Deconstructing god, and why I don't believe

[Talon]

This last winter solstice, brother and I had an interesting discussion. As brothers go, we're a strange bunch because we rarely fight, or even disagree. Guess great minds think alike... or fools seldom differ

Anyway, he claimed to be agnostic, which he defined as "keeping an open mind regarding the existence of god". I on the other hand am definitely atheist. I'm all for keeping an open mind, but the idea of keeping an open mind regarding god or gods seems as foolish as keeping an open mind regarding the existence of the tooth fairy. Obviously the tooth fairy isn't real. The motivation behind it is to amuse children. What's the motivation behind believing in god? Here's my top 3 reasons:

1. God of the (Knowledge) Gaps

Primitive humans would not have understood the various natural forces around them. They would undoubtedly have been afraid of what they couldn't understand. Creating all powerful human-like gods responsible for such forces would have been a source of comfort for them. For proof of this, look to the ancient Greek pantheon. You'll find gods that are responsible for various aspects of nature, such as thunder (Zeus) and fire (Prometheus).

But this idea of god can't stand against the march of science and empirical evidence. Sure we haven't discovered everything, but the things we have already discovered aren't likely to unravel based on some new scientific discovery. And even if we did someday discover something that turned our understanding of the universe upside down, that STILL wouldn't validate the existence of the god or gods that primitive humans conjured. This god notion is motivated by ignorance.

2. Creating Order out of Chaos

The world is not a static construct, it is constantly changing. Human beings are not comfortable with an uncertain world, particularly when their very survival was at stake. There's no guarantee that the next harvest from the fields or the ocean won't be a bust. Praying to a god or gods for a bountiful harvest would have been a comfort. People dying in plagues and natural disasters they didn't understand? It would have been comforting to think some kind of order was at work, that the universe wasn't so capricious.

While there is logic and order to natural forces, humans' piety and virtue have no bearing upon them. Look to any natural disaster or even war for proof of this. Natural disasters do not care if people caught in their wake are young, old, virtuous, or sinners. While our virtue does play a part in our long-term survival, it is of no use against the wrath of a hurricane. Even wars, though not a product of nature, will result in unintended consequences, collateral damage, innocent bystanders being killed. This god idea amounts to a comforting retreat from an uncaring world. But life isn't fair, it simply exists.

3. God as an inspirational Avatar

This is probably the most benign god-idea. People would project everything they know as good, all kindness, hope, bravery, etc, onto an artificial construct they call god, as inspiration. But even this god-idea can't stand. Why? I would argue that what we perceive as "good" translates to what is good for the long-term survivability of our species. A man who lies, cheats, steals, murders might find himself ostracized and imprisoned for his crimes. And even if he amassed a fortune, even if his ill-gotten gain won him many chances to reproduce his genes, the world becomes a lonely place when you can't trust anyone, even your own children. They'd either grow up hating him (if they grew up), or they'd emulate him by killing him for his fortune. Even though his genes survived him, it's unlikely his learned immoral behaviors would become a dominant survival trait in the human species.

Boy did I go off on a tangent, let's try that again. What is "good" isn't always simple to discern. Do we rely on the simple commandment "Thou shalt not kill"? What if someone tries to murder you? Okay then, "Thou shalt not kill except in self-defense"? Doesn't wash either, what if your homeland is invaded? War is all about killing the enemy before they kill you, self-defense doesn't play. "Thou shalt not kill except in defense of yourself, your family, your clan, your countrymen"? Wait, what constitutes your clan & countrymen? What about a civil war that pits your kinsmen against each other? This is getting complicated, and I don't think the stone tablets came in this format, upgrade to 1.1. Also, sometimes we have to be bad for our very survival, turning the idea of "good" on its ear. We certainly can't have an all-powerful all-knowing all-good god in a state of uncertainty can we?

So that's why I don't believe in god or gods, nor am I inclined to keep an open mind to the possibility. God was created by humans, for human reasons.

