Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[BigMike]

Trust is the bedrock of any meaningful interaction, whether personal, social, or intellectual. But when it comes to religious individuals, particularly in discussions involving uncomfortable truths—like those grounded in determinism—trust can become a complicated question. For me, and perhaps for others, it sometimes feels as if certain religious people deliberately distort their own beliefs or outright deny what they clearly recognize as logical, deterministic facts. Why? Is it a defense mechanism? A desire to maintain their worldview? Or is it something deeper—an unconscious, perhaps even willful, refusal to confront contradictions between their faith and evidence-based reasoning?

From a deterministic perspective, we know that all beliefs and behaviors arise from prior causes: upbringing, culture, biology, education, and so on. Yet, this doesn’t erase the suspicion that some religious individuals might actively choose—or, more precisely, be caused by their environment—to obscure their true thoughts or intentions when faced with challenges to their faith. For instance, how many times have we presented clear, rational arguments only to see them sidestepped or met with assertions of "mystery" or "faith"? At what point does this shift from an honest struggle with complex ideas to an intentional lack of intellectual integrity?

This discussion aims to explore the dynamics of trust in dialogues with the religious. Do they genuinely believe what they claim, even when their statements seem illogical or contradictory? Are they grappling honestly with the discomfort of deterministic truths that challenge their worldview, or are they, consciously or not, protecting their faith at the expense of truth? And if trust requires a shared commitment to intellectual honesty, can we ever fully trust those who adhere to faith-based reasoning over evidence-based understanding?

I invite you all to weigh in. Have you encountered moments where you felt a religious individual was being less than honest in their beliefs or arguments? How do we differentiate between genuine belief, cognitive dissonance, and deliberate avoidance? Most importantly, what does trust look like in these kinds of philosophical engagements?

[Alexis Jacobi]

From a deterministic perspective, we know that all beliefs and behaviors arise from prior causes: upbringing, culture, biology, education, and so on. Yet, this doesn’t erase the suspicion that some religious individuals might actively choose—or, more precisely, be caused by their environment—to obscure their true thoughts or intentions when faced with challenges to their faith. For instance, how many times have we presented clear, rational arguments only to see them sidestepped or met with assertions of "mystery" or "faith"? At what point does this shift from an honest struggle with complex ideas to an intentional lack of intellectual integrity?

Any behavior, any action of any person, arises from that person’s present state and condition, so to say “all beliefs and behaviors arise from prior causes: upbringing, culture, biology, education, and so on” is a simple truism.

“Religious individuals” is far too open-ended and general. Though there are surely common links between practitioners in varying traditions, it seems to me that you would have to know something, far more than you seem to, of the inclination toward the realm of spiritual and religious experience. And you would have to be open to considering the *subjective realm* and what people can tell you of their own experience. But you are, and by your own admission, an “atheist” so right at the start you are locked out of an entire realm of experience and understanding.

Your paragraph here is actually a commentary on ideas brought to your attention on other adjacent threads and possibly on things I have recently said. How many times, you ask, have you presented “clear, rational arguments only to see them sidestepped or met with assertions of "mystery" or "faith"?” The answer (I have actually been keeping score) is 422 different times! And that is because in each thread, and in each post you state and then restate your core position. The only ones who seem to agree with your view of a determined reality are Dubious and Accelafine, but only 3 here can be said to have a religious orientation (to use your too-general term). Myself, Seeds and IC. But here’s the thing: each of us are oriented very very differently.

At what point does this shift from an honest struggle with complex ideas to an intentional lack of intellectual integrity?

Here you are simply making a statement about how you view yourself and your approach. Your supposition is, and can only be, that everyone who disagrees with your reductionism has no *intellectual integrity*. However from where I sit it is you who lacks both intellectual integrity and all of the background by those who have written on the topic of religious experience that would be required for you to make intellectually honest comments on this difficult topic.

I do not in any sense dismiss concerns about *intellectual integrity* in all intellectual domains that have importance in our present. But if that is the question — what is dishonesty, why is it common? — it would be somewhat more humble and accurate if you were to see that intellectual dishonesty might very well be operating in you. It is not impossible that it drives your entire perspective! And frankly many here have pointed this out to you yet you remain impervious to critique.

This discussion aims to explore the dynamics of trust in dialogues with the religious. Do they genuinely believe what they claim, even when their statements seem illogical or contradictory? Are they grappling honestly with the discomfort of deterministic truths that challenge their worldview, or are they, consciously or not, protecting their faith at the expense of truth? And if trust requires a shared commitment to intellectual honesty, can we ever fully trust those who adhere to faith-based reasoning over evidence-based understanding?

This is not a genuine question, it is really a statement. And with the *question* you include your answer: no. It is your view that all those, and those who in no sense define themselves as religious, who have opposed your ideological proclamations, do not really believe what they tell you! What an absurd starting point. You are saying “I have presented people with an ideology based in ‘deterministic truths that challenge their worldview’ and I am baffled that no one goes along with me!”

can we ever fully trust those who adhere to faith-based reasoning over evidence-based understanding?

I note the *royal we* however you should really make your statements in the first person: “Can I trust those who adhere to faith-based reasoning over evidence-based understanding?” Yet this question is also skewed. You are saying that personal and subjective (religious or spiritual) experience have no evidentiary basis, but this is not so. In your case you reject all of that *experience* (from an atheist’s perspective) as invented, hallucinated or as concocted for *emotional* reasons.

Have you encountered moments where you felt a religious individual was being less than honest in their beliefs or arguments? How do we differentiate between genuine belief, cognitive dissonance, and deliberate avoidance? Most importantly, what does trust look like in these kinds of philosophical engagements?

This is actually an interesting question. Taken on the whole this philosophy forum is not one where religious experience is considered. In fact that, and certainly the tenets of Christianity, are in sheer disfavor. But this state of things is really an expression of a particular post-Christian situation that has become an outcome for Europe for a whole set of reasons and involving a long causal chain.

The way I see things is that *perceptual models* that are developed and held by individuals have to be seen for what they are: pictures, conceptual diagrams, interpretive stories that are interposed between the individual and *reality*. The issue, in my view, revolves around the quality of the picture. And that often, or perhaps always, has to do with the quality and the capacity of the individual and in what picture they assemble and live through. I refer from time to time to Richard Weaver’s notion of “our metaphysical dream of the world” and I imagine that you will snicker at the idea as being falsely-based — while in fact you are here presenting and arguing for an extreme version of such a metaphysical dream. But you cannot see yourself! nor grasp how an ideological picture has you in its grip!

