My point is that we mostly make up knowledge, then build it up, rather than discovering it. — bogdan9310

You're forgetting about observation. How does any human form knowledge without observation? Observation is an aspect of science. All in all, philosophy is a science. The conclusions reached in one domain of knowledge should not contradict the conclusions in another. All knowledge must be integrated.

I disagree. Given a scientific understanding of the universe - there's sufficient reason to form a God hypothesis. Logically, there's first cause, and physically, there's the fine tuning argument - neither of which constitute proof, but are certainly sufficient to support a God hypothesis. If you would entertain ideas like multiple universes, or the universe as a computer simulation - ruling out the idea of an intelligent, intentional cause is a double standard. — karl stone

Perhaps we have different ideas in mind when we hear (or read) science. I was speaking strictly about science as an empirical method for making predictions about the world. Pure physics, nothing else. That is a form of "understanding" the universe, but it's not the only form.

The theories you listed belong, from my point of view, to the realm of metaphysics. They do not describe what we observe, they interpret it. There is grounds for metaphysical agnosticism (though I think the "first cause" dilemma has been solved neatly by Kant and the "fine tuning" argument is utter nonsense). But in purely physical terms, only what is part of a theory can be said to exist. The concept of God does not describe any part of the observable universe, nor does it make any predictions. Hence, physically there is no such thing.

Likewise, the multi-unvierse theory and the simulation hypothesis interpret the physical world, they do not, as such, say anything about how it works. As such, they're literally meta-physics.

The fact is we don't know. No-one knows if God exists or not. Admitting what we do and do not know is important, because the really interesting thing that follows from such an admission is that, if there is a God - then science is effectively the word of God made manifest in Creation, and through discovering and being responsible to scientific truth, we can secure a sustainable future, and survive in the universe - maybe long enough to find out. — karl stone

But it is impossible to find out, is it not? There is no way to establish the objective reality of the universe as a mere observer.

Adhering to the faith that there is a God, the human species is doomed - for faith undermines reason, denies a scientific conception of reality its rightful authority, and sets one faith group against another. As a tool of pre-scientific, religious and political ideology, science gives us the power to destroy the world, but denies us the reason to save it. — karl stone

It's not the place of empirical science to give reasons. That's the realm of morality.

Perhaps we have different ideas in mind when we hear (or read) science. I was speaking strictly about science as an empirical method for making predictions about the world. Pure physics, nothing else. That is a form of "understanding" the universe, but it's not the only form. — Echarmion

Perhaps you don't understand the term 'hypothesis' - or how that relates to agnosticism. There are hypotheses that can be ruled out. Geocentrism - for example. It's the theory based on simple observations that the earth is stationary, and the entire universe revolves around us. This idea persisted for a very long time, but was eventually falsified by Galileo, who made the first formal statement of scientific method. The Church arrested Galileo, and tried him for heresy - forced him to recant his claims, and prohibited his works.

This had the effect of divorcing science as a tool, from science as an understanding of reality. Subsequently, science was used to drive the industrial revolution, but to achieve ends described by the understanding of reality constituted by religious and political ideology - rather than, in a manner responsible to a scientific understanding of reality. This was a mistake, and it explains why, now - science can destroy the world but cannot save it. To my mind, you - and indeed, the entire cannon of western philosophy follows in the course of this mistake.

The theories you listed belong, from my point of view, to the realm of metaphysics. They do not describe what we observe, they interpret it. There is grounds for metaphysical agnosticism (though I think the "first cause" dilemma has been solved neatly by Kant and the "fine tuning" argument is utter nonsense). But in purely physical terms, only what is part of a theory can be said to exist. The concept of God does not describe any part of the observable universe, nor does it make any predictions. Hence, physically there is no such thing. — Echarmion

Dismissing first cause and fine tuning by saying "Kant and utter nonsense" is both a redundant repetition and an unwarranted claim to authority. As stated above, science is many things - so saying, 'in purely physical terms' is to seek to put science in a box defined by scientific method, thus to allow free range to all kinds of unscientific ideas. We have suppressed science as a general understanding of reality in favour of religious and political ideology for 400 years, and it's a mistake. Do nation states 'exist'? Is money 'a real thing'? No, yet it's in relation these ideas we apply science and technology. So it's not metaphysics to have a general scientific understanding of reality, or at least, it shouldn't be.

Anyhow, my dinner is ready. And afterward, I'm likely to suffer from postprandial somnolence. So, take you time. Think about your reply!