EDIT: This rant turned out longer than I expected, sorry for the wall of text.

[HYHYBT]

This is, perhaps, more religion in general than God specifically, and usually people roll it into the "God of the gaps" argument though it doesn't belong there... but I don't see either as an explanation of what we don't know yet, but rather as an idea about questions of a different kind that cannot hope ever to be answered otherwise. Forgive me for being bad at this, and I'm not even going to *attempt* to argue in favor of God's existence, but questions like, perhaps, "why is there something rather than nothing?" I don't see it as something that any amount of scientific observation can conceivably answer, nor do I see it, as many do, as only being pushed back a level by the notion of God, nor as many others do, a nonsensical question. But again, I cannot argue effectively on the point and don't intend to try, just throwing it out there.

[telecom_goddess]

Talon I agree with you completely...I've always felt this way. God is a human invention to explain the world before science could come along and explain it logically. I don't understand why people hang onto the notion of god so much now!

[jackfaire]

Talon I agree with you completely...I've always felt this way. God is a human invention to explain the world before science could come along and explain it logically. I don't understand why people hang onto the notion of god so much now!

Because nothing can't exist. Oblivion by it's very nature isn't a place. Since there is existance there can't be non existance.

My choices are to believe that this is really all there is and that sucks or contemplate the idea that when I die it will be a new world for me to explore. I would rather spend my life hoping for the latter than dying for the former.

Believing something comes after then leads to something came before then God.

People have difficulty believing something came from nothing.

[Savannah]

While I agree with most of what you say, I think you're missing something in your God of the Gaps argument. We don't know what happens after death. We will never know, because death is inherently one-way. As such, it is scary to most people.

What's one thing that all religions have in common? They teach what happens after death. This is the one area where I don't think that science can ever replace religion.

[Talon]

We don't know what happens after death. We will never know, because death is inherently one-way. As such, it is scary to most people.
...
This is the one area where I don't think that science can ever replace religion.

You are probably correct that science might never be able to explain what happens to our consciousness after death. But that shortcoming still doesn't automatically validate anyone's religious doctrine, or a belief in god or gods.

What's one thing that all religions have in common? They teach what happens after death.

I disagree, religions don't teach anything. Sure they all claim to know what happens after death, but what do they base that on? Myths and fables blindly asserted as fact, but must be believed on "faith" in lieu of evidence. They may provide comfort, but they are not objectively true.

[Lace Neil Singer]

People are probably just scared that worms will eat them after they die, and that there'll be nothing. That's what I believe; one life to live, so live well.

[Slytovhand]

Speaking of 'gaps', there's a couple I've just read in this thread!

Firstly, the problem with this line of thought is the same I read over and over and over again... and that's the 'definition' of 'God'. Are you referring to a Monotheistic variant? Are you referring to some sort of Polytheistic divinity? Or what? Given a couple of things mentioned in the OP, I would presume you are referring to a Judeo-Islamic-Christian-type God, mostly your mention of natural disasters (I do not follow those beliefs, so my responses may seem to reflect that). Are you arguing for 'God' of any nature, or 'supernatural' of some sort.. the 2 are not the same.

Ok, point 1... we don't know what happened before this 'Big Bang' thing, presuming there ever was one (no, not trying to sound like a moron, but just emphasizing a theory that Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose came up with on the theory of this universe and the expansion/contraction idea - we don't go back to point Zero... we go to point 0.0000000000001 sort of thing - then it all starts over). That is, there always was something... from somewhere. The Multiple Universes Theory comes into play here as well. Relevance? It's not chaotic.. there is order in the universe. NOTHING is truly random...despite appearances to the contrary. So, believing it was a conscious decision by something seems... natural!

Also, for those who have never communicated with a being/entity, and had a meteorlogical event happen shortly thereafter (which was either 'predicted' or 'caused' by said entity), sure - it makes sense to fully believe in science and poo-poo other religions. For those same people, you also have to do some snazzy scientific theorising to explain why the aforementioned people seems to have such experiences in their lives!

