Human actions should be based on scientific fact, not religious faith. Do you agree?

But the caveat is that it is important for those that tow religious doctrine to base their actions on moral outcomes instead of blind faith.

While there is no doubt that science is valuable and explains many concepts objectively, but we should not completely forget about religion. While human beliefs should be driven by scientific fact rather than religious facts, science should be only relied on when it provides definite answers and absolute solutions. Religious facts should be relied in the areas which are ambiguous.

Science provides objective solutions and evidence to many problems. Scientific facts explain many phenomena. For example, from the daily cycle of day and night, to the occurrence of earthquakes and tsunamis. Scientific facts have also provided us with cures for many diseases and life-threatening situations. On the other hand, religious facts have always tried to associate all phenomena with a supreme being. For example, it was considered that leprosy was a curse of god and signified impurity. Many people in the older times believed that curing diseases required penance and rituals to pacify the angry gods. However, scientific evidence has proved that diseases and illnesses are caused by bacteria, viruses and anti-bodies, which has caused many diseases to be cured scientifically. Champions of scientific fact suggest that human actions should be guided by scientific facts rather than human actions.

Science has provided people with weapons of mass destruction but only our morals guide us whether to use them or not. Though religion does not base its facts on empirical research, it does provide us solutions to moral dilemmas through dictating what is right and wrong. Though some religious practices today may be considered oppressive it cannot be denied that majority of religious teachings are positive as they teach people kindness, compassion and honesty. Though these tenets can be practiced without the need of faith, it can be said that religion provides an authoritative institute which makes sure that these principles are adhered to, It is also true that without religion it would be difficult to provide basis for moral actions. If more people considered only science as god then there is possibility that everyone can turn into doctor Frankenstein and would try to consider themselves as god. Therefore, humans should place their actions on religious faith rather than scientific facts when moral dilemmas arise.

Science also fails in providing substantial evidence of our existence of where did we come from and its meaning. The scientific evidence does not satisfy us on an emotional level as the answers provided by science are ambiguous. For example,  science fails to explain how creatures, be it human beings or even unicellular organisms have such complex and intricate structure. It then begs the question that is it just by chance or is it because some higher power has made them this way. Thus, science does not always provide evidence about such questions, and thus people often rely on religious fact.

Logically, it seem prudent that human actions should be based mostly on scientific fact. However, in the absence of conclusive evidence, we should place our faith in religion. Individuals who believe in religion should not be derided as religion gives them hope instead of just objective facts. But the caveat is that it is important for those that tow religious doctrine to base their actions on moral outcomes instead of blind faith.