Perhaps you don't understand the term 'hypothesis' - or how that relates to agnosticism. There are hypotheses that can be ruled out. Geocentrism - for example. It's the theory based on simple observations that the earth is stationary, and the entire universe revolves around us. This idea persisted for a very long time, but was eventually falsified by Galileo, who made the first formal statement of scientific method. The Church arrested Galileo, and tried him for heresy - forced him to recant his claims, and prohibited his works.

This had the effect of divorcing science as a tool, from science as an understanding of reality. Subsequently, science was used to drive the industrial revolution, but to achieve ends described by the religious and political ideology - rather than, in a manner responsible to a scientific understanding of reality. This was a mistake, and it explains why, now - science can destroy the world but cannot save it. To my mind, you - and indeed, the entire cannon of western philosophy follows in the course of this mistake. — karl stone

These are a lot of words to say "I think you're wrong". It would help if you explained to me what exactly I get wrong about hypotheses and agnosticism.

Dismissing first cause and fine tuning by saying "Kant and utter nonsense" is both a redundant repetition and an unwarranted claim to authority. — karl stone

It's not an argument, certainly. But this thread isn't about either the problem of first cause or the fine tuning argument. We can discuss both, if you like, but I think that those discussions warrant their own thread, or at least in a thread about agnosticism. Not that I want to tell you what to do though.

As stated above, science is many things - so saying, 'in purely physical terms' is to seek to put science in a box defined by scientific method, thus to allow free range to all kinds of unscientific ideas. — karl stone

No, saying what I mean when I say "science" is seeking to establish definitions in order to more effectively communicate.

We have suppressed science as a general understanding of reality in favour of religious and political ideology for 400 years, and it's a mistake. Do nation states 'exist'? Is money 'a real thing'? No, yet it's in relation these ideas we apply science and technology. So it's not metaphysics to have a general scientific understanding of reality, or at least, it shouldn't be. — karl stone

This sounds like you consider "metaphysics" to be some kind of insult. It is not, it's merely the name of a subset of philosophy. We can even call it a "science", if you want. There is a reason I always qualify "empirical science" when I want to talk only about physics. All I am saying is that God does not exist as a physical entity.

ok I miss the goal you stated.
Alchemy is similar to chemistry in the way it also works with the interactions of matter. It's built on a different base thought. Mostly to do with the idea of purity.

Truth in this case would be how the universe works. I believe the goal is to figure out how the universe works.
Then when it has figured it out, we can manipulate to our needs.
Also one discovery can cause us to remove thouse facts that we use that worked for us at the time.

Science became popular because Christians, like my self. are forbidden from using magic by God. Instead we figured, if we could figure out how his creation works then we could then respect it; without turning to Satan and his demons. I will say this now to avoid confusion, we the Christians believe magic is the art of consulting with demons (as described in the bible, not as pictured in culture). So the study of magic is under the study of Christian-demonology. (Note this is not the only view of magic, but it is the one I'm fimlar with)

I'm not saying science is less legitimate, just it is missing parts. If you don't consider all the parts you conclusion is incomplete.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

These are a lot of words to say "I think you're wrong". It would help if you explained to me what exactly I get wrong about hypotheses and agnosticism. — Echarmion

If that's all I were saying - that's what I would have said. I've explained why your claim that scientific understanding can only apply to ideas laid out in physics is wrong. It's because science is several things:

it's an epistemology: a philosophy of knowledge.
it's a method: the scientific method of testing hypotheses with reference to evidence.
it's a practice: conducting scientific experiments.
and it's a conception of reality: an increasingly valid and coherent worldview.

You argue that the last, 'an increasing valid and coherent worldview" is not science - but metaphysics. That follows from the mistake of suppressing science as an understanding of reality for 400 years. If you take the sum total of scientific knowledge - the broad picture it paints, then there's sufficient justification for a God hypothesis - but not proof, either for or against. Hence, agnosticism with regard to the God hypothesis.

Metaphysics is an insult. Any valid philosophy begins with epistemology - either explicitly, or implicitly. Heidegger's random obsession with the concept of 'being' for example, is metaphysics, and there's no systematic method to that madness. He adduces observations at random intervals - about hammers and bicycles, to support an equally random line of reasoning - toward a prejudiced conclusion.