So, you say you are going to go for a drive. I see you go outside, I hear your car start, and I hear it drive off, and I don't see you. Later, I hear your car pull up, I see you get out, I see you with groceries from down the road... surely that's nice evidence to support my idea that I believe you went for a drive - yes?? Same with some religions and their beliefs about divinity.

Point 2... 'miracles'. Sure, a true 'miracle' can just be coincidence. But, some things happen in the world that truly do seem miraculous. Given that, and the fact that some people pray to some for of divine aid (and, as mentioned above, sometimes get direct contact), surely it seems sane to at least keep an open mind on the subject? There is a sea of coincidence out there... at some point, doesn't it make more sense (Ockam's Razor) to think that there are some concious forces out there dictating at least some of them?


Point 3 - I'll pass. Now you're entering into religion, rather than theology. I happen to agree with you on that point.


Savannah - sorry, have to disagree with you there*. We don't know that death is a one-way street. And I personally believe that science will one day help to prove there is something after 'death'. I'll go back to my first argument - are you discussing 'God' or 'supernatural'?

You are probably correct that science might never be able to explain what happens to our consciousness after death. But that shortcoming still doesn't automatically validate anyone's religious doctrine, or a belief in god or gods.

Gah!!!! But but but... You've automatically invalidated people's religious doctrine because of lack of scientific proof! And, as I'm sure you know, that's bad science! "Lack of evidence for is not proof against".


So, Talon, I think your brother has the better reasoning. "I don't know, but I'll wait and see if evidence shows up - til then, I'm not holding my breath" seems a far more logical stance to take (without actually trying to get involved with various sects and see what comes of it). You see, if science is correct, and this universe really is about 16 Billion years old (and that's just this universe we currently inhabit - and not going into whether there were previous ones that our came from), and human 'science' is all of (let's be extremely generous, and go back to the early Greek, Egyptian and Chinese days) say 7 Thousand years... we have a hell of a lot of catching up to do to make sense of it all. If a 'God' exists, then you've got to take into account all of that time - and space - and energy - to be able to understand it. It might be a poor analogy, but how would an amoeba be able to argue whether there is a human or not?


* - ok, I'm not really - I love a good argument!

[Talon]

Are you referring to a Monotheistic variant? Are you referring to some sort of Polytheistic divinity?

Well I did mention the Greek pantheon, those are more gods of nature. The Monotheistic Judeo-Christian variant would fall under my "deconstruction" reason #3, a representation of all that is good and lawful. But as far as I'm concerned there is little practical difference. They were both created by humans.

It's not chaotic.. there is order in the universe.

I agree, as I stated in my OP. My point was our belief in god or gods has no bearing on the natural laws and forces of the universe.

So, believing it was a conscious decision by something seems... natural!

It also seemed natural to Aristotle that heavier objects should fall faster than lighter-weighted objects. So natural that no-one in the fledgling scientific fields questioned it for over a millennium, until Galileo's cannonball experiment.
Seeming so does not make it so.

Also, for those who have never communicated with a being/entity, and had a meteorlogical event happen shortly thereafter (which was either 'predicted' or 'caused' by said entity), sure - it makes sense to fully believe in science and poo-poo other religions. For those same people, you also have to do some snazzy scientific theorising to explain why the aforementioned people seems to have such experiences in their lives!

What about the Salem Witch Trials?
People were convicted and executed based on the "visions" of their accusers.
Personal testimonials are the least reliable form of evidence.

So, you say you are going to go for a drive. I see you go outside, I hear your car start, and I hear it drive off, and I don't see you. Later, I hear your car pull up, I see you get out, I see you with groceries from down the road... surely that's nice evidence to support my idea that I believe you went for a drive - yes?? Same with some religions and their beliefs about divinity.

