[vuldin]

While we're at it, let's go ahead and put religion on top of a solid scientific foundation! I mean politics and religion are so similar, if we figure one out then we're bound to be able to apply what we've learned from the process to the other.

[andrepd]

I don't understand. Isn't religion by definition inaccessible to scientific analysis?

[yorwba]

1. I think the comment was meant to be sarcastic.

2. Analysing religions seems to be within the domain of sociology.

3. Determining the truth of different religions is kind of tricky, because a lot of them are about the afterlife and unless there is a way to return we can't get any information about it. But if the local priests claims that "anyone who desecrates the temple will immediately be smitten by lightning", defecating on the altar seems to be a surefire way to find out. And of course, if a valkyrie hands you a mug of mead after your death, you know you shouldn't have prayed to Cthulhu after all.

[cookiecaper]

Yes. Religious beliefs are fundamentally non-scientific because they stem from a non-falsifiable root truth (e.g., God is only visible when He wants to be, and if you can't see evidence of Him, it's only because He doesn't want you to be able to).

Scientific beliefs are objectively testable and falsifiable. Religious beliefs are neither (though they are often subjectively testable). This doesn't mean religion is bad, but it means that it can't be understood in scientific terms.

[Houshalter]

No: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprova...

>Back in the old days, there was no concept of religion being a separate magisterium. The Old Testament is a stream-of-consciousness culture dump: history, law, moral parables, and yes, models of how the universe works. In not one single passage of the Old Testament will you find anyone talking about a transcendent wonder at the complexity of the universe. But you will find plenty of scientific claims, like the universe being created in six days (which is a metaphor for the Big Bang), or rabbits chewing their cud. (Which is a metaphor for...)

>Back in the old days, saying the local religion "could not be proven" would have gotten you burned at the stake. One of the core beliefs of Orthodox Judaism is that God appeared at Mount Sinai and said in a thundering voice, "Yeah, it's all true." ... The vast majority of religions in human history - excepting only those invented extremely recently - tell stories of events that would constitute completely unmistakable evidence if they'd actually happened. The orthogonality of religion and factual questions is a recent and strictly Western concept. The people who wrote the original scriptures didn't even know the difference.

[chongli]

The point is that rhetoric (the basis for politics) is inaccessible to empirical analysis too.

[andrepd]

But the policies that politics is concerned about (economy, welfare, etc) are accessible to scientific analysis.

[chongli]

Right, and tons of that scientific analysis goes on. It just doesn't hold much sway over some rather substantial portions of the electorate.