Your atheism is similar. You cannot know that "God does not exist as a physical entity." It's 'the problem of induction' described by Karl Popper. You cannot prove the negative. Your epistemology is wrong. You have faith God does not exist - and I cannot truly understand why you would want to believe that. Maybe you're disenchanted - you were taught religion as a child, only to reject it in adulthood, and are left feeling bitter about it. Push past it. Religion is not God. Religion is primitive political philosophy - that occurred in the course of human evolutionary development, at the point where hunter gatherer tribes joined together. They adopted God as an objective authority for social and political values that applied equally to all, regardless of tribal affiliation.

We can know this precisely because religion suppressed science as an understanding of reality. They didn't want to know the truth. They wanted a justification for political power. But if there is a God, and I think it entirely reasonable to hope there is - the path to God is surely to accept true knowledge of reality, and act responsibly in relation to that knowledge. It's certainly the path to a sustainable future for humankind.

bogdan9310
12
↪Harry Hindu ↪karl stone
Having different observers, we could be looking at the same thing, and have 10 different observations. Observation is not reliable. Check out this article: https://exposingtheothers.com/the-problems-with-science/ — bogdan9310

If reality is observer dependent, explain traffic lights. No-one has ever gone to court and successfully argued - "The light I observed was green, Your Honour." If reality were observer dependent, traffic lights could not exist. Rather, there's an objective reality that we observe in a subjective fashion - subject to greater or lesser degrees of accuracy. Science employs repeated observation by independent observers to test its claims - and the incentives are to disprove other scientist's claims, not confirm them.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

If that's all I were saying - that's what I would have said. I've explained why your claim that scientific understanding can only apply to ideas laid out in physics is wrong. — karl stone

I have made no such claim. I have never even used the term "scientific understanding" and I do not know what - precisely - it's supposed to mean.

It's because science is several things:

it's an epistemology: a philosophy of knowledge.
it's a method: the scientific method of testing hypotheses with reference to evidence.
it's a practice: conducting scientific experiments.
and it's a conception of reality: an increasingly valid and coherent worldview.

You argue that the last, 'an increasing valid and coherent worldview" is not science - but metaphysics. That follows from the mistake of suppressing science as an understanding of reality for 400 years — karl stone

Look I am not interested in discussing semantics. If you want to use different definitions from the ones I use, fine. But definitions are not arguments.

If you take the sum total of scientific knowledge - the broad picture it paints, then there's sufficient justification for a God hypothesis - but not proof, either for or against. Hence, agnosticism with regard to the God hypothesis. — karl stone

Can you tell me what law of physics either includes or at least allows for a God? Failing that, can you explain to me how attributes such as "omnipotence" would manifest in the physical world?

Metaphysics is an insult. Any valid philosophy begins with epistemology - either explicitly, or implicitly. Heidegger's random obsession with the concept of 'being' for example, is metaphysics, and there's no systematic method to that madness. He adduces observations at random intervals - about hammers and bicycles, to support an equally random line of reasoning - toward a prejudiced conclusion. — karl stone

This is not the most absurd statement I have read on this forum, but it certainly comes close. What is your definitions of metaphysics? Because it sure as hell is not the commonly used one.

Your atheism is similar. You cannot know that "God does not exist as a physical entity." It's 'the problem of induction' described by Karl Popper. You cannot prove the negative. Your epistemology is wrong. — karl stone

If I cannot know what does not exist, should I consequently be agnostic about unicorns and leprechauns as well? According to Karl Popper, scientific theories must be falsifiable. That means that, since you cannot prove a negative using induction, you are not allowed to ask people to prove a negative. If you want to use Popper's philosophy as the basis for your agnosticism, you will have to establish how it could be falsified.

Anything that is not strictly necessary to explain our observations is not part of physical reality. Physical existence is contingent on the observations that it accounts for. You don't prove that X Y Z do not exist, you prove that you can account for all observations without needing X, Y or Z.

You have faith God does not exist - and I cannot truly understand why you would want to believe that. Maybe you're disenchanted - you were taught religion as a child, only to reject it in adulthood, and are left feeling bitter about it. Push past it. Religion is not God. Religion is primitive political philosophy - that occurred in the course of human evolutionary development, at the point where hunter gatherer tribes joined together. They adopted God as an objective authority for social and political values that applied equally to all, regardless of tribal affiliation. — karl stone

Thank you for the psychoanalysis, but if I want counseling, I will consult a professional.

