Re: "interpretability research"
"cannot be proved scientifically"
Bit of an oxymoron.
If you are of Karl Popper school "scientific proof" is a complete contradiction; the less stringent or less rigorous would still maintain that nothing in the natural sciences sciences can be proved (in any reasonable sense of the word) — any hypothesis might be contingently accepted at some level of probability (confidence) but can conceivably be rejected, replaced or superseded with the admission new evidence.
Anything pretending to "disprove religion" is just another religion in a long dismal parade of ill·founded belief. Bunging the word "science" into the charade doesn't make it scientific vide Scientology and Christian Science.
If people could manage to wedge a single idea into the density between their ears and that idea were that religion is first, last and everything between, about people period — the world would be a less bloody place. Religion's rituals typically mark the notable events in human lives — birth, marriage and death. Anthropologists identify rites of passage reflect a universal human need.
Even as a complete atheist I do recognise that religion does offer hope and redemption to the otherwise desperate and doomed (who endanger our world) along with positive guidance on these and living generally.
Every extant religion like every organisation is composed of weak and fallible human beings who inevitably fail to meet the standards of their own teaching.
To be honest if I had to chose between politician and priest I would definitely prefer the chap in the long frock.†
† Ok Sarah Mullally looks pretty good to me in her vestments but you know what I mean.
