Wait, is it you crying, or your partner(s)?
(obligatory response: “We’ve tried it both ways!”)
Ideally, science is a methodology, not a set of answers. There are certainly some answers that are well-established - at least, until a better and deeper understanding comes along.
Religion and mysticism, ideally, should be viewed in the same light. They are humanity’s earlier answers to some of the big questions. In many cases - indeed in every case dealing with physicial reality - the answers provided by the world’s religions have long been superceded. This leaves us a corpus of mythology that tells us nothing of use concering such matters as biological evolution or physics, but plenty of absorbing and vital interest concerning the relationship between a human and his or her surroundings or environment - much of which has not, alas, been superceded in any meaningful manner, since it deals with the realm of the emotional, the intuitive and the mythological.
Again, ideally a person interested in some form of religious or mystical understanding should take the same approach as the scientist - to rigorously sift their understanding. Obviously this will be a more subjective exercise, since proving the objective truth or value of mythology is a difficult if not impossible task. I well understand that most of those posting in this thread will simply say that none of it has any value and that it should all be rejected. However, it is my belief that rejecting the value of intuition and mythology (rather than critically examining that value) puts people at risk of taking up an unexamined set of myths and intuitive reactions - which is why, for example, the 19th and 20th centuries were littered with examples of apparent perversions of science, where people established movements that had the appearance of science but retained all of the irrationality of the religions they had rejected - scientific racism, eugenics, marist-leninism, etc.
I find the argument that people who do not accept one form of irrationality are at risk of adopting another form of irrationality to be irrational. 
Surely science (and much more frequently, religion) can be perverted to serve political ends, but the fault does not lie in the scientific method.
Humility (i.e the knowledge of inherent imperfections and the likelihood that future work may overturn one’s cherished ideas) is central to scientific endeavors. Woo of all sorts tends to breed a conviction of righteousness and a culture of intolerance.
I do not think of attempting to understand the value of mythology and intuition as “irrational”, necessarily. I do think that dismissing that value out-of-hand is problematic.
Naturally not. The fault does not lie in the scientific method, but in those who misunderstand it, and misunderstand its limitations. Such people are in danger of erecting some scientific (or more correctly, pseudo-scientific) theory as a new religion - and include all of the paraphinalia of the old religions, with an added dose of intolerance for “irrational” dissent thrown in. Marxism went that road, several times in different places. In the Soviet Union, at times, dissent was treated as a form of insanity - like someone arguing that gravity doesn’t exist.
The “scientific method” says nothing about the moral value of a human life, for example. This does not mean that a human life lacks moral value. To be precise, religion is not necessary for finding moral value in life - atheists can do that very well - but it is, ultimately, not based on the scientific method per se.
I agree that religion tends to have a strong conservative nature - particularly of the organized type. That is inevitable, a function of having an organization: you don’t get a 2,000 year old church without a strong dose of conservatism (often enforced by some sort of inquisition). It is not, however, inevitable. Many religions and “woo woo” based philosophies emphasize seeking over certainty (I’m thinking particularly of certain varieties of Buddhism and Taoism here); and the occasional self-righteous scientist, or even atheist, has been known to happen … 
In short, I would argue that the ideal scientist and mystic are more alike than they are different (and are sometimes found in the same person); they are both seekers. They do not believe that they know for certain any of the answers - but they are interested in what they can discover.
I’m not disputing many people’s need for some form of mysticism/irrationality, but rather the view that it’s inevitable that some form of irrational dogma must have a central place in one’s life.
It strikes me as a wee bit of a stretch to argue that Marxism as practiced by the Soviet dictatorship was a “science” (some economists might differ). If one starts to equate political theory with science then we probably have to start regarding the Whigs and Know-Nothings as scientists too. :dubious:
I’m not particularly interested in converting the religious to a rational view of the universe, but in making sure that religious/woo-based thinking does not pervert medicine or other evidence-based disciplines. “Seeking” is nifty, but if your tools for exploration are hopelessly flawed, the results are overwhelmingly likely to be off target as well.
Cyingablod:
I’m pretty much the smartest most articulate guy on the planet, much less this place.
However, you just can’t feel free to debate me, you have to earn it. Or buy it. Beer works. Buy everybody who is a member of the SDMB a beer, and you will be entitled to address me and get a direct response in a debate.
Those are the rules.
I think it is inevitable that some form of intuition or mythology form a central place in a person’s life. I dunno if classifying that as “irrational dogma” makes any sense, though - “dogma” implies adherence to a particular system of thought, which is not necessary.
I’m not claiming that Marxism as practiced by the Soviets was really a science. As I said, “pseudo-science” is the better description. The point is not that science caused the problem - it did not - but that a perversion or misunderstanding of science did.
“Science” can never be the basis of the organization of society - something else is needed. What that “something else” is, is a political and moral philosophy based on – some sort of intuition as to right and wrong, or mythological concepts (such as “honour”, “duty”, etc.).
You can grind the world up very small, and never discover a single particle of 'honour", “duty” or “love” using the scientific method. They are every bit as mythological as the story of Krishna or Jesus, in that they exist only in the minds of those that believe they exist. This doesn’t mean that they are meaningless, or unimportant. Apparently, if the history of the last two centuries is to be believed, people get kinda wonky when they attempt to base their notions of how humans should relate to each other on what they imagine to be purely scientific-rational principles, rather than on such mythological and intuitive notions as “honour”, “duty” and “love”: see scientific racism, eugenics, marxism. [This is not to deny that equally wonky decisions are made by those under the influence of religion, of course!]
Seems to me that those who inappropriately and incorrectly confuse mythology with medicine are making exactly the same sort of mistake as the scientific racists or marxists.
[Do I win the woo-arguing prize? 
]
I thought your principal quality was having an 18-inch prehensile tongue.
Hence the spitting.