Is religion merely failed science?

It's astonishing that the obvious must be pointed out to you, but if you are not of the majority religion, then yes, engaging can indeed be battling.

Yeah, it’s amazing how submissive the Bouncy Castle Catholics are.

Why anyone would put their kids into an organisation steeped in paedophilia is beyond me.

But don't folk say Popper is an idealised view of science, and not how it actually works? Isn't there another description of it (Kuhn?) where it looks at how science actually proceeds, which is more about there being an orthodoxy that guides research, which is frequently known to be wrong, and ultimately gets replaced by a new orthodoxy when the contradictions are too great.

Science is a human institution, but gets talked about as it we got it on tablets of stone.

Indeed, I'm sure there's complexity that needs to be understood. And I haven't read Kuhn's book (although I've just ordered it through the library, on foot of this thread, so we'll see where that goes!), but (just going on the inevitable Google) some of his point seems to be that progress actually comes from innovation outside science.

I just have a feeling that there could be a kind of fake conflict in the question posed in the OP (still a good question - I'm not knocking the topic). An alternative question might be "are all orthodoxies ultimately found to be false", which if we're not careful I suspect might take us to the point of wondering if all Cretans are liars.

I suppose, something like peer review offers a degree of comfort in respect of quality. And - acknowledging you likely know far more than I about research integrity - I would even regard the fact that dodgy research can still be published doesn't specially undermines that. All quality systems have their failures.

If there was something I think might need saying, its that some folk say "peer reviewed" almost as if that means something must be true. As I understand it, peer review just means that some people with relevant expertise confirm that a particular method has been correctly applied to a problem. Peer review absolutely doesn't confirm the outcome of a particular piece of research - which is how two peer reviewed studies could have conflicting findings.

Whats that to say? I think I'm wondering if folk need to be careful about seeing science as something that it isn't.

As what other people call an "atheist" (I dont use this word to describe myself, but other people do) I would absolutely believe this sentence is true.

The problem is that as an atheist I do not at all believe this has anything to do with religion or the idea that a "god" actually exists.

I think all too often that anti depressants are a substitute for things humans actually need.

That is not to say there are humans who genuinely need anti depressants.

But a lot of depression can certainly be alleviated by human contact and being social, or having a peer group or a support group. And people who regularly attend mass are going to end up part of a social circle.... and I GENUINELY believe that is going to be both healthier and more effective than a pill.

The problem with a lot of "studies" showing the benefits of religion is they do not very often attempt to normalize for the social effect. They just kinda assume it must be something to do with church or religion.

So while I might doubt some of the interpretations people might have of your sentence above..... I absolutely agree with your sentence.

Ah "personal" evidence.... or in the common vernacular.... anecdote.... is seriously powerful. I have seen "god" at work myself if you wanna go down that route :) Many many times. Look up my user name and search the "keys" story if you want one of the good ones :)

There was a wonderful movie staring.... I think.... Jim Carey.... which was about something similar..... where they had the feeling the number "23" was controlling their lives. There was no real evidence the number 23 was controlling their lives of course..... but that did not stop them finding that number everywhere they looked! As the old christian adage goes "If you seek you shall find" :) It's basically doctrine endorsing confirmation bias :)

"As an atheist as you people call us" I have to say that the most wonderful and beautiful Christian I ever met in my life was a true follower of Jesus Christ. When I met her she was 16 and a child of really in your face evangelical Christians. And she decided that the most important sentence in her bible (which incidentally she read and her parents didn't) was "by your fruits you will know them". Which meant she never even told anyone she was Christian or Theist.... unless she was directly asked. I quit my job as a moderator of a website called "isgodimaginary" just because of her. I do not know what a "true" Christian means but my heart tells me she was it and to this day she remains one of the most wonderful and beautiful people I ever met.

To engage with your last paragraph though.... Evolution is not a "pseudo" science. It's the result of ACTUAL science. You do not get to pick and choose which science you like and don't like. You either engage with the methodology of science or you don't. If you don't.... then I respect that. I really do! But if you DO then I hate to break it to you but Evolution ticks all the boxes that the methodology of science demands. And if you do not believe ME on that (which you shouldn't because I am a semi intellectual moron) then you should ask people like the catholic theist Kenneth Miller for example :) Actual scientists of evolutionary biology. But.... as a MORON of science..... I can engage with you on some of the tenets of evolutionary biology if you want. Try me. Not throwaway derision I mean.... but actual engagement on the science. I know some of it.... and I know people better than me who know more too.

Evolutionary biology works very very well under the rubric of the methodologies of science. You might not like that of course.... and I can understand why...... but if you want to fault it you need to go back to the basics of science.... not the basics of evolution.... to take up that gripe.

I'm Christian. I'm not hostile to evolution. It's just a theory dreamt up by a man and believed by a society that wants to write God out as being the Creator. All in the vain hope that having written Him out that they won't have to give an account for their lives and how they lived them to the One who created them.

I don't have much time for religion either. It's just a formula which seeks to make God in the image of men. It just doesn't work nor change the lives of those who practice it or the society in which it operates

"it's just a theory..."

Jebus, our education system has a lot to answer for.

The common cold exists everywhere too. That does not mean it has an evolutionary benefit. Evolution does not work that way. Just because something exists does not mean automatically it has an evolutionary benefit. Things can be selection neutral for example in that evolution is not selecting for OR against it. There are also some things which are evolutionary byproducts too. In that they exist not because evolution finds a benefit to them.... but because they are a by product of something else evolution did select for.

All that said though..... it should also be pointed out that even if religion was being selected for as evolutionary beneficial.... that would not for one moment be evidence that any given religion is actually true. Useful nonsense is nonsense none the less.

Ah yes that old move :) When you have no evidence whatsoever that a god exists.... pretend instead that people not believing that this god exists is because of some agenda of bias on their part :) It's not that you have not got a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning which suggests any god actually exists..... its actually because atheists dont want to believe :)

Yeah, pull the other one.

Exactly. So perhaps religion is of evolutionary benefit to itself too in just the same way. Just because it exists and continues to exist.... does not mean it confers any evolutionary benefit to the host. That doesn't mean it DOESNT do so either of course! But its not automatically true in any way.

But the common cold has evolved to take advantage of things that evolution has selected for in humans. We evolved other things which the common cold is able to hijack and use for it's own ends. It is quite possible that religion is similar in this regard. A memetic virus that hijacks elements and attributes of the human.

So no I do not by the idea that it's merely existing means it must have brought some kind of advantages. Maybe it did. Maybe it did not. But we can not declare it by fiat either way.

Sure but other people have experience that they were abducted by aliens. It does not mean they were abducted by aliens. Maybe they were but their claimed experience is not evidence. Human experience is flawed which is why we have things like science to test it and validate it. You can have all the subjective belief in the world that something is true.... but that does not change the fact you are not substantiating the claim if and when asked to do so.

So it is not about negating your experience so much as pointing out your experience is irrelevant to anyone but yourself. The idea there actually is a god entity remains unsubstantiated regardless.