where a religion demands the acceptance of a claim as if it was an absolute or proven fact, while promoting “evidences” that do not actually qualify as empirical evidence. For example, if a religion promotes potential coincidences, ancient texts, or emotional sensations as evidence for a particular claim it is the duty of a true scientist to publicly inform the population that such “evidences” are faulty and cannot prove the religion’s claim. However, an unbiased scientist should generally avoid commenting on the veracity of the religion’s actual claim, instead focusing all criticisms to the incomplete nature of the “evidences” offered by the religion.
3. I admit that this version of the question is perhaps the most complicated and morally ambiguous so far - but it is perhaps the most important as well. If science - or scientists specifically - were to have an issue with the nature or existence of religion itself, it would have to result from a competition over what it is or is not true. While it is inherently possible for science to get answers wrong from time to time, it is inherently demanded that if any answer or solution is to be upheld as an absolute truth it must be supported by actual evidence. If an answer is not justly supported it must either be challenged or accepted as a mere suggestion or possibility.
1. Essentially, if we look only at an unbiased scientist, the answer would be: Yes, scientists would have personal issues with religion being upheld as irrevocable truth despite a fundamental lack of supporting evidence for the claims of that religion. Scientists with a personal bias, however, make this question far more complicated.

There are other options I could explore but I think this is a good place to end for now. Thank you for the question.