[BigMike]

From a deterministic perspective, we know that all beliefs and behaviors arise from prior causes: upbringing, culture, biology, education, and so on. Yet, this doesn’t erase the suspicion that some religious individuals might actively choose—or, more precisely, be caused by their environment—to obscure their true thoughts or intentions when faced with challenges to their faith. For instance, how many times have we presented clear, rational arguments only to see them sidestepped or met with assertions of "mystery" or "faith"? At what point does this shift from an honest struggle with complex ideas to an intentional lack of intellectual integrity?

Any behavior, any action of any person, arises from that person’s present state and condition, so to say “all beliefs and behaviors arise from prior causes: upbringing, culture, biology, education, and so on” is a simple truism.

“Religious individuals” is far too open-ended and general. Though there are surely common links between practitioners in varying traditions, it seems to me that you would have to know something, far more than you seem to, of the inclination toward the realm of spiritual and religious experience. And you would have to be open to considering the *subjective realm* and what people can tell you of their own experience. But you are, and by your own admission, an “atheist” so right at the start you are locked out of an entire realm of experience and understanding.

Your paragraph here is actually a commentary on ideas brought to your attention on other adjacent threads and possibly on things I have recently said. How many times, you ask, have you presented “clear, rational arguments only to see them sidestepped or met with assertions of "mystery" or "faith"?” The answer (I have actually been keeping score) is 422 different times! And that is because in each thread, and in each post you state and then restate your core position. The only ones who seem to agree with your view of a determined reality are Dubious and Accelafine, but only 3 here can be said to have a religious orientation (to use your too-general term). Myself, Seeds and IC. But here’s the thing: each of us are oriented very very differently.

At what point does this shift from an honest struggle with complex ideas to an intentional lack of intellectual integrity?

Here you are simply making a statement about how you view yourself and your approach. Your supposition is, and can only be, that everyone who disagrees with your reductionism has no *intellectual integrity*. However from where I sit it is you who lacks both intellectual integrity and all of the background by those who have written on the topic of religious experience that would be required for you to make intellectually honest comments on this difficult topic.

I do not in any sense dismiss concerns about *intellectual integrity* in all intellectual domains that have importance in our present. But if that is the question — what is dishonesty, why is it common? — it would be somewhat more humble and accurate if you were to see that intellectual dishonesty might very well be operating in you. It is not impossible that it drives your entire perspective! And frankly many here have pointed this out to you yet you remain impervious to critique.

This discussion aims to explore the dynamics of trust in dialogues with the religious. Do they genuinely believe what they claim, even when their statements seem illogical or contradictory? Are they grappling honestly with the discomfort of deterministic truths that challenge their worldview, or are they, consciously or not, protecting their faith at the expense of truth? And if trust requires a shared commitment to intellectual honesty, can we ever fully trust those who adhere to faith-based reasoning over evidence-based understanding?

This is not a genuine question, it is really a statement. And with the *question* you include your answer: no. It is your view that all those, and those who in no sense define themselves as religious, who have opposed your ideological proclamations, do not really believe what they tell you! What an absurd starting point. You are saying “I have presented people with an ideology based in ‘deterministic truths that challenge their worldview’ and I am baffled that no one goes along with me!”

can we ever fully trust those who adhere to faith-based reasoning over evidence-based understanding?

I note the *royal we* however you should really make your statements in the first person: “Can I trust those who adhere to faith-based reasoning over evidence-based understanding?” Yet this question is also skewed. You are saying that personal and subjective (religious or spiritual) experience have no evidentiary basis, but this is not so. In your case you reject all of that *experience* (from an atheist’s perspective) as invented, hallucinated or as concocted for *emotional* reasons.

Have you encountered moments where you felt a religious individual was being less than honest in their beliefs or arguments? How do we differentiate between genuine belief, cognitive dissonance, and deliberate avoidance? Most importantly, what does trust look like in these kinds of philosophical engagements?

This is actually an interesting question. Taken on the whole this philosophy forum is not one where religious experience is considered. In fact that, and certainly the tenets of Christianity, are in sheer disfavor. But this state of things is really an expression of a particular post-Christian situation that has become an outcome for Europe for a whole set of reasons and involving a long causal chain.

The way I see things is that *perceptual models* that are developed and held by individuals have to be seen for what they are: pictures, conceptual diagrams, interpretive stories that are interposed between the individual and *reality*. The issue, in my view, revolves around the quality of the picture. And that often, or perhaps always, has to do with the quality and the capacity of the individual and in what picture they assemble and live through. I refer from time to time to Richard Weaver’s notion of “our metaphysical dream of the world” and I imagine that you will snicker at the idea as being falsely-based — while in fact you are here presenting and arguing for an extreme version of such a metaphysical dream. But you cannot see yourself! nor grasp how an ideological picture has you in its grip!

Alexis, let me cut straight to the heart of your critique with clarity, avoiding unnecessary entanglements while addressing your key points directly.

You’ve made a fair observation: beliefs, behaviors, and worldviews are indeed shaped by prior causes, and recognizing this is, as you put it, a truism. But acknowledging this doesn’t diminish the significance of those causes or the patterns they reveal. The deterministic perspective is not just a simple acknowledgment of causality; it’s a lens for understanding why people act, think, and believe as they do—including why disagreements arise in philosophical or theological discussions. Let’s focus on that instead of reducing the deterministic framework to a tautology.

You also suggest that my critique of "religious individuals" is overly general. Fair enough—religious experience is diverse, and not all religious people think or act the same way. Yet, when it comes to dialogues about determinism or evidence-based reasoning, many religious perspectives share common threads: appeals to faith, invocation of mystery, or reliance on subjective experiences as evidentiary. These recurring patterns are what the conversation seeks to unpack, not to dismiss religious experience outright, but to question its compatibility with intellectual honesty when faced with deterministic truths.

Regarding intellectual integrity, I don’t presume that disagreement with me automatically equates to dishonesty. The issue isn’t that people disagree—it’s how they engage with arguments. If someone avoids direct engagement with evidence or logical critique by retreating to unverifiable claims or faith-based justifications, it’s reasonable to question the integrity of their response. That’s not dismissing their worldview; it’s holding their reasoning to the same standard we apply to any philosophical inquiry.

Now, about your claim that I lack the background to discuss religious experience honestly: I appreciate the importance of understanding a topic deeply before critiquing it. But the question at hand isn’t about the validity of religious experience; it’s about whether those experiences—and the beliefs they foster—stand up to scrutiny in a deterministic framework. If you argue that my rejection of spiritual experience blinds me to its value, I might counter that the same could be said of a refusal to engage with deterministic truths: both stem from deeply held commitments that shape perception.

Finally, you accuse me of being locked into an "ideological picture" I cannot see. That’s a provocative point, but isn’t it equally possible that religious frameworks function in the same way? All of us—religious or not—navigate reality through interpretive lenses shaped by causes beyond our control. The question is whether those lenses help us see reality more clearly or distort it to protect cherished beliefs.