No it's not the same.
In your example you have something tangible: the car. Perhaps other people even heard it start and drive off. You can see the car, you can even drive it. Maybe the car left a pattern of tracks in the driveway corresponding to the shape of its tires. With religion, it would be a prophet claiming she/he saw a magical chariot coming down from the heavens. Only he/she saw it, the chariot left no evidence of its passing, but the prophet believes it anyway, claiming others' justified skepticism is a test of his/her "faith".

Given that, and the fact that some people pray to some for of divine aid (and, as mentioned above, sometimes get direct contact), surely it seems sane to at least keep an open mind on the subject?

What of those who pray for divine aid and don't get it? What about people who forgo modern medicine in favour of "spiritual healing", and their charges still die? Were they somehow less deserving? Nope, that line of reasoning leads to a house of cards.

Gah!!!! But but but... You've automatically invalidated people's religious doctrine because of lack of scientific proof! And, as I'm sure you know, that's bad science! "Lack of evidence for is not proof against".

On the contrary, that's exactly how science works. Theories that have no proof are discarded. Theories that have only partial proof or only explain part of a phenomena either get refined or replaced by new theories.
One of the scientific concepts states simply: "If you can't show it, you don't know it." Ok that's actually something the amazingly informative youtube user AronRa said, but it fits.

For the record, I make no pretense that we already know all that can be known of the universe. But I do maintain that whatever we discover in the future in regards to the creation of the universe, it won't bear any resemblance to the god or gods imagined by our Bronze-Age forefathers. Why? Because scientists today may only be making guesses into the unknown, they do it from a far greater knowledge platform than that of our forefathers.

* - ok, I'm not really - I love a good argument!

As do I

[Ghel]

For the record, I make no pretense that we already know all that can be known of the universe.

And you don't need to. The person making the god claim has the burden of proof to produce evidence to support his or her claim. Until they provide acceptable evidence, we remain skeptical, and rightly so!

There is a sea of coincidence out there... at some point, doesn't it make more sense (Ockam's Razor) to think that there are some concious forces out there dictating at least some of them?

Actually, Occam's Razor says that we should accept the simplest, most likely explanation unless we have evidence for a more complex explanation. In the examples of coincidences and "miracles", we should look for a natural explanation before resorting to a supernatural one.

We don't know that death is a one-way street. And I personally believe that science will one day help to prove there is something after 'death'.

Do you have any evidence that there is some sort of existence after death? Because if not, you're merely making speculations.

I'll go back to my first argument - are you discussing 'God' or 'supernatural'?

By every definition of God worth discussing, God is supernatural. If he weren't, why would anybody call him God?

So, Talon, I think your brother has the better reasoning. "I don't know, but I'll wait and see if evidence shows up - til then, I'm not holding my breath" seems a far more logical stance to take ...

To quote J. Michael Straczynski, "Life's too short to be agnostic."

[Savannah]

I disagree, religions don't teach anything. Sure they all claim to know what happens after death, but what do they base that on? Myths and fables blindly asserted as fact, but must be believed on "faith" in lieu of evidence. They may provide comfort, but they are not objectively true.

So everything taught is 100% verifiable scientific fact? No one teaches a story or fable to another person?

Also, you're missing my point. WHO CARES if they are not "objectively true"? (And who gets to decide that, may I ask? You admit that we don't know what happens after death.) Providing comfort is the whole point of religion. Maybe you aren't scared of death. Good for you! Many people are, and that is what religion can help with. Are you going to deny them their comfort because you don't believe what they do?

Savannah - sorry, have to disagree with you there*. We don't know that death is a one-way street. And I personally believe that science will one day help to prove there is something after 'death'. I'll go back to my first argument - are you discussing 'God' or 'supernatural'?

God vs. supernatural? *shrug* I don't really see the distinction that you do; I was just going with the OP's usage.

