naive Wrote:Science can be tested, and once faith is strong enough in those results it is accepted. All I am saying is that it's a shared system of faith.

That's true, but pedantic and technical, as the same could be said of virtually anything that occurs in one's life. Most people share the belief that doctors can identify and treat illnesses. Most people hold the belief that their birthday is actually on the day specified in their birth certificate. Most people share the belief that the sun provides warmth and light. Most people share the belief that we cannot fly. etc. Would you deem it necessary to call these things shared belief systems of faith, and liken them to religions?

naive Wrote:Unlike science, religion does not have the luxury of being easily tested

That's the problem of religion, not the luxury of science. It just makes it harder for religions to possess credibility when their claims are not testable.

naive Wrote:but it is very compelling (possibly rational) to believe that for thousands of years your ancestors have been telling the same stories for perhaps some truthful purpose seeing as there is no testable theories available to disprove this hypothesis.

Imagine the members of this site created a book with Gandhi as supernatural saviour of the world (who flew around in the sky and converted sand into food) and copied real historical events into it as well as Aesop's fables. Then just imagine a couple of thousand years into the future: it becomes a widely accepted religion with thousands of believers writing books about it. Does this prove that Gandhi was really anything more than a mortal man? If you were one of these believers, you might believe with every ounce of your body that the depictions of Gandhi are real, and believe that there is proof everywhere, but your "proof" of supergandhi is based on embellishments and fantasies written in books.

Religion might be emotionally compelling, but it is not rationally compelling. It relies on faith, not rationality.

naive Wrote:There are potentially many compelling reasons for individuals to believe in things without enough evidence to prove their truth. Most good theoretical research scientists would fit into this description Science and religion are very very linked by the shared systems of faith and are most definitely not mutually exclusive concepts.

It specifically depends on which scientific theory & religion you are talking about. For instance: Evolution is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible's Genesis.

naive Wrote:Goodness and badness have nothing to do with objective truth, but neither does out ability to observe it.

In science, most experimental data is objective.

naive Wrote:Is there a scientific stigma against faith that I am misunderstanding or something?

Many people who appreciate science, also appreciate rationality/reason, which is pretty much the opposite of faith.