Do you believe in God?

Pastafarianism is not incoherent nonsense. It's coherent.

80% of analytic philosophers are atheist though. Pretty sure statistically western scientists are similar. Philosophers would of course be the ones one should trust here more so than the scientists though. Science tends not to lend itself very well to answering such questions. Although it does, of course, aid in answering them.

I think science alone is more capable of leading us to an answer than philosophy.

You obviously misunderstand the nature of philosophy then because philosophy is science and so much more - no serious western philosopher fails to place great value on modern scientific findings and empirical evidence in general.

thats what makes it a good satire; because its just as logically consistent.

I think science alone is more capable of leading us to an answer than philosophy.

Who wouldn't acknowledge scientific findings?
I think philosophy can become so abstract that its conclusions might not be reliable. I mean, some people can give your an argument for the existence of god based on abstract terms and logic.
Plus, I think maybe philosophy has more potential for being misguided by common sense.

When you study philosophy of science you'll realise that science has a problem with making assumptions for no reason just because it goes in accordance with common sense. But this discussion is too esoteric if you haven't studied philosophy of science so it's a bit pointless...

God isn't an old bearded man, sitting on a cloud. He is in us

Of course science makes assumptions, but it also develops theories that might be contradictory to common-sense that philosophy alone would never think of them. In fact, I think maybe science leads now, and philosophy utilizes its findings.
Do you agree with the rest of my other post about philosophy being abstract?

Oo, yuck! Now that's REALLY creepy!

(But it does explain the catholic priests' behaviour.…)

This is pointless as as another poster has already said science IS a part of philosophy. What we typically refer to as analytic philosopher comes both before and after science. It tells the scientists how to go about getting results, the scientists goes and gets the results, then the philosophy interprets and applies to meaning of the results. The two go completely hand and in hand and without the other both would be meaningless, this is because there is no "real" distinction. Science is a part of the philosophical method. Philosophical method just being the way to identify truth.

It's like how scientists do a study to see how there is a correlation with fat intake in a diet and heart disease. Great, the "scientists" told us what the data is, but science doesn't in anyway tell us how to interpret such data, it's meaning in correspondence with reality and so on. That's philosophy, nothing in the "scientific" method lets you do that. If you say it does then meta-physics becomes truly indifferentiable from normal physics.

I also don't think that the scientists who developed those theories, or Darwin, or any one else would go to a philosopher saying "We've got this theory (as the 'data'). Tell us what it means!"