Having different observers, we could be looking at the same thing, and have 10 different observations. Observation is not reliable. — bogdan9310

This is ridiculous.
Then 10 different people reading your post and interpret it 10 different ways, and your own ( the author) interpretation would be just as unreliable as everyone else's. How do you know you're reading the same words on the screen as everyone else?

Thank you for the psychoanalysis, but if I want counseling, I will consult a professional. — Echarmion

You're welcome.

Observation is not reliable. — bogdan9310

Then your knowledge is not reliable because your knowledge is based on observation.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Right. I interpreted your words as ridiculous and you say that they aren't. So now what? Who is right? How do you determine who is right?

:sad: Experience IS observation. Seeing is an observation.

Only those who do not know what science is or what the scientific process and its methods are would treat it like a religion. — Christoffer

I would counter that those most expert in the techniques of science may be those most likely to treat it like a religion, that is, a "one true way" because they've devoted their lives to science and as human beings are likely to develop an emotion based attachment as a result.

As example, show us the scientists who argue for limits to the advancement of scientific knowledge. I'm guessing such folks are rare, which illustrates the "one true way" mindset.

It seems helpful to draw a distinction between science and our relationship with science.

I would agree that science is just a conceptual machine which generates new data from old data, and is neither good nor bad in itself, like any other mechanical tool. There seems little to debate here.

Our relationship with science is another matter. I would argue that our civilization as a whole has largely transferred a blind unquestioning "one true way" relationship we used to have with religion to science. What confuses many people is that the scientific method is very questioning, but our relationship with that method typically isn't.

I've been writing on this topic for years on many different forums, a social experiment of a sort, and have discovered that it's close to impossible for we moderns to conceive that there should be limits to science, and that the "more is better" relationship with science is dangerously outdated. And it doesn't seem to matter how much education one has, the science worshiping group think has penetrated all levels of society.

Is science a religion? No, certainly not.

Does our relationship with science smell a lot like a religion? Yes, it certainly does. The one true way leading us to the promised land, typically believed without questioning based on reference to authority etc.

There is so much confusion on this subject. We pat ourselves on the back about having transcended religion etc, but really all we've done is transfer an ancient blind faith mindset to a new and far more dangerous enterprise.

Hey Jake. I have a problem. I don't want to let your post pass without protesting it, but at the same time, it's all chewed meat. Maybe stating this question suffices to note my objection, to what you repeat endlessly - despite the overwhelming problems with your 'more is better' denunciation of science having been described to you - repeatedly, and at great length. I don't want to go over it all again, because nothing sticks - and like Eldorado above, you're inclined to get testy when challenged. So, what to do?

I would have a lot to say on the subject, because it can't be put concisely into words.

You see, you hear, your smell, you touch, you taste, you have a whole bunch of experiences. You notice regularities within some of these experiences, which allow you to predict to some extent what you will experience.

You observe some ball of light rise in the sky, you call it the Sun, you see it happen again and again, you assume it will keep happening, and you write down the law that the Sun rises regularly, that after night comes the day, and after the day comes the night.

Then you may wonder, does the Sun die every time it disappears and is born again every time it rises above the horizon, or is it always there even when you can't see it? If you assume that it is there even when you can't see it, you are constructing in your mind a world where the Sun goes somewhere out of your sight then comes back. You are imagining that world, you are making it up to some extent. How much of the world we live in do we create ourselves?

Science is about creating a world in our minds that is predictable, about imagining underlying regularities to apparent irregularities. You could come up with vastly different imagined worlds that would have the same predictive power.

The imagined world is called a model, a theory. We don't see the particles or waves or strings of the current mainstream theories, we imagine them. A theory makes predictions of future experiences from past experiences. We don't test whether the world imagined through the theory is an accurate representation of our world, we just test whether the theory's predictions are observed.

Some philosophers and scientists look for the fundamental building blocks of 'reality'. But those building blocks are whatever we want them to be, particles, waves, leprechauns, gods, feelings, so long as we imagine them to behave in ways that allow to account for what we experience, to predict what we will experience.

