I once saw an old television interview from the 50s with Jung. When he made an important point - a distinction between knowledge and belief - the interviewer John Freeman ignored it and moved on to something more trivial. The remark stuck with me and only recently did I get what Jung meant.

It's a fairly clear distinction and pretty obvious. Knowledge is tangible and testable. With knowledge there is a greater chance it can facilitate action in a given situation. With belief alone that is less likely. Knowledge tends to be about facts. Belief tends to be about values. I think the sooner that simple little piece of wisdom is understood the better.

Consider this: You have a life-threatening condition. You are faced with two people offering help, one a surgeon ready to go to work, the other a priest who will pray for you. If you had to choose one, who would you go with? You may not have great faith in surgeons but there would be little contest for most in choosing the physician every time.

Knowledge wins over belief sooner or later. And so it should. Belief has its value only when there is ignorance and knowledge hasn't yet caught up. Once it does and the arcane attachments to belief are found wanting they should be dumped. When tangible and reliable practices are evolved for treating difficult emotions what place for religion?