This cannot be overstated. I can't think of anything besides male circumcision where we see the general public as well as medical doctors settle on the status quo and dig in their heels to such a great extent, because (they claim) they are backed up by science -- in the form of a few studies with marginal outcomes, and maybe a few other poorly designed/controlled studies with somewhat stronger results.

Not comfort, but utility. You may have misinterpreted me. Consider Pragmatism.
I don't see the 'changing climate' as a debate. I see idiotic politicians debating about irrelevant things, but there's no real debate on this in the sciences. It's fortunate that the scientists run the show - from the background. It's unfortunate that it can take so long to convince some resourceful people.

I concur. Also, these studies are popular "media cases" and get more bombastic headlines than their method / conclusions support.

I think pragmatism is more geared towards knowledge being an instrument rather than inerrant. Science, for a pragmatist, is about generating reliable models rather than mapping reality.

For most (mainstream) religion I think that would be an ill-fitting dogma, since they are more geared towards keeping their models than replacing them... I guess some forms of Buddhism have strong similarities to pragmatism, though.

It's still far far more influential than you're making it sound. That's why it's still one of the three topics you're not supposed to bring up at dinner parties.


It also gives people false courage enabling them to commit atrocities and the belief that you might be rewarded for fighting in the name of your god has contributed significantly to conflicts throughout our history. Now, imagine that we knew for a fact that this is the only life we will ever have and that death is the end, how might that change people's mindsets, and would that change be for the positive?

Much of life runs on distraction and false hope, unless you're lucky enough to be born into comfortable surroundings with meaning and nice people. Most of the human race has not had that luxury.

Most dreams that people have are false hope. Yet few people think that dreaming and imagining (of positive things) is a bad thing. It's a way that people cope with lack of meaning, success, luck, happiness, freedom.

Why is the above ok, but socially shared dreams bad?
Certainly, religious organizations have evil elements. The Catholic Church, for example, is one of the most evil and damaging organizations that has ever existed. But highly exploitative, immoral power structures like the Catholic Church will arise in any environment, so that's separate from the question of whether fluffy beliefs are a bad thing.

The thing is, what do you with people whose brains that aren't sophisticated enough to answer the questions of life in a positive way (let alone while integrating this with a conscience)? This comprises a decent portion of the human race.

Let them suffer? Let them go mad (in one way or another)? Have them turn to darker ideologies like communism, fascism?

Depends on the community in which you are associating inside that religion. In some cases the moderation is less about how often you are associating with the community, and more about the moderation of the personalities and beliefs of the people in the community. If you go to Ken Ham's church once a month prob worse than going to chill church with moderate thinking people every week. Quality not quantity.

If anyone tells you they know what happens after death, I'd be cautious in trusting that person, since they're very unlikely to possess any special powers that the rest of us don't have.

For non-believers, the question of life-after-death is different to the question of God, but for believers, they are often synonymous. It is unwise to tell others, believer or not, what happens after death. It is best to answer with 'I don't know'. So your question: would knowing what happens after death change things for the positive? - I do not know. And neither do you.

We may speculate, but its erroneous to conflate beliefs about life-after-death with likelihood of terrorist acts or war. Most terrorist acts and atrocities, from my observations, have been committed by people in extremist organisations, not necessarily religious ones. Any form of extremism is detrimental, and there should be greater emphasis on spreading awareness of this, instead of the 'pro-God/anti-God' debate.

Yes, it is an instrument for utility/for improving our lives, rather than a description of reality.

I don't think pragmatism is normative, as would have to be the case if it had the stated goal of improving lives.

I'm sure pragmatist philosophy can be part of such a worldview, and it does not contradict it. It think the label should be avoided, however, to avoid confusion.

god does not exist, drink whatever u want, hf!

Sometimes a man just needs a drink