If we’re going to have a productive dialogue, let’s focus less on labeling perspectives as “reductionist” or “hallucinated” and more on whether the claims being made are consistent with evidence, logic, and intellectual honesty. That’s the core of my inquiry, and I’m happy to engage with you or anyone else willing to meet the discussion on those terms.

[FlashDangerpants]

Speaking as an outsider in all this, being an atheist in the religious debate and an agnostic in the free-will one, I find myself wondering if Mike has any awereness how much like a preacher with a gospel to spread he seems to be.

The mark of the fanatic is that he assumes we all know he's right and we all ignore that knowledge because of some dreadful inner whatnots, terrors, marxism, dissonance, devilry and so on. Immanuel Can seems no worse than Mike for that sort of thing.

[BigMike]

Speaking as an outsider in all this, being an atheist in the religious debate and an agnostic in the free-will one, I find myself wondering if Mike has any awereness how much like a preacher with a gospel to spread he seems to be.

The mark of the fanatic is that he assumes we all know he's right and we all ignore that knowledge because of some dreadful inner whatnots, terrors, marxism, dissonance, devilry and so on. Immanuel Can seems no worse than Mike for that sort of thing.

Flash, let’s not mince words here. If you’re equating the demand for adherence to observable facts, grounded in logic and the fundamental laws of physics, to preaching religious myths or peddling truth avoidance, then we have a serious misunderstanding to clear up.

Preachers operate on faith—asserting beliefs without evidence and expecting others to accept them as truth. What I’m presenting is the opposite: a framework rooted in the indisputable principles of determinism, conservation laws, and cause-and-effect, all of which are verifiable and observable in reality. To conflate this with religious dogma isn’t just inaccurate—it’s absurd.

You suggest I’m acting like a fanatic, assuming everyone knows I’m right but refuses to acknowledge it. Let’s get this straight: I don’t assume people know I’m right. What I observe is that when confronted with determinism—an explanation entirely consistent with reality—some individuals choose to sidestep, ignore, or deny the implications rather than engage with them. That’s not me claiming to have divine insight; that’s pointing out a recurring pattern of intellectual avoidance.

Now, you compare me to Immanuel Can, presumably implying that I’m just as dogmatic or dismissive. But here’s the difference: I don’t lean on unverifiable claims, metaphysical mysteries, or faith-based arguments. Everything I’ve said can be traced to evidence, reason, and the fundamental nature of the universe. If that comes across as preaching, perhaps it’s because the truth—unlike faith—demands attention and accountability, and some find that uncomfortable.

So no, I’m not here spreading “gospel” or claiming some divine rightness. I’m here pointing out facts and asking others to engage with them honestly. If that’s mistaken for fanaticism, then perhaps the problem lies not with the message but with the discomfort it creates for those unwilling to face it.

[Alexiev]

Flash, let’s not mince words here. If you’re equating the demand for adherence to observable facts, grounded in logic and the fundamental laws of physics, to preaching religious myths or peddling truth avoidance, then we have a serious misunderstanding to clear up.

Preachers operate on faith—asserting beliefs without evidence and expecting others to accept them as truth. What I’m presenting is the opposite: a framework rooted in the indisputable principles of determinism, conservation laws, and cause-and-effect, all of which are verifiable and observable in reality. To conflate this with religious dogma isn’t just inaccurate—it’s absurd.

You suggest I’m acting like a fanatic, assuming everyone knows I’m right but refuses to acknowledge it. Let’s get this straight: I don’t assume people know I’m right. What I observe is that when confronted with determinism—an explanation entirely consistent with reality—some individuals choose to sidestep, ignore, or deny the implications rather than engage with them. That’s not me claiming to have divine insight; that’s pointing out a recurring pattern of intellectual avoidance.

Now, you compare me to Immanuel Can, presumably implying that I’m just as dogmatic or dismissive. But here’s the difference: I don’t lean on unverifiable claims, metaphysical mysteries, or faith-based arguments. Everything I’ve said can be traced to evidence, reason, and the fundamental nature of the universe. If that comes across as preaching, perhaps it’s because the truth—unlike faith—demands attention and accountability, and some find that uncomfortable.

So no, I’m not here spreading “gospel” or claiming some divine rightness. I’m here pointing out facts and asking others to engage with them honestly. If that’s mistaken for fanaticism, then perhaps the problem lies not with the message but with the discomfort it creates for those unwilling to face it.

What constitutes "evidence"? If God appeared to you in a burning bush, would that constitute "evidence"? Or does the paradigm trump the observations?

Preachers (at least Christian preachers) do not operate without evidence. Instead, they operate without "scientific evidence". The evidence on which they operate includes (but is not limited to) written, historical documents, the testimony of the saints, written and oral reports of miracles, personal revelation, etc., etc., etc.

Of course if "evidence is redefined as "scientific evidence", then we would have to throw out history, biography and (even) mathematics. Indeed, this is the trend in modern courts: eye-witness accounts (similar to history) are deemed less reliable than DNA, finger-prints, or other seemingly scientific forms of evidence. But all of science is dependent on history, which is dependent on eye-witness reports. An experimenter observes an experiment and then writes the history of it and publishes it in a journal. So to claim that histories do not constitute evidence is to claim that most science does not constitute evidence.

If we define "evidence" as BigMike does, we would have to toss out most human knowledge along with religion.

[FlashDangerpants]

Speaking as an outsider in all this, being an atheist in the religious debate and an agnostic in the free-will one, I find myself wondering if Mike has any awereness how much like a preacher with a gospel to spread he seems to be.

The mark of the fanatic is that he assumes we all know he's right and we all ignore that knowledge because of some dreadful inner whatnots, terrors, marxism, dissonance, devilry and so on. Immanuel Can seems no worse than Mike for that sort of thing.

Flash, let’s not mince words here. If you’re equating the demand for adherence to observable facts, grounded in logic and the fundamental laws of physics, to preaching religious myths or peddling truth avoidance, then we have a serious misunderstanding to clear up.

You haven't observed determinism, you've inferred it. The fundamental laws of physics are also inferred. As far as I can see the rules of logic are something you view more a hindrance than anything else.

Preachers operate on faith—asserting beliefs without evidence and expecting others to accept them as truth. What I’m presenting is the opposite: a framework rooted in the indisputable principles of determinism, conservation laws, and cause-and-effect, all of which are verifiable and observable in reality. To conflate this with religious dogma isn’t just inaccurate—it’s absurd.

You don't think you have been doing any of that at all? You have faith that it makes perfect sense to apply the laws of conservation in all sorts of areas they aren't obviously applicable (your faith commands that this is anathema). You assume that an extremely simplified model of causation applies in all sorts of places where it is not even remotely observable.

