This pathologizing of religion is too self-serving and deserves some skepticism.
For one thing, it lacks a sufficient explanation for the scientific/mathematical contributions and intellect of people with religious/supernatural belief; people such as Donald Knuth, Isaac Newton, Adam Smith, Euler, Pascal, and so on.
For another, it conflates beliefs with mental habits. The point with empirical science, or math, or any other such discipline is the adherence to a set of intellectual practices rather than a particular set of conclusions that may (or may not) result from employing those practices.
Now beliefs are important, but at least for empirical science the usual criteria is that a belief be held only insofar as it is useful. Holding to the Physical Causal Closure (PCC) principle can be quite useful for investigating natural phenomenon, but plenty of intelligent people have been willing to break from it when they think it will help explain other aspects of life.
Of course, the PCC principle is not the result of research in empirical science, but rather its beginning. It is
itself a philosophical, pre-scientific thesis, and should be dealt with as such. Incidentally, it is because of observations like these that Positivism is no longer a widely accepted philosophy.
Lastly, it is frankly uncharitable. What's more likely, that most of the world is brain-damaged and/or mentally stunted, or that you are oversimplifying the issues?
For one thing, it lacks a sufficient explanation for the scientific/mathematical contributions and intellect of people with religious/supernatural belief; people such as Donald Knuth, Isaac Newton, Adam Smith, Euler, Pascal, and so on.
For another, it conflates beliefs with mental habits. The point with empirical science, or math, or any other such discipline is the adherence to a set of intellectual practices rather than a particular set of conclusions that may (or may not) result from employing those practices.
Now beliefs are important, but at least for empirical science the usual criteria is that a belief be held only insofar as it is useful. Holding to the Physical Causal Closure (PCC) principle can be quite useful for investigating natural phenomenon, but plenty of intelligent people have been willing to break from it when they think it will help explain other aspects of life.
Of course, the PCC principle is not the result of research in empirical science, but rather its beginning. It is itself a philosophical, pre-scientific thesis, and should be dealt with as such. Incidentally, it is because of observations like these that Positivism is no longer a widely accepted philosophy.
Lastly, it is frankly uncharitable. What's more likely, that most of the world is brain-damaged and/or mentally stunted, or that you are oversimplifying the issues?