So, you BELIEVE that science will prove that there is something after death. Great! How does that differ from religions' explanations? You are just putting your faith that there is something more in science not in god/supernatural.

You say that we don't know if death is a one-way street. This is true. We can never KNOW if it is one-way since we have no way to check every single thing that has ever lived to see if it came back. But we don't see people coming back --- not even people who should want to come back. Unless you can explain why they don't, I don't see why we shouldn't accept the simplest explanation (Occam's razor? ), namely that people can't come back from the dead.

Regardless, the general assumption is that death is a great unknown, so people fear it as they fear any unknown. Religion alleviates that fear.

[Ghel]

So everything taught is 100% verifiable scientific fact? No one teaches a story or fable to another person?

There's nothing wrong with teaching fables as fables. The problem comes in when somebody teaches fables but states that they are the truth, which is what we see happening in religion.

Providing comfort is the whole point of religion.

Well, that depends on who you ask. Religions also attempt to explain how the universe works, the origins of things, etc. Many are also used to control people to varying degrees.

Regardless, the general assumption is that death is a great unknown, so people fear it as they fear any unknown. Religion alleviates that fear.

Religions that teach an afterlife for believers encourage those believers to "prepare" for that afterlife, and they waste the only chance they'll ever get at this life.

[Slytovhand]

Warning - LONG rant coming!

You know what galls me about the 'science is right' religious group?? (No, of course you don't, I haven't really said it yet! ) It's incredibly circular 'logic' - you know, the same fallacy that they accuse other religions of.

1. The 'Supernatural' doesn't exist.

2. If it did exist, we could test it, theorise it, quantify it, etc.

3. If we could test it, theorise it and quantify it, etc, then it would be, be definitions (that we've decided upon) be 'natural'.

4. Ergo, if something is 'natural', it can't be 'supernatural'.


Also, if it 'exists', then we'd know about it, or have seen evidence of it. If we haven't seen evidence of it, then it doesn't exist. Anything that doesn't live up to 'evidence' of our own devising, we get to ridicule and treat with contempt! (science is even more so a human thing - much more than 'religion'!)

When there's a discussion on religion, the typical atheist will say "prove it". Why??? Why should 'God' (or any form of supernatural) have to prove anything to you? IFF there was such an entity that created this universe, and all that that entails (including the formation of galaxies, stars, evolution, life, etc) what requirement is there that such a being has to prove it's existence you???

If ID theorists want to have ID taught in science classes - "oh no, can't have that - it's not real science - it's religion. Science should be taught in science class, and religion taught in religion classes!". But, it doesn't actually believe that! A 'miracle' occurs, scientists just have to try and disprove it! Science-Atheists say "we can't Prove God's existence, so it doesn't exist" - why?? It has nothing to do with science!I hate the hypocrisy inherent in what that (well, ok, the people doing it)!!!



LAD is another one. Those cases that have been looked at scientifically came up with... nothing! Sorry, not 'nothing', but "well, the evidence suggests something that we can't disprove, and don't like - so there must have been some other reason that we haven't thought of yet!". Savannah, I give you - Ian Stevenson! Granted, some scientists say 'poo-poo' to this reincarnation stuff, but personally, I'll put that down to ego and pride - they can't possibly be wrong! (in that same Wiki article linked, this quote -

The Demon-Haunted World (1996), Sagan wrote that claims about reincarnation have some, though dubious, experimental support, arguing that one of three claims in parapsychology deserving serious study is that, "young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.

)

In similar research I did, it says pretty much that 'research into reincarnation is very rare'. Why? OMG, because obviously it doesn't exist!!!! Now, how can such 'supernatural' things become 'scientific' if no-one bothers to do the research? And who's going to do the research when 'obviously it doesn't exist' (hey, there's that circular logic again!). And, if research is done into it, it will have it's methods and conclusions ridiculed.



Ghel -

Religions that teach an afterlife for believers sometimesencourage those believers to "prepare" for that afterlife, and they waste the only chance they'll ever get at this life.