I see the root of existence as change. And science as an activity that attempts to predict future change, through observation and imagination. But I see 'science' as it is practiced today as very narrow-minded, resistant and oppressive to unconventional ideas, for no valid reason, dismissing lines of inquiry without attempting to explore them, having certainty on things that are far from certain, displaying characteristics similar to religions.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

How? You can only observe anything with your senses. The is a difference is seeing vs hearing vs touching vs smelling vs tasting, but they are all observations.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Hey Jake. I have a problem. I don't want to let your post pass without protesting it, but at the same time, it's all chewed meat. Maybe stating this question suffices to note my objection, to what you repeat endlessly - despite the overwhelming problems with your 'more is better' denunciation of science having been described to you - repeatedly, and at great length. I don't want to go over it all again, because nothing sticks - and like Eldorado above, you're inclined to get testy when challenged. So, what to do? — karl stone

Ok, good question. I'm not sure I have an answer to your "what to do" question, but I'm willing to explore it, here or in another thread of your choosing.

"Nothing sticks" because so far, in years of discussing this in many places, not a single person has been able to explain how human beings will successfully manage ever more power delivered at an ever faster pace, which is what a "more is better" relationship with knowledge (and thus science) leads to, as proven by the history of the last 500 years.

I do grow testy sometimes, which is entirely my problem. I may be making some progress there as I'm close to giving up on trying to explain for the billionth time that being bored with the fact that we have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throat is not very good evidence of a species that is ready for more and more power delivered at an ever accelerating pace. The testiness arises from extreme boredom, and a form of arrogance that assumes that I, Mr. Jake Poster, can have any impact at all on a historic process so much larger and deeper than any us. Perhaps I'm learning to be a bit more realistic about the situation we find ourselves in, or perhaps I'm just becoming more selfish in the realization that I'll be dead soon and so this is somebody else's problem.

In any case, if I wish to lay claim to being a person of reason I have to listen to the evidence, and the evidence from years of discussing this is screaming that reason is not going to solve this problem of our relationship with knowledge, and so there is probably little to do other than wait for the lessons that pain will inevitably generously provide.

I'm not vetoing further discussion on the matter, for I did of course just write a post on it myself. But I'll admit to not being hopeful we can take the conversation anywhere we haven't already been, and by "we" I don't mean just you and I, but this philosophy forum, all philosophy forums, our culture at large.

Here's the thread where this was previously discussed. If you want to try to revive it, go for it.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3728/the-knowledge-explosion

Ok, good question. I'm not sure I have an answer to your "what to do" question, but I'm willing to explore it, here or in another thread of your choosing. "Nothing sticks" because so far, in years of discussing this in many places, not a single person has been able to explain how human beings will successfully manage ever more power delivered at an ever faster pace, which is what a "more is better" relationship with knowledge (and thus science) leads to, as proven by the history of the last 500 years. — Jake

Well first, you might want to acknowledge that science and technology are not applied for scientifically valid reasons. They're applied as dictated by religious/political/economic power structures - for power and profit, regardless of scientific advisability. Were we to correct that error - scientific truth would regulate the application of technology. There's your 'adult in the room' - missing from your approach.

I do grow testy sometimes, which is entirely my problem. I may be making some progress there as I'm close to giving up on trying to explain for the billionth time that being bored with the fact that we have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throat is not very good evidence of a species that is ready for more and more power delivered at an ever accelerating pace. — Jake

If you cannot recognize 70,000 nuclear weapons at the height of the Cold War as an ideologically driven, and irrational application of technology - as opposed to an application of technology responsible to scientific truth, then I'm done banging a brick wall against your head.

The testiness arises from extreme boredom, and a form of arrogance that assumes that I, Mr. Jake Poster, can have any impact at all on a historic process so much larger and deeper than any us. Perhaps I'm learning to be a bit more realistic about the situation we find ourselves in, or perhaps I'm just becoming more selfish in the realization that I'll be dead soon and so this is somebody else's problem. — Jake

Oh, right - because philosophy has never changed anything! If you don't care if there's a future for humankind, your existence was just one long masturbatory fantasy. You took all previous generations struggled to create, from nought but sticks and stones, and merely pleasured yourself with it. Well bravo - but no encore!

In any case, if I wish to lay claim to being a person of reason I have to listen to the evidence, and the evidence from years of discussing this is screaming that reason is not going to solve this problem of our relationship with knowledge, and so there is probably little to do other than wait for the lessons that pain will inevitably generously provide. — Jake

I'm inclined to agree. The overwhelming probability is that we will not address the problem of our relationship to scientific knowledge, and will die starving and sun-burnt en masse; but it's not inevitable - and it's not right. If science hasn't proven itself a profound truth that rightfully owns the highest authority, that's our mistake - not anything inherent to science.