Fundamentally your worst sin here is the hubris of assuming there is nothing relevant that you don't know yet, and that's never worked for anyone else. Your "indisputable framework" is just a framework, not an indisputable one at all.

If you were better at phil. of science by the way you wouldn't touch a phrase like "indisputable framework" with a shitty stick. And you also wouldn't describe cause-and-effect as observable, it's inferred (unless you take a sudden Kantian turn and class it a Synthetic a priori category necessary to form a biological understanding of the world we inhabit).

You suggest I’m acting like a fanatic, assuming everyone knows I’m right but refuses to acknowledge it. Let’s get this straight: I don’t assume people know I’m right. What I observe is that when confronted with determinism—an explanation entirely consistent with reality—some individuals choose to sidestep, ignore, or deny the implications rather than engage with them. That’s not me claiming to have divine insight; that’s pointing out a recurring pattern of intellectual avoidance.

Well you sure wrote that paragraph like a fanatic.

Now, you compare me to Immanuel Can, presumably implying that I’m just as dogmatic or dismissive. But here’s the difference: I don’t lean on unverifiable claims, metaphysical mysteries, or faith-based arguments. Everything I’ve said can be traced to evidence, reason, and the fundamental nature of the universe. If that comes across as preaching, perhaps it’s because the truth—unlike faith—demands attention and accountability, and some find that uncomfortable.

I think you just don't recognise those things in your own work. That lack of introspective talent is incidentally something for which Immanuel Can is also famous. You have argued everything to your own satisfaction and are now confusing that with rigour.

So no, I’m not here spreading “gospel” or claiming some divine rightness. I’m here pointing out facts and asking others to engage with them honestly. If that’s mistaken for fanaticism, then perhaps the problem lies not with the message but with the discomfort it creates for those unwilling to face it.

People have been engaging with you honestly*, but you are so arrogant you raised a whole thread to accuse of them of not doing so. You are a bit of a fanatic, you wildly overestimate the strength of your own position.




* technically Age and Atto and some of the others have psychiatric limitations, but most are doing so.

[BigMike]

Flash, let’s not mince words here. If you’re equating the demand for adherence to observable facts, grounded in logic and the fundamental laws of physics, to preaching religious myths or peddling truth avoidance, then we have a serious misunderstanding to clear up.

Preachers operate on faith—asserting beliefs without evidence and expecting others to accept them as truth. What I’m presenting is the opposite: a framework rooted in the indisputable principles of determinism, conservation laws, and cause-and-effect, all of which are verifiable and observable in reality. To conflate this with religious dogma isn’t just inaccurate—it’s absurd.

You suggest I’m acting like a fanatic, assuming everyone knows I’m right but refuses to acknowledge it. Let’s get this straight: I don’t assume people know I’m right. What I observe is that when confronted with determinism—an explanation entirely consistent with reality—some individuals choose to sidestep, ignore, or deny the implications rather than engage with them. That’s not me claiming to have divine insight; that’s pointing out a recurring pattern of intellectual avoidance.

Now, you compare me to Immanuel Can, presumably implying that I’m just as dogmatic or dismissive. But here’s the difference: I don’t lean on unverifiable claims, metaphysical mysteries, or faith-based arguments. Everything I’ve said can be traced to evidence, reason, and the fundamental nature of the universe. If that comes across as preaching, perhaps it’s because the truth—unlike faith—demands attention and accountability, and some find that uncomfortable.

So no, I’m not here spreading “gospel” or claiming some divine rightness. I’m here pointing out facts and asking others to engage with them honestly. If that’s mistaken for fanaticism, then perhaps the problem lies not with the message but with the discomfort it creates for those unwilling to face it.

What constitutes "evidence"? If God appeared to you in a burning bush, would that constitute "evidence"? Or does the paradigm trump the observations?

Preachers (at least Christian preachers) do not operate without evidence. Instead, they operate without "scientific evidence". The evidence on which they operate includes (but is not limited to) written, historical documents, the testimony of the saints, written and oral reports of miracles, personal revelation, etc., etc., etc.

Of course if "evidence is redefined as "scientific evidence", then we would have to throw out history, biography and (even) mathematics. Indeed, this is the trend in modern courts: eye-witness accounts (similar to history) are deemed less reliable than DNA, finger-prints, or other seemingly scientific forms of evidence. But all of science is dependent on history, which is dependent on eye-witness reports. An experimenter observes an experiment and then writes the history of it and publishes it in a journal. So to claim that histories do not constitute evidence is to claim that most science does not constitute evidence.

If we define "evidence" as BigMike does, we would have to toss out most human knowledge along with religion.

Alexiev, you’re conflating entirely separate categories of "evidence" to sidestep the main question here: Can the religious be trusted? And frankly, this deliberate obfuscation is precisely why trust becomes an issue when dealing with faith-based reasoning.

Evidence isn’t some amorphous blob that includes whatever suits the argument of the moment. Scientific evidence is not just “one kind” of evidence—it’s the gold standard for determining what is real and what isn’t, precisely because it can be tested, falsified, and replicated. History, biography, and even courtroom testimony are valuable in their own contexts, but they rely on corroboration and alignment with observable reality. Your suggestion that rejecting the supernatural claims of religion undermines all forms of knowledge is disingenuous. The issue isn’t about discarding all historical accounts or lived experiences—it’s about rejecting unverifiable assertions presented as absolute truths.

If a "burning bush" appeared, the first step would be rigorous investigation, not immediate capitulation to the claim that it’s God. That’s the difference between an evidence-based paradigm and one steeped in faith. Faith doesn’t ask questions; it demands submission. That’s where the trust gap emerges. Faith-based reasoning, by its nature, privileges dogma over doubt, comfort over challenge, and tradition over truth. That’s not a foundation for trust—it’s a recipe for evasion.

And to your point about preachers supposedly not operating without evidence: spare me the apologetics. Historical documents and personal revelations are not evidence of divine truth; they’re evidence of human storytelling. Testimonies of miracles don’t pass any rigorous standard—they’re anecdotes dressed as facts, unrepeatable and unverifiable. What you’re presenting isn’t evidence—it’s rationalization.

If religious people want to be trusted, they need to stop conflating faith with reason and stop pretending that unsubstantiated beliefs carry the same weight as empirical facts. Trust demands intellectual honesty, not the endless shifting of goalposts to defend ideas that crumble under scrutiny. So, back to the real question: Can the religious be trusted? If their reasoning depends on unverifiable claims and evasions like the one you’ve just laid out, the answer is obvious.

[BigMike]

Speaking as an outsider in all this, being an atheist in the religious debate and an agnostic in the free-will one, I find myself wondering if Mike has any awereness how much like a preacher with a gospel to spread he seems to be.

