system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Religious approaches to thinking (i.e. those that have no real facts and evidence supporting them) have no place in our governments and scientific discussions

So, I grew up in a household that was very religious and as a kid it seemed normal. I was personally lucky enough that despite how religious my parents were, I was still given a lot of freedom to do what I wanted, so it seemed that my parents were a bit more open minded than some others.

As I got older though, (as many do) I started to form different political opinions from my parents. One of the things that helped inform my opinions on things was to look at the numbers and statistics that came as a result of different policies so I could have a more informed view of how different rules and regulations affect the world around us.

In my mind, using studies and experimentation makes absolute sense for evaluating a government’s laws and regulations so we can figure out what works and what doesn’t, especially when it comes to issues that have been very politicized. Issues like gun control in the and systemic racism in the US have a lot of emotional baggage attached to them (and rightly so) and that can make it tough for us to see beyond the brutality of the problems we face. But, with proper data, we can come to pretty solid conclusions as to why we have some of these problems and at the very least take some steps to address them.

So after learning these things, I figured that my parents (who are people that seem to care very much about others) would like to hear about this stuff. But, as soon as I start drilling down to the brass tacks of some of the issues that face America right now, it becomes not about the actual problems and facts but fear-mongering about communism and socialism, that Obama is still running the government from the shadows and that the real problem with the United States is that people are leaving Christianity and the Devil is taking over.

When I point out that there aren’t any politicians (with any real power) who are legitimate advocates for socialism or communism (in the sense that they advocate for an entire change of our economic system), that Obama isn’t in power and there isn’t any proof that he is, and that the United States has the freedom of religion enshrined in our constitution, my parents will say that they know that those things are happening because they SEE it and they FEEL it.

Okay, “where is the proof of what you’re seeing?” I reply.

They say they can’t show it to me because I won’t believe it.

Little old me only believes things that come from reliable sources (i.e. not a random guy on Facebook) where there are facts and evidence that back up whatever claim is being made.

Unfortunately, religious thinking has made it so many people no longer believe that facts and evidence matter at all because they’ve been told that the thing that matters above all those things, is this feeling that they have that comes from a “higher power.”

Now, I hope you’ll take me at my word when I tell you that I have no problem with religions, or anybody who thinks religiously in and of itself. I think there are certain cosmic questions that science is very far away from being able to answer, so religious ideas make sense. In the same way that back in ancient times, we had no explanation for lightning, so it made sense to believe in Zeus. But we do know how lightning works, so people don’t really believe in that anymore.

But, those are not most things. if we take a scientific and methodical approach to most problems, we can find answers and solutions.

Frankly, I think the more that we apply these religious kinds of thinking to aspects of our world that are inherently non-religious like our governments, and our laws, the more that we give the opportunity for unchecked power to rise and take away people’s freedoms.

EDIT: Let me clarify something because people are getting a bit confused. When I say religious logic has no place, I'm referring to 1 thing. 

When you decide that something is a problem that needs to be addressed, it should be a real demonstrable problem. i.e. "The United States has a lot of obese people, and this is how we know that's happening." Studies cited, etc. As opposed to, "Trans people are groomers." and there isn't any real evidence to back that up, just feelings.

What I am not referring to is the area of religion that informs your morality or the reason you believe this over that. For example, I have a lot of beliefs that are very egalitarian because my religious upbringing led me to that line of thinking.

But when it came to considering how I put my ideals into practice, To me, religion was no longer suited to that kind of a conversation. Hope that clears things up.

EDIT 2: some people seem to be of the opinion that I am massively misrepresenting religions when I see that they are not backed by facts and evidence. I apologize if that came off to you as rude and callous. 

When I refer to the idea that religions don’t have any basis in fact or evidence, I am not referring to things that are generally considered to be supported by facts and evidence, like the existence of Jesus Christ. 

However, it is generally understood, and agreed that most of what makes up religious beliefs and the things in holy texts, have no basis in evidence based fact.

If you believe in those things, I have no qualms with you as long as, per the my idea as explained in the main post, that you do not use that same logic that you used to believe in those things that don’t have evidence to support them as you do in the rest of your life, especially as it relates to politics and political discussions.

EDIT 3: Just because some thinkers have been able to come up with some evidence that religions are real doesn’t mean that this evidence stands up to real scientific scrutiny. (Also this isn’t what my post is about. Its about those who won’t even bother to find out that evidence. Most people ignore that stuff entirely.)

I.E. Just because a flat earther believes the Earth is flat and has some evidence (no matter how flawed) to demonstrate their opinion, doesn’t mean it is able to overturn all the evidence that goes against that idea.

EDIT 4: I am making a generalization of religious thought as it applies to the average religious person for the purpose of having a discussion. If you want to argue about that generalization, I’m sorry but I’m not interested.

EDIT 5: So, as a rule, generalizing all religious as incapable of rigorous intellectual thought is not only wrong, but also untrue. Going alongside that, If we have a discussion I will no longer be referring to the issue as an issue of religion but as an issue of religious zealots who are ignoring everything other than their religious views to make up their worldview. I might not reply though because I feel I’ve given deltas to everyone who I felt deserved them, but yeah.
gpt
Science can not answer many or most of the questions that politics and governance covers. How can science say anything to the philosophical, moral, and cultural views that are the underpinnings of individuals’ world views? How can you test the hypothesis of individual rights? Religion also does not hold a monopoly on beliefs based on scant evidence and questionable logic, secular beliefs are not immune.