Fixed it for you! Granted, yes, often that is the case. But, in many religions, 'preparing for the afterlife' really is a waste of time - because it's all about what you do in this one that matters! (I will presume that when you said 'afterlife', you are referring to those that only believe in just the 1... ie, Heaven or Hell. Even if this true, then those doing that have obviously no idea about entry requirements )

By every definition of God worth discussing, God is supernatural. If he weren't, why would anybody call him God?

Just as a quick example, if in the labs, a scientist just happens to create a baby universe somehow, would that qualify that person as 'God'? Besides, ghosts, telekinesis, telepathy, clairvoyance, spirits, angels etc all fall into 'supernatural', but aren't 'God', and thus, one does not equal the other.

The person making the god claim has the burden of proof to produce evidence to support his or her claim. Until they provide acceptable evidence, we remain skeptical, and rightly so!

Skeptical, yes. Completely disbelieving to the point of not even allowing it's possibility?? Besides, science works by disproving theories, claims etc, through rigorous investigation. I present as evidence - the UNIVERSE!. Now, disprove it was created by some entity!

I make a claim X will happen. X happens. I say I know this through 'supernatural' means. You can't disprove this, I can't 'prove' this - I can only offer up the evidence as it meets your eyes. Why am I the fool, and not you?



So, being agnostic is the most sensible stance to take. At least it isn't arrogant or insulting! Scientists are incredibly close-minded.... like any other religious person! (myself included )

[Ghel]

1. The 'Supernatural' doesn't exist.

2. If it did exist, we could test it, theorise it, quantify it, etc.

3. If we could test it, theorise it and quantify it, etc, then it would be, be definitions (that we've decided upon) be 'natural'.

4. Ergo, if something is 'natural', it can't be 'supernatural'.

You've got this in the wrong order. It should be:

1. If the supernatural existed, we could test it, theorise it, quantify it, etc.

2. If we could test it, theorise it and quantify it, etc, then it would be, by definition, 'natural'.

3. If something is 'natural', it can't be 'supernatural'.

4. Ergo, the 'Supernatural' doesn't exist.

Unlike most religionists, scientists don't start with the conclusion, and then only accept evidence that supports that conclusion.

Also, if it 'exists', then we'd know about it, or have seen evidence of it.

Exactly. If the "supernatural" had an effect on the real world, there would be evidence for it.

Why should 'God' (or any form of supernatural) have to prove anything to you? IFF there was such an entity that created this universe, and all that that entails (including the formation of galaxies, stars, evolution, life, etc) what requirement is there that such a being has to prove it's existence you???

It's not that "God" has to prove itself. The theists who claim that a "God" exists need to prove (or, at least, give testable evidence) that he does. Otherwise, there's no good reason to believe that a god exists.

If ID theorists want to have ID taught in science classes - "oh no, can't have that - it's not real science - it's religion. Science should be taught in science class, and religion taught in religion classes!".

Exactly. I have no problem with teaching about religion in history or sociology classes. Study of religion can be very enlightening. However, trying to sneak religion into science class under the pretense that it's on the same level as science should not be tolerated.

... 'research into reincarnation is very rare'. Why?

Because there's no good reason to believe that it exists. Because there's much more important things to spend research money on.

But, in many religions, 'preparing for the afterlife' really is a waste of time - because it's all about what you do in this one that matters!

Exactly. Whether we're discussing heaven and hell or reincarnation, if what we do in this life is what matters regarding what happens to us after we die, then this life is simply a preparation for the afterlife. If, as is taught in many Christian denominations, the only way to get to heaven is to believe in God, then nothing that we do in this life matters. We can do any evil, horrible act that we want, and as long as we believe (and perhaps ask for forgiveness), we'll go to heaven after we die. In either case, we will have wasted the one chance we get at life.

Besides, ghosts, telekinesis, telepathy, clairvoyance, spirits, angels etc all fall into 'supernatural', but aren't 'God', and thus, one does not equal the other.