The mark of the fanatic is that he assumes we all know he's right and we all ignore that knowledge because of some dreadful inner whatnots, terrors, marxism, dissonance, devilry and so on. Immanuel Can seems no worse than Mike for that sort of thing.

Flash, let’s not mince words here. If you’re equating the demand for adherence to observable facts, grounded in logic and the fundamental laws of physics, to preaching religious myths or peddling truth avoidance, then we have a serious misunderstanding to clear up.

You haven't observed determinism, you've inferred it. The fundamental laws of physics are also inferred. As far as I can see the rules of logic are something you view more a hindrance than anything else.

Preachers operate on faith—asserting beliefs without evidence and expecting others to accept them as truth. What I’m presenting is the opposite: a framework rooted in the indisputable principles of determinism, conservation laws, and cause-and-effect, all of which are verifiable and observable in reality. To conflate this with religious dogma isn’t just inaccurate—it’s absurd.

You don't think you have been doing any of that at all? You have faith that it makes perfect sense to apply the laws of conservation in all sorts of areas they aren't obviously applicable (your faith commands that this is anathema). You assume that an extremely simplified model of causation applies in all sorts of places where it is not even remotely observable.

Fundamentally your worst sin here is the hubris of assuming there is nothing relevant that you don't know yet, and that's never worked for anyone else. Your "indisputable framework" is just a framework, not an indisputable one at all.

If you were better at phil. of science by the way you wouldn't touch a phrase like "indisputable framework" with a shitty stick. And you also wouldn't describe cause-and-effect as observable, it's inferred (unless you take a sudden Kantian turn and class it a Synthetic a priori category necessary to form a biological understanding of the world we inhabit).

You suggest I’m acting like a fanatic, assuming everyone knows I’m right but refuses to acknowledge it. Let’s get this straight: I don’t assume people know I’m right. What I observe is that when confronted with determinism—an explanation entirely consistent with reality—some individuals choose to sidestep, ignore, or deny the implications rather than engage with them. That’s not me claiming to have divine insight; that’s pointing out a recurring pattern of intellectual avoidance.

Well you sure wrote that paragraph like a fanatic.

Now, you compare me to Immanuel Can, presumably implying that I’m just as dogmatic or dismissive. But here’s the difference: I don’t lean on unverifiable claims, metaphysical mysteries, or faith-based arguments. Everything I’ve said can be traced to evidence, reason, and the fundamental nature of the universe. If that comes across as preaching, perhaps it’s because the truth—unlike faith—demands attention and accountability, and some find that uncomfortable.

I think you just don't recognise those things in your own work. That lack of introspective talent is incidentally something for which Immanuel Can is also famous. You have argued everything to your own satisfaction and are now confusing that with rigour.

So no, I’m not here spreading “gospel” or claiming some divine rightness. I’m here pointing out facts and asking others to engage with them honestly. If that’s mistaken for fanaticism, then perhaps the problem lies not with the message but with the discomfort it creates for those unwilling to face it.

People have been engaging with you honestly*, but you are so arrogant you raised a whole thread to accuse of them of not doing so. You are a bit of a fanatic, you wildly overestimate the strength of your own position.




* technically Age and Atto and some of the others have psychiatric limitations, but most are doing so.

Flash, your smug dismissal and endless nitpicking are exactly the kind of evasive tactics that make discussions like these insufferable. Let's cut through the fluff: you’re sitting here accusing me of arrogance and fanaticism, but your entire response reeks of an inability—or perhaps unwillingness—to confront the actual argument.

First off, let's address your confusion about "observation" versus "inference." Yes, scientific facts are built on inference—that’s how science works. But those inferences are based on observable, repeatable phenomena that have withstood rigorous testing. Conservation laws? Verified. Cause-and-effect? A cornerstone of physics, not some abstract philosophical whim. And guess what? These "inferences" are facts until proven false. That’s the beauty of science—it invites scrutiny and evolves when better evidence emerges. Meanwhile, the religious frameworks you’re so keen to equivocate rely on dogma that resists challenge. Tell me, when’s the last time a miracle was "inferred" in a lab?

Your accusation of hubris is laughable. You’re conflating confidence in a proven framework with the blind certainty of dogma. You claim I’m ignoring what I "don’t know." Newsflash: determinism doesn’t pretend to have all the answers—it merely follows the evidence wherever it leads. And so far, the evidence unequivocally supports causality and determinism. What does faith offer in return? A shrug and a "mystery" when the logic gets too tight.

And speaking of fanaticism: pointing out observable patterns in behavior—like sidestepping evidence and clinging to unfalsifiable claims—isn’t fanaticism. It’s an observation. You want to call me a preacher for demanding adherence to facts? Fine. But that says more about your discomfort with those facts than about my argument.

Finally, you accuse me of "wildly overestimating" the strength of my position. No, Flash. I’m standing on a mountain of verified science while you’re throwing pebbles of philosophical contrarianism from the valley below. If you think my confidence is misplaced, prove me wrong. Show me where determinism fails. Show me where conservation laws are invalid. But don’t waste my time pretending that my insistence on intellectual rigor is somehow equivalent to preaching myths.

So let me ask you plainly: can the religious be trusted to engage with facts honestly, or will they keep retreating into faith and deflection every time reality contradicts their worldview? Your response does nothing to suggest they can.

[Alexiev]

Alexiev, you’re conflating entirely separate categories of "evidence" to sidestep the main question here: Can the religious be trusted? And frankly, this deliberate obfuscation is precisely why trust becomes an issue when dealing with faith-based reasoning.

Evidence isn’t some amorphous blob that includes whatever suits the argument of the moment. Scientific evidence is not just “one kind” of evidence—it’s the gold standard for determining what is real and what isn’t, precisely because it can be tested, falsified, and replicated. History, biography, and even courtroom testimony are valuable in their own contexts, but they rely on corroboration and alignment with observable reality. Your suggestion that rejecting the supernatural claims of religion undermines all forms of knowledge is disingenuous. The issue isn’t about discarding all historical accounts or lived experiences—it’s about rejecting unverifiable assertions presented as absolute truths.

If a "burning bush" appeared, the first step would be rigorous investigation, not immediate capitulation to the claim that it’s God. That’s the difference between an evidence-based paradigm and one steeped in faith. Faith doesn’t ask questions; it demands submission. That’s where the trust gap emerges. Faith-based reasoning, by its nature, privileges dogma over doubt, comfort over challenge, and tradition over truth. That’s not a foundation for trust—it’s a recipe for evasion.

And to your point about preachers supposedly not operating without evidence: spare me the apologetics. Historical documents and personal revelations are not evidence of divine truth; they’re evidence of human storytelling. Testimonies of miracles don’t pass any rigorous standard—they’re anecdotes dressed as facts, unrepeatable and unverifiable. What you’re presenting isn’t evidence—it’s rationalization.

