This presumes that religious worldviews have been shown to be false; this is clearly not a matter that has been demonstrated. So there’s a cognitive disconnect for you.
Here’s something to disprove: Human error and failing are central to the flaws of the world, and we need, collectively, to do penance and correct this. (A variety of Christian denominations.)
How about: Moderation in all things. (Hellenic paganism.)
Or: Desire and attachment are the roots of suffering. (Buddhism.)
Or maybe one of mine, if you want it: All people have the potential within them to return to the perfect and act in accord with what is right. (Kemeticism.)
Here’s another: The balance and polarity between male and female is one of the central truths of reality and is to be both revered and celebrated. (Some forms of Wicca.)
And an actual bit of someone’s texts, though I suspect I’ve bollixed it up somewhere: Cattle die, kinsmen die, you yourself shall surely die, but word-fame lives forever for one who has achieved it well. (Asatru.)
I know people who find that their carefully considered experiences put them in accord with all of these and more. None of these are addressed by any form of science I’m aware of. All of them have their own forms and associated mindsets. All of them have toolsets for dealing with particular concerns, vocabulary for those concerns, ways of dealing with particular weaknesses and put particular strengths to work. Some of them are, to their adherents and to others, beautiful; all of them are, to their adherents, useful.
Science has its myths, too; you yourself quoted the story of Galileo and the leaning tower, which is probably apocryphal – but illustrates a point. The point illustrated is true; Galileo, the Leaning Tower, and gravity all exist, but the story is a fiction. Yes? Someone arguing that the story isn’t literally true doesn’t disprove science to you, but the story is nonetheless a vivid one, one that people keep telling. Personally, I’d consider someone who was harping on the question of whether Galileo really dropped things off the Leaning Tower to be missing the point at best.
This seems to me to be presuming that a religious structure and a scientific structure cannot be adhered to simultaneously. Are you under the strange impression that I am not an adherent of a scientific worldview? (Either/or attitudes are pretty common, so my knee may be jerking here. But I don’t think the looney theistic types who reject science or the non-religious who hold that science is incompatible with faith are doing anyone any favours, though, especially if one’s interested in any sort of non-antagonistic discussion.)
Science and a scientific worldview are the best tools I’m aware of for dealing with particular questions of fact. I am interested in more than fact, myself.
If you want to argue that science should override religion rather than exist alongside it as an additional set of tools and approaches, you have to not merely establish its credibility, but demonstrate to people that it is a toolset that also addresses the interpretation of fact, the development of meaning, development of a basic paradigmatic approach to the universe, correct living, seeking sources of beauty, achieving mental peace and calm, living in accord with a structured system of behaviour, systematising their experiences into something they can respond to in a way they find satisfying, organisation of societal structures and families, social cohesion, addressing transitional periods in life (birth, death, and passage into adulthood are the biggies here), having a resource of stories that illustrate things that need to be illustrated, and all the other practical reasons that people have religions.
Until someone manages to do that, I’m going to continue using my screwdrivers on screws and limit my hammer usage to actual nails.
).