I'm not vetoing further discussion on the matter, for I did of course just write a post on it myself. But I'll admit to not being hopeful we can take the conversation anywhere we haven't already been, and by "we" I don't mean just you and I, but this philosophy forum, all philosophy forums, our culture at large. — Jake

Well I think I am saying something different, and hopeful, and true. I think you people can't see it because it requires you look beyond your ideological identities - and that scares you. You can't look reality in the eye, and assert the worth of humankind. Reality is a threat to you - as is evident in your entire approach, just as it's a threat to religion, politics and economics. Only it's not. Not if you accept it. From my point of view - nothing looks more like the word of God than science. Politics is merely the business of knowing what's true, and doing what's right in terms of what's true. And the economic opportunities that follow from accepting scientific truth, and applying technology accordingly - are vast, and potentially infinite.

I experimented on myself, and saw how my own brain works. — bogdan9310

The scientist who experiments on his own brain has an idiot for a subject.

My point is, when scientists run experiments, they have to rely on observations of others, rather than their own observations. How many scientists experiment on themselves? — bogdan9310

And this is a problem, why?

Does our relationship with science smell a lot like a religion? Yes, it certainly does. The one true way leading us to the promised land, typically believed without questioning based on reference to authority etc. — Jake

If this is how you think scientists think about science, you don't have much insight into scientific research. Do you think that scientists don't tread carefully forward? That they don't have ethics? And do you think that all scientists in the world blindly follow science in the religious way you describe? People and scientists trust science because of the facts it provides, because of the technology it develops and invents, because of the improvements for people's lives.

There's no promised land, it's the process of science that proves it's own worth. Religion does nothing, science has done everything for the quality of life that we have and the knowledge about the world and universe we now know. To put trust in science is to put trust in a method that produces facts humanity can live by, not fairy tales and delusions that corrupt mankind. To say that science "smell lot like religion" is pure nonsense in my opinion and totally ignorant of what science actually is.

There's a lot of distrust against science, scientists and the scientific community on this forum. I don't know if it's because of religious apologists who try to push their agenda or if a lot of people have a problem with scientific facts and intentionally try to discredit it in order to try and validate their own incoherent arguments, but most of the time when I read criticism of science it just comes across as heavily uninformed and misinformed.

No, the senses are not observations. How do you define observation? Language is sometimes tricky. My point is, when scientists run experiments, they have to rely on observations of others, rather than their own observations. How many scientists experiment on themselves? — bogdan9310

I didn't say that the senses are observations. I said that you make observations with your senses. That is the definition of observation - using your senses. Scientists performing their own experiments rely on their own observations to make sure theirs is the same as some other scientist who made a claim that they are now testing. They are testing the consistency of the claim of another by using their own observations.

I'm going to lay my cards on the table as an agnostic with no particular belief system, but ... -

@Christoffer - This being a philosophy forum, members are going to ask 'what does it mean' - when it comes to science - or indeed anything. Regardless of certain members' claims, the results of scientific experiments have meaning only within a narrow context - in relation to potential technological applications, for example, or in relation to concepts whose definition is circular (e.g. 'energy' = "the capacity to do work" / 'the capacity to do work' = "energy") and therefore lacking in wider or deeper truth claims. For example, humans may have evolved (well yeah, they did), but does that *alone* that mean we should each devote all our mental activity to out-surviving and out-reproducing everyone unrelated to us? {There's a scientific morality for you...} - Science makes predictions about the three-dimensional world; brain science delves into how this links into the human world, but cannot explain it much beyond the point that it can give a physical location for the number three.

As for religion, do you really understand enough about it to call it (even if non-abrahamic faiths are excluded) an attempt to understand the physical universe and nothing more? In this case, science would be on an equal footing with religion in any case. Since spirituality goes straight for the mind, how do you know it hasn't improved our quality of life intangibly, for example by helping create social/moral and psychological/spiritual conditions in which scientists and others felt free and still feel free, inspired, and encouraged to do their work?

The scientific method is not what 'smells a lot like religion'. What does, as Jake implied, are the claims made mainly by non-scientists and popular science writers on the back of rushed and stretched conclusions, that science alone provides ultimate understanding. It does not - As you yourself say, it deals in 'facts', and so its only conclusions relate one physical phenomenon to other similarly-bounded phenomena. Needless to say, phrases like "delusions that corrupt mankind" smell 'religious' - in as much as each religion (at least monotheistic ones) tends to paint the others in similar terms, as well as clarifying that they are *nothing* like they are themselves...