If religious people want to be trusted, they need to stop conflating faith with reason and stop pretending that unsubstantiated beliefs carry the same weight as empirical facts. Trust demands intellectual honesty, not the endless shifting of goalposts to defend ideas that crumble under scrutiny. So, back to the real question: Can the religious be trusted? If their reasoning depends on unverifiable claims and evasions like the one you’ve just laid out, the answer is obvious.

I am not religious. But when I hear people claim that there is no evidence for religious beliefs, I'm astounded that anyone could be so naive. There's lots of evidence, but because it does not fit a scientific paradigm it is discounted. This is so obvious that I needn't go into detail.

Scientific evidence is NOT the "gold standard". Seeing is believing. Yet history is "unverifiable", whether we see it unfold with our own eyes or read the accounts of others. What really happened in the battle of Gaugamela? Who knows? But the evidence supporting Alexander's tactics and victory is probably not better than the evidence supporting the resurrection of Christ. Of course it's reasonable to demand BETTER evidence for incredible and supernatural events. But to claim that there is no evidence is simply incorrect. All of history is unrepeatable and unverifiable. Experiments cannot be "replicated". Each is a unique event -- like everything else that happens.

Is determinism "falsifiable"? No. It's a "faith-based" world view, just as religious world views are. Can the Religious be trusted? Of course they can to the same extent that we can trust anyone else. If a religious person says, "I went to the store yesterday," we can trust him or distrust him, just as we can the atheist. The notion that historical documents are evidence only of human story telling could be applied to our knowledge of the battle of Gettysburg just as it is to the Resurrection. It's not the evidence that differs -- it's the fact that one conflicts with our world view and the other does not.

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, your smug dismissal and endless nitpicking are exactly the kind of evasive tactics that make discussions like these insufferable. Let's cut through the fluff: you’re sitting here accusing me of arrogance and fanaticism, but your entire response reeks of an inability—or perhaps unwillingness—to confront the actual argument.

• You're in no position to call anybody smug, and would be well advised to avoid the word "insufferable" to boot.

• I haven't to my knowledge avoided anything, feel free to tell me what I've missed.

• I asked you what your argument actually was in your last thread. You may remember there was some question of necessity and sufficiency? Sadly I asked twice because you evaded the question. It's still dangling.

First off, let's address your confusion about "observation" versus "inference." Yes, scientific facts are built on inference—that’s how science works. But those inferences are based on observable, repeatable phenomena that have withstood rigorous testing. Conservation laws? Verified. Cause-and-effect? A cornerstone of physics, not some abstract philosophical whim. And guess what? These "inferences" are facts until proven false. That’s the beauty of science—it invites scrutiny and evolves when better evidence emerges. Meanwhile, the religious frameworks you’re so keen to equivocate rely on dogma that resists challenge. Tell me, when’s the last time a miracle was "inferred" in a lab?

• You can only observe an observable phenomenon, and then you infer a non-observable underlying causes.

• Laws of nature are necessarily inferred in all cases because they are not observable.

• You raise the issue of falsification, but your determinism paradigm is literally unfalsifiable as far as I can see. If I am mistaken, please explain what sort of falsification you would accept?

• You are claiming to have a settled matter in regards to determinism are you not? I see little value in raising the prospect that better scientific data might come to change matters, that was my point, that you are excluding such a possibility.

Your accusation of hubris is laughable. You’re conflating confidence in a proven framework with the blind certainty of dogma. You claim I’m ignoring what I "don’t know." Newsflash: determinism doesn’t pretend to have all the answers—it merely follows the evidence wherever it leads. And so far, the evidence unequivocally supports causality and determinism. What does faith offer in return? A shrug and a "mystery" when the logic gets too tight.

• If you meant any of that you would be saying that determinism is the best available explanation given current information. That is a lesser claim than you are actually making.

• The logic of the situation is that you are overstating the merits of your beliefs. You are overconfident that no paradigm shift could possibly upend the notion that strict determinism applies at levels necessary to describe mental acts. A humbler or better educated man would stop short of that position.

• Needless to say, you are mistaken in your claim to be following the evidence, you are ahead of it.

And speaking of fanaticism: pointing out observable patterns in behavior—like sidestepping evidence and clinging to unfalsifiable claims—isn’t fanaticism. It’s an observation. You want to call me a preacher for demanding adherence to facts? Fine. But that says more about your discomfort with those facts than about my argument.

Yeah, that paragraph is kind of fanatical tbh.

Finally, you accuse me of "wildly overestimating" the strength of my position. No, Flash. I’m standing on a mountain of verified science while you’re throwing pebbles of philosophical contrarianism from the valley below. If you think my confidence is misplaced, prove me wrong. Show me where determinism fails. Show me where conservation laws are invalid. But don’t waste my time pretending that my insistence on intellectual rigor is somehow equivalent to preaching myths.

There is no means to verify that laws of conservation apply to decision making and acts of volition in the way you assume. These scientific paradigms are completely movable, but you are not. You have not got the killer argument you fantasize about and you ought to be more humble than this.

So let me ask you plainly: can the religious be trusted to engage with facts honestly, or will they keep retreating into faith and deflection every time reality contradicts their worldview? Your response does nothing to suggest they can.

A bunch of the scientists whose work you rely on for all the above are religious, so the question is just self-serving.

[BigMike]

Alexiev, you’re conflating entirely separate categories of "evidence" to sidestep the main question here: Can the religious be trusted? And frankly, this deliberate obfuscation is precisely why trust becomes an issue when dealing with faith-based reasoning.

Evidence isn’t some amorphous blob that includes whatever suits the argument of the moment. Scientific evidence is not just “one kind” of evidence—it’s the gold standard for determining what is real and what isn’t, precisely because it can be tested, falsified, and replicated. History, biography, and even courtroom testimony are valuable in their own contexts, but they rely on corroboration and alignment with observable reality. Your suggestion that rejecting the supernatural claims of religion undermines all forms of knowledge is disingenuous. The issue isn’t about discarding all historical accounts or lived experiences—it’s about rejecting unverifiable assertions presented as absolute truths.

If a "burning bush" appeared, the first step would be rigorous investigation, not immediate capitulation to the claim that it’s God. That’s the difference between an evidence-based paradigm and one steeped in faith. Faith doesn’t ask questions; it demands submission. That’s where the trust gap emerges. Faith-based reasoning, by its nature, privileges dogma over doubt, comfort over challenge, and tradition over truth. That’s not a foundation for trust—it’s a recipe for evasion.

