Scientific method

There are many factors about religions:

1. the descriptive theological constitution of the religion, such as monotheism/polyteism, supernaturalism/naturalism, orthopraxis/orthodoxia, the founder mythos, the creation mythos, etc.,
2. the schismatic history of the religion, such as original schism and later schisms,
3. the literal analysis of the religious scriptures, low and high criticism as well as historical linguistics,
4. the psychology of the religion, it's ethics, it's prohibitions, it's therapeutic qualities, it's behavioral guidelines, the psychological impact of the theology, etc.,
5. the sociology of the religion, how it is maintained, how "deviators" are treated, the resulting social cohesion (or not), the religious attitude towards other natural instances of the society.

I will deal with these ad-hoc, sometimes making confusions, mistakes and errors. I'm a school teacher and have some respect for the scientific method, unless it is a post-modern attempt to flatter a certain category of people. I'm a notoriously unflattering person, but I might sometimes exhibit some degree of kindness. I very specifically reject science consensus as having any degree of truth value in itself. A scientific community can actually be consensus fascistic, such as in some parts of linguistics (Chomskyism), and previously cosmology (Inflationists-beyond empirical reason). Theology consensus is worse, since the objector against theology consensus may loose their jobs and their social contacts, so theology consensuses may be totalitarian social oppression systems. A theology consensus per se may be useful, but only if it can be founded in a kind of realistic argumentation based in history science.

Philosophically I'm a pragmatic mathematical realist, with a preference of Peirce and Dewey before James, with a clear rejection of logical positivism as being a flawed. I don't care very much about Socrates, Platon nor Aristotle. They were wrong in most things. Modern society is Sophist, Atomist and Epicurean, all of them adversaries of the "academics". The antique logic systems didn't deserve the name, DeMorgan, Boole, Peirce and Venn invented the real logic systems. The realist part of the philosophy is a pragmatic personal opinion: if the mathematical things are "real" as they are, not by instantiation, predictions made per mathematics can be taken ad notam without artefacts in reasoning about the magical proofs based on imaginations.