Civilizations have been built as a direct consequence of the application of science and the application of critical thinking. Faith has delivered, in comparison, an abysmal quantity of goods. Religion provides no technological advances for humanity to utilize. Religion does not educate doctors which treat the sick and injured. Science does provide humanity with advantageous technology. Science is incorporated in the education of doctors. Are you detecting an emerging pattern?
Science can, in time, ( if more time and money was spent on research) could cure diseases and help us explore the cosmos and advance in technology and will also enlighten the human race. Religion is holding us back because people choose to believe in something that was meant to explain things during its time because science wasn't around.
Unlike what religious tell you many atheists, progressives, and agnostics who rarely (or never) pray to God or express any form of personal faith continue to strive towards excellence independently. Many of these people (myself included) are actually more kind and generous than those who preach the love of God and memorized the entire bible.
However, because the western countries of the world are prosperous with a well fed, educated (mostly) population with an infinite amount of knowledge via the internet many of the answers to our problems can be found through interaction with others, family, or your keyboard and Google! The "big" questions (i.E. The origin of the universe, after death etc...) can simply be answered with "when you die, you'll find out!". It has already been proven (through many people) that a disbelief in God does not lead to any decrease in productivity, innovation, or perseverance. There are countless atheists out there that have gone their entire lives without believing in any God and they turned out perfectly fine, and successfully became established in society.
In the developing world, many of the people are uneducated, poor and live nowhere near the lives we life in the west. Religion provides an outlet and a sense of hope in a world so bleak, and thats why religion spreads like wildfire in uneducated societies, because many people use the idea of "gods love" to help quell their problems and worries. They don't have an infinite amount of knowledge at their fingertips and use the simpler concepts in religion to provide their answers.
Religion will die on its own as the world moves forward.
Religion does absolutely nothing to benefit humanity that science does not do and more. With religion, comes ignorance and delusion. The most religious nations in the world are also the most affected by poverty, violence and bigotry. With logic and science, comes advancements in technology, health care, less bigotry and intolerance. People should be able to think for themselves using logic not superstition. The evidence is indisputable, however everyone has the right to believe in whatever fairy tales they want in a secular society.
Apologists will say that religion gives hope. I say that science gives more. Right now, there are thousands of dedicated men and women, more than half of whom are not religious, who are working on vaccines, cures for diseases and cancer, stem cell research and tissue engineering, nanotechnology, genetically modified crops, quantum physics, bionics and cybernetics, sustainable and renewable energy, asteroid tracking, the exploration of space, and the probing into our very origin as a species. All of this offers far more hope for the future than any sort of dedication to an invisible, unknowable, and apparently indifferent desert deity from ancient Palestine.
Apologists will claim that without religion there can be no morals. I say one look at history makes quite plain the abysmal track record of religious morality. As Richard Dawkins argued, I'd rather have a morality that is reasoned, thought about, discussed, argued, debated, and ultimately designed. Morality is human made, and should be human owned. We should accept that responsibility, not refer it up to supernatural mandate.
Apologists will argue that religion provides many charitable social services. That much is true for the most part...For now. Both Sam Harris and Rebecca Vitsmun, among others, have pushed for an increase of secular charities and networks, and the numbers are on the rise. Turns out that non-religious people are just as capable of charity as religious people, and are glad to help out their fellow humans just for the sake of doing it. They don't expect divine rewards, and the aid arrives without the baggage of proselytizing and bibles. The Freedom from Religion Foundation, The Foundation Beyond Belief, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science are some obvious ones, but less obvious secular charities include UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders, and the Red Cross. So, it's true that religious charities have a far more prolific network, due mainly to the fact that they've been at it longer. But that can be changed, and it's happening, so that's a good thing.
On the other side of that issue is the notion that religious charity somehow forgives the social cost that comes with it. Hamas is generally accepted to be a terrorist organization, but they are in fact faith-based, and they do in fact engage in a lot of charitable work in Gaza and the West Bank. They provide food and clothing and medical treatment for the most poor and most severely affected by Israeli occupation of their sovereign territory. One cannot deny this, and yet, would anyone say that their charitable work somehow makes up for the cost of suicide bombs and terrorism? Should religious charity exempt the monumental social cost in impeding social justice for child abuse, impeding social progress in women's and civil rights, impeding proper scientific education of young people, and the utter lack of any social contribution by way of income and property taxes? I say no. We can do charity without the magic, thank you very much.