And to your point about preachers supposedly not operating without evidence: spare me the apologetics. Historical documents and personal revelations are not evidence of divine truth; they’re evidence of human storytelling. Testimonies of miracles don’t pass any rigorous standard—they’re anecdotes dressed as facts, unrepeatable and unverifiable. What you’re presenting isn’t evidence—it’s rationalization.

If religious people want to be trusted, they need to stop conflating faith with reason and stop pretending that unsubstantiated beliefs carry the same weight as empirical facts. Trust demands intellectual honesty, not the endless shifting of goalposts to defend ideas that crumble under scrutiny. So, back to the real question: Can the religious be trusted? If their reasoning depends on unverifiable claims and evasions like the one you’ve just laid out, the answer is obvious.

I am not religious. But when I hear people claim that there is no evidence for religious beliefs, I'm astounded that anyone could be so naive. There's lots of evidence, but because it does not fit a scientific paradigm it is discounted. This is so obvious that I needn't go into detail.

Scientific evidence is NOT the "gold standard". Seeing is believing. Yet history is "unverifiable", whether we see it unfold with our own eyes or read the accounts of others. What really happened in the battle of Gaugamela? Who knows? But the evidence supporting Alexander's tactics and victory is probably not better than the evidence supporting the resurrection of Christ. Of course it's reasonable to demand BETTER evidence for incredible and supernatural events. But to claim that there is no evidence is simply incorrect. All of history is unrepeatable and unverifiable. Experiments cannot be "replicated". Each is a unique event -- like everything else that happens.

Is determinism "falsifiable"? No. It's a "faith-based" world view, just as religious world views are. Can the Religious be trusted? Of course they can to the same extent that we can trust anyone else. If a religious person says, "I went to the store yesterday," we can trust him or distrust him, just as we can the atheist. The notion that historical documents are evidence only of human story telling could be applied to our knowledge of the battle of Gettysburg just as it is to the Resurrection. It's not the evidence that differs -- it's the fact that one conflicts with our world view and the other does not.

Alexiev, your response is full of rhetorical sleights of hand that muddy the waters rather than engage with the point. Claiming that religious beliefs are supported by “lots of evidence” without specifying what that evidence is—or addressing the standards by which evidence is evaluated—doesn’t move the conversation forward. You assert that this is “so obvious” that it doesn’t require elaboration, but that’s precisely the problem. If your position is unassailable only because you refuse to define it clearly, then it’s not a position worth defending.

Let’s break this down. Scientific evidence is the gold standard not because it’s perfect but because it provides a framework for consistently separating truth from fiction. It requires falsifiability, replicability, and objectivity. You compare historical evidence—like accounts of Alexander’s tactics at Gaugamela—to the resurrection of Christ as if they’re on equal footing. They’re not. Accounts of Alexander’s battle don’t claim violations of physical laws; they describe plausible human events within known historical and cultural contexts. The resurrection, on the other hand, asks us to believe in a miraculous event without a shred of independently verifiable evidence. That’s a massive epistemological leap, and conflating the two types of claims is either naïve or disingenuous.

Your assertion that determinism is a “faith-based worldview” is another dodge. Determinism is a conclusion drawn from observed cause-and-effect relationships governed by physical laws. It’s not a matter of faith; it’s a framework derived from and consistently supported by evidence. If someone ever disproves conservation laws or shows randomness at the macro level governing human behavior, determinism will need to adapt or be abandoned. That falsifiability is what separates it from religious claims, which are not open to revision regardless of contradictory evidence.

You then pivot to the idea that religious people can be trusted “just like anyone else.” Sure, if a religious person says they went to the store, their claim can be evaluated like anyone else's. But that’s not the question here. The issue is whether someone whose reasoning relies on unverifiable beliefs—claims that cannot and will not be questioned—can be trusted in intellectual discussions or when truth is at stake. If their faith compels them to privilege dogma over observable reality, then no, they cannot be trusted in those contexts.

Finally, your attempt to equate scientific experiments to “unique events” and thus argue they can’t be replicated is a complete misunderstanding of what replication means. Scientific replication doesn’t require an experiment to be identical in every respect; it requires the results to be reproducible under the same conditions. That’s a standard that history and religion can’t even pretend to meet.

So no, the resurrection of Christ doesn’t stand on the same evidentiary footing as Alexander’s tactics, and determinism isn’t “faith-based.” The core question remains: can the religious be trusted to engage with evidence and reason honestly, or does their worldview inherently compromise that trust? Your attempt to blur the distinction between faith and reason does nothing to address that question.

[BigMike]

Flash, your smug dismissal and endless nitpicking are exactly the kind of evasive tactics that make discussions like these insufferable. Let's cut through the fluff: you’re sitting here accusing me of arrogance and fanaticism, but your entire response reeks of an inability—or perhaps unwillingness—to confront the actual argument.

• You're in no position to call anybody smug, and would be well advised to avoid the word "insufferable" to boot.

• I haven't to my knowledge avoided anything, feel free to tell me what I've missed.

• I asked you what your argument actually was in your last thread. You may remember there was some question of necessity and sufficiency? Sadly I asked twice because you evaded the question. It's still dangling.

First off, let's address your confusion about "observation" versus "inference." Yes, scientific facts are built on inference—that’s how science works. But those inferences are based on observable, repeatable phenomena that have withstood rigorous testing. Conservation laws? Verified. Cause-and-effect? A cornerstone of physics, not some abstract philosophical whim. And guess what? These "inferences" are facts until proven false. That’s the beauty of science—it invites scrutiny and evolves when better evidence emerges. Meanwhile, the religious frameworks you’re so keen to equivocate rely on dogma that resists challenge. Tell me, when’s the last time a miracle was "inferred" in a lab?

• You can only observe an observable phenomenon, and then you infer a non-observable underlying causes.

• Laws of nature are necessarily inferred in all cases because they are not observable.

• You raise the issue of falsification, but your determinism paradigm is literally unfalsifiable as far as I can see. If I am mistaken, please explain what sort of falsification you would accept?

• You are claiming to have a settled matter in regards to determinism are you not? I see little value in raising the prospect that better scientific data might come to change matters, that was my point, that you are excluding such a possibility.

Your accusation of hubris is laughable. You’re conflating confidence in a proven framework with the blind certainty of dogma. You claim I’m ignoring what I "don’t know." Newsflash: determinism doesn’t pretend to have all the answers—it merely follows the evidence wherever it leads. And so far, the evidence unequivocally supports causality and determinism. What does faith offer in return? A shrug and a "mystery" when the logic gets too tight.

• If you meant any of that you would be saying that determinism is the best available explanation given current information. That is a lesser claim than you are actually making.

• The logic of the situation is that you are overstating the merits of your beliefs. You are overconfident that no paradigm shift could possibly upend the notion that strict determinism applies at levels necessary to describe mental acts. A humbler or better educated man would stop short of that position.

