Debate: Is religion good or bad for the world?
Side: religion is good

Empirical science differs from religious tenets in the methodology for how conclusions are reached, accepted, and rejected.I disagree. Conclusions are reached by no other means than recognizing patterns despite the limitations of our current perceptive and cognitive ability.In science, every new theory proposed needs to demonstrate itself as being at least as consistent with observed reality as a former theory (null hypothesis) and then add more to it (ability to make accurate predictions.) A theory that repeatedly fails to predict the outcome of events accurately is quickly dropped.That's really the way beliefs in general work. If a person has a belief that they find unhelpful for making accurate predictions they abandon or revise it.Religion's approach to explaining things typically comes from interpretations of words/ideas/thoughts of earlier people.That's everyones approachEven if you discount the loss of the original meanings of these writings and stories, it still originates from individuals who tried to explain their experiences without performing explicit tests on them (tests intentionally designed to attempt to prove them wrong.)The tradition of record keeping is honored for many reasons, and science and religion would have never amounted to much without it. The science of storytelling has predictable socio-political results. The science of accomplishment (engineering) spends very little effort trying to prove theories wrong, it's focus is pragmatic.Religion bases itself on beliefs that originate in ways one can't test. For that reason, I see no credibility in believing anything that originates from religion.How can we test that belief of yours? You keep reiterating your assumption that there are untestable phenomena.What I'm saying is, what makes a statement religion is that it has a religious origin, not a scientific one.I see... so....the difference between a scientific statement and a religious statement is that scientific statements have a scientific origin and religious statements have a religious origin. Thanks for clearing that up.If "god" said the Earth is a body moving around the sun, that could be tested and therefore is part of science, but the part that this statement came from "god" is untestable because again what kind of experiment can be conceived to validate that this statement originates from a supreme being? The testable part is science, adding the unverifiable religious origin makes the statement in entirety religion.If one claims there to be an untestable, (which you have, repeatedly now) according to your logic (as I understand it) then they have made a religious statement. If a person makes a religious statement, they have a religious belief. How many religious beliefs does one need to have before they should consider themselves religious? :)Some Christians believe the Earth to be roughly 6,000 years old. This can be tested and overwhelmingly refuted. Science moves on, religion clings to this claim.I can accept the statement that some religions cling to that claim. As you admit, not all of them do. The ones who do modify their stance based on new evidence, are (by your logic as I understand it again) scientific in that sense since they move on?I'm speaking about human society.You are speaking as if it can logically be referred to as a unified whole. You do the same thing when you mention religion, and you do the same thing when you refer to science. If someone mentions society, my mind quickly inserts the question "which?" Same with religion, same with government, same with economy, same with science. Can you understand why I must?Scientifically based reasoning means experimentally verifiable.One popular religio-social experiment goes something like...if I make statements X,Y and Z, at frequency F people in sects C,M,J,H,B,S, around me will P% nicer to me.Take a claim, form it into precise quantifiable terms, and derive tests that can either support or refute it.So how about a claim like: "Health is the primary concern" What should I do with it? Is it a religious statement? I can't seem to form it into precise quantifiable terms or devise a test to support or refute it. Does this make me one of those dumb unscientific religious people?Non-scientifically based reasoning means any kind of statement that can't be tested, and therefore can lead to illogical social policies.Can the following statement be tested: "There are statements that cannot be tested" ? If not, I'd say you are making Non-Scientific statements that can lead to illogical social policies.Cases like this illustrate how ideologies without a rational, verifiable basis can produce unethical outcomesAny more so than ideologies that do have a rational, verifiable basis?....I wonder how we could test that?