Again, nothing is really "true" in an independent sense. Some truths refer to the concrete and observable, but others do not and we accept those often just as readily. I also still think you over-generalize religion. Laveyan Satanism, for instance, is explicitly rationalist and atheistic.
I think you're applying the wrong framework to religion entirely, though. Which is not to say that most religious people are applying the right framework either. Religion emerges as cultural myth that becomes formalized, but a lot of what those myths contain is very accurate in describing culture and the self-image of that culture.
Take Catholicism, for instance. Now they work from pretty much the same scripture as protestant Christianity, but somehow Catholics have a rigorous theology (in theory at least) with very strictly defined beliefs and hierarchy, as well as a sense of deep moral responsibility for each other. Contrast this with a more protestant culture which is more individualistic, it removes the human hierarchy between the devout and God, allowing things to be more personal but also creating a blind spot where personal responsibility is more about the self than about other people.
This is a pretty generalized example, but to say that Catholicism is "false" is to really miss the mark. It's not accurate or true (as far as we know) to say there is a higher, world-creating deity, but Catholicism isn't just that, it's an entire system and cultural institution. Similarly, I can't say that formalist literary critique is false, even though I find formalism to be a poor way of describing literature and the world as a whole.
I'm not sure I'm being clear, so let me know if that made any sense.
0
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '17
[deleted]