An explanation without content. I like that description.
The content is there, but it's just not verifiable.
To tell the truth, it sounds a lot like religion. Or just 'delusion'.
Yeah I've thought about that. Religion often gets a pass because it's said to be based in
faith instead of some form of proof or logical reasoning. And of course, "faith" is just taken by rote to mean a good thing. We've all been told from a young age that faith is one of the most important attributes to possess, because otherwise life has no meaning and one would be vulnerable to getting led astray. This may be true to some extent, but the opposite is true also. Placing our faith into the wrong things can get us into a lot of trouble. So what sorts of ideologies are worthy of devoting faith to?
I don't think religion necessarily has to be a bad thing, at least not for some people. There is some undeniable value in the promotion of positive morality, a sense of community, and the spiritual benefits that result from feeling that one is aligned with some universal force of good. Many religions do a lot of philanthropic work, including giving aid and comfort to the poor and sick. I think religion can be fine as long as it sticks to the purely intangible and philosophical. But how many religions actually do that?
Most religions contain elements of pseudoscience. The most obvious examples are the teaching of bunk myths as science. As skeptics, we're all familiar with the fundie xtian ideas that the world is a few thousand years old, the dinosaurs walked alongside mankind in the Garden of Eden, etc. I really believe that the promotion of these kinds of ideas is not only wrongheaded, but even dangerous because they have a tendency to influence peoples' real world decisions in destructive ways. The worst part is that people are indoctrinated into this nonsense from early childhood, before they've had the opportunity or capability to understand logic or the scientific method.
I was brought up Catholic and attended parochial schools, where we were taught to literally believe in the "Transubstantiation of the Host" during Communion in the Catholic mass.
Transubstantiation means the priest can perform a certain ritual while making certain incantations, and the little crackers and wine sitting there on the altar will actually physically change to become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. As children, we were taught by our priests, teachers, and other authority figures that this was an unquestionable fact. They told us that after this "transubstantiation," the food and booze sitting there on the altar are not merely symbols, but have
literally been physically changed by a magical miracle of God during the Mass. When we eat and drink that stuff, we are taking God into ourselves, both spiritually and physically, just like the 12 apostles had reportedly done at the Last Supper.
Now what would you call that, if not pseudoscience?
Once, in the third grade, I asked one of my religion teachers if somebody were to observe the wine under a microscope after the transubstantiation process, would they be able to see the blood cells? A few kids in the class sneered or laughed, and the teacher scolded me, saying that abusing the host in such a way is a sin that might invalidate the miracle. Special pleading, anyone?
So yeah, I don't believe religion is necessarily exempt from pseudoscience. Whenever religion (or any other ideology) purports to make claims about the material world that aren't backed up by objective analysis, then they're doing pseudoscience.
The material Universe is "the realm of science," because science is the best method we've yet devised to ascertain the qualities of the physical universe, right? We've tried all that other stuff—believing stories and whatnot—and it has never worked. Over the centuries, countless myths have been consistently knocked down by science, so why would we put our trust into any other method?
.
But then, I'm not the late man's widow.