Religion is not in the way of science neither is science in the way of religion. Both are essential to a society. We need faith alongside science. While faith will continue to give us a higher purpose, science will help us better understand the world around us. This is a balance
Science, logic and reason are great, essential things for society to have, but there's always information we will not have and we will continue to make assumptions that aren't entirely supported by empirical evidence. Why should we drop religion? Why can't God exist, and why can't he be cruel? Perhaps the universe from it's beginning has been saturated with consciousness and consciousness is as rudimentary an attribute to the universe as matter and energy is. Science, logic and reason can always be wrong on the simple fact that there exist knowledge that we do not have yet . . . Or at least knowledge that verified to scientific circles. The fact is esoteric knowledge is possible and exist (knowledge not available to all people, but only to a few based on experiences). Welcome to the difficult, more complicated world of logic and reason!
The real question here is should the human culture currently practiced in your place of living (probably somewhere in the USA) be dropped.
Trying to overlook and disregard the human culture that has developed in your surroundings is not always a good thing. The European atheist anti cultural movements such as communism (where religious practice was outlawed) or extreme feminism, is actually a sort of not-so-slow suicide, causing the population holding those ideas to recline and become extinct.
It has been shown that dolphins and whales adapt and keep traditions for surviving. Humans should do so as well.
So it is science and logic itself that lead to the reasoning that cultures should be upheld, or even encouraged, and that values of a society should be cherished and confirmed.
Science and logic (and history) also teach us at the same time to be wary of fundamentalism. But, it seems, showing things logically and factually, do not always help. I'm a diabetic, and can understand with my mind that cake is not good for me, but I need other approaches, involving feelings, habits, and culture to assist me with overcoming that.
Another issue is artificiality. When you say "science and logic" you are probably also referring to technology and the artificial lifestyle. Mary Midgley wrote several books showing that this too can be scientifically proven to be a false cause with false claims. Basically it can be traced down to become just another religion, NOT based on science, but on its own claims and culture.
Or perhaps you wish to embrace environmentalism (which quickly went out of fashion).
Last but not least, is the inherent problem that science these days has, locked into some paradoxes, by which we cannot actually work with, namely: That the world is pre-determined, or totally random, that this includes the brain, so there is no real "decision", and that
Expecting everyone to follow your religion, science, logic or reasoning is whats wrong with the world. If you want everyone to think like how you think be prepared for war. There are numerous events in history which proves how dangerous it is to have one society exert their beliefs and morals upon another society (Hitler). Our forefather knew the importance of allowing people to believe whatever religion that they wanted to. There is a reason why the first amendment in constitution is the freedom of religion.
Science is just simply cold meaningless facts. Science does not give people meaning in life, but religion can. Science is simply an explanation, or a behind the scenes look, if you will, while religion gives people meaning to why this all exists. Plus, forcing people to drop religion would be unconstitutional.
1. It is inhumane, unethical and immoral (besides being impossible) to create rules what people are allowed to think or what to believe.
2. Sciences, even natural sciences, have "error probalities" which in some cases are extremely low, so low that any rationally thinking human being should accept the fact as being established. But what is "low" and do people only think rationally? Imagine to have to shoot at an object in space in a distance of some thousands of light years away. If you would aim inaccurately only by a trillionth of a micrometer, which is immeasurably "low", you would miss the object by hundreds of thousands of miles or kilometers , which could be immeasurably "high". "High", "low", "large" and "small" in the giant dimensions of the universe are very relative. Error probabilities, as small as they are, are large enough for people believing in alternative explanations, like religion. Although that is irrational, all people think irrational and they have the right to do. For me as an atheist and scientist those error probabilities are not a reason to become religious but a reason not to laugh about religious people. If someone would forbid religion, I would become religious immediately. Just for the sake of defiance.