Before discussing such a question, it's better if we clearly define about what sort of god we are talking.
The god of deism, i.e. a "clockmaker" who created the universe but never interferes with it afterwards, would be more or less compatible with science. But that's not the kind of god most people are interested in.
I assume this question is about a concept of god that resembles the christian god: A god who interferes, who answers prayers, who performs miracles.
Such a god is clearly at odds with science, because the mission statement of science is to explain the world without any supernatural interference.
People might try to find some sort of compromise between the bible and a strictly scientific point of view. For example, one could claim the supernatural events in the new testament did happen exactly like that, but not the ones in the old testament; or only the resurrection of Jesus did really happen, but not his other miracles.
However, to me that seems like an attempt to "hush up" the conflict between religion and science. That might allow a more or less comfortable armistice, but cannot provide an intellectually satisfying solution.
So what if one got rid of all supernatural events in the bible and interpreted the resurrection of Jesus only as something symbolic?
Even then the problems remains, if and how god interfered in his creation by revealing himself and communicating with humans. Maybe god does not communicate by means of angels or miracles, but by enabling you to discover his truth in your own soul when you open your mind to him? But if that method to get information about god would be reliable, would you not expect that everyone discovered in his soul more or less identical or at least not contradictory information? Whereas looking at the real world it is hard to deny that most persons' religious views are very much determined by education and cultural environment, and that different cultures have very different religions.
We could try to gain knowledge about god by sticking to strictly intellectual arguments. But I guess then we would have implicitly given up everything that distinguishes religion from philosophy, and the god we construct looks probably a lot more like the god of deism than the one of christianity.
To summarise, unlike some of the other answers, I agree that if people took science seriously there would be a lot less - or a lot different - belief in god.
As to your actual question, why (traditional) religious faith still persists today, I can only speculate, but I don't think it's hard to see a lot of reasons:
People are attracted by the promise of a life after death.
Religious communities offer a sense of belonging and pleasant social activities.
Praying can have positive psychological effects.
Religious education encourages people not to question tradition and authority.
If faith in god is presented as a value in itself, like Martin Luther did, the implicit message is that doubt and skeptical thinking are dangerous and should be avoided. If god judges your thoughts, not your actions, you are effectively directed towards self-censorship.
And what I consider to be the most basic reason: There seems to be a irresistible temptation for human nature to assume that invisible entities interfere in our fate and can fulfill some of our wishes (if we communicate our wishes with the right rituals) or can punish us if we break certain rules or taboos. That psychological mechanism is visible not only in sophisticated religions, but also in the most basic superstitions: For example, when people interpret random chance in terms of "luck" and think that luck occurs in "streaks" and that those streaks can be foretold and/or enlongated.