I didn't say that they did. I said that God, by definition, is supernatural. The supernatural is not necessarily God.

I present as evidence - the UNIVERSE!. Now, disprove it was created by some entity!

That's not how it works. You are the one making the claim that the universe was created by some entity. It is your job to provide evidence to support that claim. Until such time as you provide sufficient evidence to convince me of that claim, I am justified in rejecting your claim.

I make a claim X will happen. X happens. I say I know this through 'supernatural' means. You can't disprove this, I can't 'prove' this - I can only offer up the evidence as it meets your eyes. Why am I the fool, and not you?

Can you do it again? Consistently? If so, there might be something there worth investigating. Did you make a guess that anybody could have made? Did you make a series of predictions, and only this one came true? Then we have no reason to even look for a cause. Do you believe that you have supernatural powers despite evidence to the contrary? Then you are a fool.

Scientists are incredibly close-minded.... like any other religious person!

Science is not a religion. It is a method for investigating the real world. If a scientist tests his or her theory and discovers that his predictions were wrong, then he accepts that and develops a new theory that better fits the evidence. When was the last time that a theist discovered that there was evidence that contradicted his beliefs and changed his beliefs as a result?


Talon, sorry for kind of hijacking your thread. But from your previous posts, I think you would agree.

[Talon]

No problem Ghel.

Also, you're missing my point. WHO CARES if they are not "objectively true"? (And who gets to decide that, may I ask? You admit that we don't know what happens after death.) Providing comfort is the whole point of religion.

No I'm not missing your point. Re-read the text you quoted, I stated that religion or belief in god or gods amounts to a comfort mechanism. They are no more objectively true than the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. No one gets ridiculed or condemned for abandoning belief in them, but what about religion? I'm not sure about the Eastern religions, but I doubt the Abrahamic scriptures, particularly Islam, have anything good to say about non-believers and those who give up their religion (apostates).

Maybe you aren't scared of death. Good for you! Many people are, and that is what religion can help with.

Actually I am scared of death. Should I or someone I love be touched by death, it's possible I might turn to religion or take up belief in a god or gods for comfort, as a crutch. I can only hope that my emotional scars would heal, and I would recognize when the time had come to cast the crutches away.

Are you going to deny them their comfort because you don't believe what they do?

Nowhere in my post have I advocated any such thing, for the reasons I outlined above.

As for Slytovhand, I have little to add to what Ghel said, but this stuck out like a sore thumb:

Anything that doesn't live up to 'evidence' of our own devising...

Incorrect.
Scientists don't devise evidence, they discover it. Just as Galileo discovered different weighted cannonballs didn't fall at different speeds in his experiment. What they do devise is theories that attempt to explain the evidence. They they conduct an experiment designed to test their theory, to see if they can reproduce a natural phenomenon. The results determine how accurate or inaccurate their theory is. Our first-world technological civilization wouldn't be possible without the scientific method.

... we get to ridicule and treat with contempt!

To an extent, I would agree that ridicule and contempt is uncalled for. Simple skepticism for belief in inherently unknowable things should be enough. In my original post I did not attack the belief in god or gods, I simply explained why I have no such belief.

(science is even more so a human thing - much more than 'religion'!)

Again, I agree. Science is learned, it is not "common sense" or innate. In fact, it often runs counter to our basic tendencies. For example, computer hackers (of the social engineering type) know that people have a tendency to trust each other, and they exploit that. Science is inherently skeptical.

BTW, something I just remembered on the subject of Eastern religions. I was raised as a Hindu, and the one thing that stuck out in my mind growing up, was the doctrine that no religion was inherently superior to another. (Although I can't help but think that bit of wisdom truly came from the ancient leader Asoka, which was then co-opted by some pundit who claimed it came from one of the gods.) That article speaks well of Hinduism, but it still doesn't make me a believer.