Yes ... You seem to be saying that unless people are willing to invest enormous amounts of effort in religious practice, they shouldn't criticize religion and claim it is not true. Which makes sense, of course. But I think to many people, what you speak of as (actual scientific) religious application means that you expect them to invest an effort which seems either impossible or unjustified. (I suppose many people just wish that (actual scientific) religious application would be - well, easier. "Knowing what the meaning of life is should come more easily.") This becomes especially painful if we operate within the one-life-time conception (which Westerners per default do), which in many people's eyes makes you look either like some kind of divine, special being with superpowers who was able to master (actual scientific) religious application within a few years, while the rest of us would probably need thousands of years (which we don't think we have, and thus think we could never arrive where you are); or you look like you are simply full of shit. The desolation one feels upon realizing how far behind the religious one is and how little opportunity and ability there is to catch up, can be overwhelming.
If you understood scientific method then you would know theories explain the observed evidence and do not invent the facts that are examined. Facts can be observed repeatedly and theories explain the evidence that has been observed. Science doesn't makeup a theory and then go looking for evidence. Its the other way around, science observes the evidence and then develops a theory to explain it.
How can that be? You are engaging in the discussion of this question, whereby it is irrelevant to you whether the position you defend brings you satisfaction or not? You are even willing to be unhappy (even for the rest of your life), as long as you maintain a position that you think is right?
Yes, well actually fused an atom, but let's not be picky. Well electrostatic fusion and not by myself, does it matter? If they are trust worthy and they keep their evidence public so it can be checked, sure. You are thinking of a true or philosophical skeptic, a rational skeptic is a different sort all together. Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. In practice, the term is most commonly applied to the examination of claims and theories which appear to be beyond mainstream science, rather than to the routine discussions and challenges among scientists. Scientific skepticism is different from philosophical skepticism, which questions our ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how we perceive it. Scientific skepticism uses critical thinking and inductive reasoning while attempting to oppose claims made which lack suitable evidential basis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
Of course, that's called maturity. But, I confess, this question does not cause me any unhappiness whatsoever.
Do you think it should not cause any unhappiness to others either, if they are to be considered "mature"?
Do you think it is impossible that "the world as it is" and "the world as one wants it to be" are the same?
