At some times they "give science a chance", but during the whole movie they keep making bad comparisons putting science on unfair side.

The biggest example is when Sofie tells him that the reality is like the room and there's a door that's barely opened, and he trying to close the door means he's afraid of it. It'd be easy to argue on the same manner, asking if there's no door and she just keeps trying to lie to herself that there is, because she's afraid of giving away her crutch.

In many times when he talks about religion he's hysterical implying he's afraid of the matter and has no confidence, while the other person is calm like they're in piece. He acts precisely as denialist religious do.

In the end, he makes a logical test and statistically it fails, to then intuition tell him the girl is indeed her. That's the worst part on the movie, because when the test fails he discredits it. Nobody on science community could make a test he thinks is invalid, or think a test is invalid because it disproves his assumptions, or hide results that do so.

If they wanted to make a movie about a clash between science and religion, they should at least use proper real-world arguments, and any fictitious ones should be made clear, in example how was done on the awesome Contact.

The fact is that scientists - at least ethical ones - don't deny religions, without some scientific fact showing some religious claim is wrong. We're unable to prove gods don't exist and there's nobody trying to, while in the same time there's no proof that any god exists. But almost all events that religions claim to be created or controlled by some god had been understood and were created or happen without the need of some mystical being.

When something still unknown is found out, and explored using scientific method, it's added to scientific knowledge as everything else. If reincarnation happens and there's some way to identify it, as the movie depicts, it'd just be accepted and researched normally. If it was so easy as to use eye identification, it'd be easy to do so as soon as the technology becomes cheap enough and many ppl would start discovering and researching it.

If ghosts are real and are able to make physical changes like in many movies, it'd be easy to research it and soon ppl would develop tools to communicate between worlds. Another sad example of the movie is Sofie arguing about the worm, that there's light around it and it doesn't know about it. There are many frequencies of sound and light that our senses are unable to perceive, but we manage to develop tools capable of. So, if there were ghosts we're unable to see but somehow something or some life form is able to, we could just use it to understand, then develop a tool to interact with them. There are many odd things around we don't understand, but frequently some of them are discovered to be hoax, and the remaining events can't be replicated to be researched, so all we can say is that we don't know what's happening until we're able to research it.

There are a very lot of stuff we had discovered that religions had no idea about. And there are so many events that religions explained wrong, that they ended up with no credibility. It's sad when a fictional plot depicts science and religion on inverted sides.