Although many would agree that religion and science are difficult to reconcile, this does not mean they are totally incompatible. A scientific version of God that is accurate and comprehensive would suffice, yet we may still have difficulty accepting this due to our own individual bias. The metaphorical stories of the Bible have always remained separate and distinct from science and thought to provide fulfillment only to those minds that another individual might deem "inferior".
Not really, given so many take the supposed metaphorical stories as being truth (even literal truth), as evidenced here on RF besides reflecting the wider world, and as to which affects the lives of people with such beliefs and those who don't have such. Science tries to be objective - as to reflecting reality - shame that religions often do not do such but often reflects what occurs wherever and when ever they originated.
From the earliest origins of Christianity to modern times, politicians have underhandedly achieved positions of power by appealing to religion. The cult effect occurs among humans, but the blame goes to a higher power. There is no indication that the existence of religion has lead to political abuse and the cult effect. Consider that without religion, other means of acquiring power would be employed, so religion could be wrongly accused.
Really? Can you think of higher belief systems than religions as to affecting beliefs and/or behaviour - given that morals are not the sole domain of religions? This is I suspect why so many of us aren't that enthusiastic with regards religions - besides the obvious fact that most people acquire such during their childhood and hence have no say as to what particular religious beliefs are imposed upon them.
It is irrational to form a God concept based on individual bias, but the same may be said about the disbeliever's (I wish to avoid the label "atheist") concept. The scientist who believes in God might view human behavior as falling under three general categories: determinism, free will and self-actualization. With that, it becomes clear that religion, though a manipulative tool, is not necessarily the manipulator. So we see that the means to spiritual salvation (religion) might have aspects of "purity" but can become meddled with. Although, it may have been intended that this purity remain metaphorical to prevent logical refutation, making it subject to personal questioning.
For me at least, I've found it best to discard whatever is troublesome and start from first principles - that is, what makes sense, rather than arguing oneself into some corner with no escape. Much of history, and as to religions forming, is mainly in the first category - because so much is just not sufficiently evidenced. And given we all mostly don't have the minds of a genius or the knowledge to work with, we are either prone to the voices of others affecting us or just refusing to engage with all the noise. I prefer the latter.
