John

You say

“Modern science investigates religious practices – morality, polity, liturgy, fellowship and so on. It can even compare practices on various empirical dimensions. But empirical science cannot assert that any particular practice is scientifically “best,” nor does it claim to be able to do so. It’s when religion begins asserting not just standards of practice but truth claims that science gets its hackles up. “We subscribe to morality M” is a practice; “God specifies that we subscribe to morality M” is a truth claim. ”

I do not think we are connecting on this. My point is that each of the practices I mentioned (football, chess, murder trials, shopping, jokes, poetry, art appreciation, psychotherapy, hypnotism, carpentry, war- and religion) have different logical grammars; and science is but one of them and in no position of privilege. For example what counts as evidence in a murder trial is logically different from what counts as evidence for gravitons. A scientist can be asked to explain background radiation and the man in the street can be asked to explain a joke; but the explanations advanced are logically different.

I am puzzled by your remarks about truth claims and morality. You say science is annoyed by a statement such as “God specifies that we subscribe to morality M”. I would have thought it intrinsic to theistic religions that they call us to be obedient to God

You suggest that I think “ practices (praise and obedience) are justified by a truth claim (we are created by a creator). I make no claim of justification of any sort. All I said was that most societies have wanted to revere a creator

You question my scepticism about Peter’s claim that ” No serious-minded scientific thinker today would be so dogmatic as to assert that ‘science’ alone brings us into contact with the world as it really is”; and point out the data do not support this for the USA. I agree: the USA has a much higher proportion of religious belief than other developed countries.

You say

Everyone makes assumptions derived from probabilities built up from experience, then bases behaviors on these assumptions. The floor has never disappeared from under my feet before, so I keep walking as if I’m certain it won’t.

Empirical propositions such as the one you suggest are not derived from experience and indeed usually do not come to conscious recognition. Wittgenstein’s point is that there are some empirical propositions which are held for certain but which are not grounded. Someone who disputes them (eg someone who claims that the floor has disappeared from under his feet) would not be regarded as having made a mistake but as being unhinged.