You don’t know me to make that statement.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. In the future, I'll just assume I shouldn't. <s>

I didn’t say they were opposites or sides of coins or any other such thing. Science has a use, obviously, but it is useless for addressing the deep psychological despair, anxiety, fears, divisions and insecurities of mankind which is essentially the purpose of the topic at hand, namely religion.

I don't agree. Religion's purpose isn't to address psychological despair, anxiety, fears, insecurities. Religion is one of the earliest forms of philosophy that attempts to explain the world/universe, to give a frame of reference to human life, and some code of values. I do not believe that religion is ALL bad, because there are some good things to live by (honor parents, don't kill, don't lie, etc.) - but the problem is that religion's base itself can contradict the very principles it supports.

You choose a belief in science, and reject a God belief, because that is your conditioning but you yourself are presumably not up to scratch on all scientific research and theory in all fields. So you choose to believe someone who impresses you, who writes well, who sounds good and who fits in with your conditioning, your way of thinking about the world and how to live in it. Someone who has lots of degrees and books to his name perhaps. So you read this author or that one and seek out that which basically confirms your conditioning. And then, when you find the ideas, the philosophy, the system of thought you like, you say that's it, that's the truth. And so your search comes to an end.

Your first sentence is correct but your conclusion is faulty. Yes, I don't follow all sciences. But a rational yet "mere mortal" person can go far beyond conditioning. They can look at evidence, they can research, they can form conclusions...and they can re-assess Let's take a simple example - let's say I sail often and need to check the weather. I consult two sources - one is very well-spoken and "appears" to be presenting a clear case for good weather this weekend. The other sounds like a goofball, doesn't necessarily have as many letters at the end of their name, and says the weather is going to suck this weekend. I take the advice of the former....only to learn later that the second person was correct, and my sailing trip is ruined. I continue this experiment for awhile, and realize that my initial comfort with source A was unfounded.

That is what I mean by a reality check.

I'll give you another example - in the 80's I was involved in a college debate regarding SDI (Reagan's "Star Wars"). Initially I sided on the pro-SDI side, which probably wouldn't surprise anyone. Then I read further and discovered a large amount of scientific information that shot holes through SDI. Eventually (though this wasn't reported much in the press), the pro-SDI side realized the science for such a defense initiative just wasn't there. So once again, things like evidence and validation are available - and not available in religion.

I think you're carrying this "conditioning" argument way too far. It doesn't account for the fact that men have free will and the ability to re-assess.

There is no difference between the one who believes in God and one who believes in science without a God. They are both believers in some school of thought which they feel, or they hope, helps them make sense of their world. You probably got your mindset from your parents, your upbringing and life experience and will surely promote that onto your children.

I had religion forced on my from every direction when I was five, and never believed a word of it. I needed some form of proof.

I prefer to live in a world where I am free to find out for myself, free to discard the thoughts and ideas of others, the accumulated baggage of opinions and centuries of conditioning, and to find out for myself the truth of what it means to live and be human. I don’t want to accept the thoughts of another and live life according to that and then waste time debating why my prison of ideas is better than that of another’s.

Fair enough. Every person needs to find out for themselves. And when you find that religion can be validated through something other than a circular argument, you'll be the first. (Though actually, anything that validates the existence of God would actually wreck parts of religion).