• Needless to say, you are mistaken in your claim to be following the evidence, you are ahead of it.

And speaking of fanaticism: pointing out observable patterns in behavior—like sidestepping evidence and clinging to unfalsifiable claims—isn’t fanaticism. It’s an observation. You want to call me a preacher for demanding adherence to facts? Fine. But that says more about your discomfort with those facts than about my argument.

Yeah, that paragraph is kind of fanatical tbh.

Finally, you accuse me of "wildly overestimating" the strength of my position. No, Flash. I’m standing on a mountain of verified science while you’re throwing pebbles of philosophical contrarianism from the valley below. If you think my confidence is misplaced, prove me wrong. Show me where determinism fails. Show me where conservation laws are invalid. But don’t waste my time pretending that my insistence on intellectual rigor is somehow equivalent to preaching myths.

There is no means to verify that laws of conservation apply to decision making and acts of volition in the way you assume. These scientific paradigms are completely movable, but you are not. You have not got the killer argument you fantasize about and you ought to be more humble than this.

So let me ask you plainly: can the religious be trusted to engage with facts honestly, or will they keep retreating into faith and deflection every time reality contradicts their worldview? Your response does nothing to suggest they can.

A bunch of the scientists whose work you rely on for all the above are religious, so the question is just self-serving.

Flash, your tone and arguments are as tiresome as they are disingenuous. Let’s not dance around the fact that you’re more invested in semantic quibbling and vague accusations than in addressing the core issue. You keep harping on about "falsification" and "humility," but the irony here is staggering. Your entire response reeks of someone who refuses to engage with the argument in good faith while accusing others of arrogance.

You claim determinism is unfalsifiable. That’s nonsense. Determinism is grounded in the laws of physics—cause and effect, conservation of energy, and momentum—all of which have been repeatedly verified through observable phenomena. If anyone could present evidence of causeless events in the macro world, determinism would collapse. That hasn’t happened. You, on the other hand, sit back and throw baseless philosophical darts without offering a shred of substantive evidence to the contrary. If you’re so eager to dismiss determinism as "faith-based," perhaps you could actually engage with the evidence that supports it instead of parroting the same tired lines about inference.

Your argument that conservation laws "cannot be verified" in the context of human decision-making is a cheap dodge. These laws don’t take a vacation just because the discussion shifts to cognitive processes. They apply universally. If you’re suggesting otherwise, the burden of proof is on you to show how and where they break down. And no, hand-waving about "movable scientific paradigms" doesn’t cut it. Paradigms shift when better evidence emerges—not when contrarians decide they don’t like the implications.

Now, your repeated accusations of arrogance and fanaticism are laughable given your own condescending tone. You insist I should be "more humble," as if acknowledging observable reality somehow requires genuflecting to philosophical contrarianism. The real arrogance here is your refusal to engage with the fact that determinism isn’t a "belief" or a "faith-based worldview." It’s a conclusion drawn from mountains of empirical evidence. If you think it’s wrong, show me the evidence. Otherwise, spare me the sanctimonious lectures about humility.

And don’t think I missed your dig about religious scientists. That’s a red herring. I don’t question their competence in their fields; I question whether their religious reasoning holds up to scrutiny. Plenty of scientists compartmentalize their faith and their work, and that’s fine. The issue is when faith-based reasoning conflicts with observable reality, which is precisely why the question Can the religious be trusted? is worth asking. Your deflection doesn’t answer it—it dodges it entirely.

So, Flash, unless you have something of substance to offer—something beyond petty nitpicking, vague hand-waving about paradigms, or your amateur-hour psychoanalysis of my "fanaticism"—I suggest you stop wasting both of our time. Show me where determinism fails or admit you’re just throwing stones from the sidelines. Until then, your arguments carry as much weight as those "movable paradigms" you seem so fond of invoking.

[Alexiev]

Alexiev, your response is full of rhetorical sleights of hand that muddy the waters rather than engage with the point. Claiming that religious beliefs are supported by “lots of evidence” without specifying what that evidence is—or addressing the standards by which evidence is evaluated—doesn’t move the conversation forward. You assert that this is “so obvious” that it doesn’t require elaboration, but that’s precisely the problem. If your position is unassailable only because you refuse to define it clearly, then it’s not a position worth defending.

Let’s break this down. Scientific evidence is the gold standard not because it’s perfect but because it provides a framework for consistently separating truth from fiction. It requires falsifiability, replicability, and objectivity. You compare historical evidence—like accounts of Alexander’s tactics at Gaugamela—to the resurrection of Christ as if they’re on equal footing. They’re not. Accounts of Alexander’s battle don’t claim violations of physical laws; they describe plausible human events within known historical and cultural contexts. The resurrection, on the other hand, asks us to believe in a miraculous event without a shred of independently verifiable evidence. That’s a massive epistemological leap, and conflating the two types of claims is either naïve or disingenuous.

Your assertion that determinism is a “faith-based worldview” is another dodge. Determinism is a conclusion drawn from observed cause-and-effect relationships governed by physical laws. It’s not a matter of faith; it’s a framework derived from and consistently supported by evidence. If someone ever disproves conservation laws or shows randomness at the macro level governing human behavior, determinism will need to adapt or be abandoned. That falsifiability is what separates it from religious claims, which are not open to revision regardless of contradictory evidence.

You then pivot to the idea that religious people can be trusted “just like anyone else.” Sure, if a religious person says they went to the store, their claim can be evaluated like anyone else's. But that’s not the question here. The issue is whether someone whose reasoning relies on unverifiable beliefs—claims that cannot and will not be questioned—can be trusted in intellectual discussions or when truth is at stake. If their faith compels them to privilege dogma over observable reality, then no, they cannot be trusted in those contexts.

Finally, your attempt to equate scientific experiments to “unique events” and thus argue they can’t be replicated is a complete misunderstanding of what replication means. Scientific replication doesn’t require an experiment to be identical in every respect; it requires the results to be reproducible under the same conditions. That’s a standard that history and religion can’t even pretend to meet.

So no, the resurrection of Christ doesn’t stand on the same evidentiary footing as Alexander’s tactics, and determinism isn’t “faith-based.” The core question remains: can the religious be trusted to engage with evidence and reason honestly, or does their worldview inherently compromise that trust? Your attempt to blur the distinction between faith and reason does nothing to address that question.

You appear to be unable to understand my position. I will not recapitulate the evidence in support of religion -- we'll leave that to the Catholic Church (when it comes to asserting saintly miracles), or Fundamentalists (when it comes to supporting historical support for the Bible). I need not repeat it (why would I, since I don't believe it any more than you do).

When a person gives "evidence" in a court of law the jury need not accept it. That doesn't mean it isn't "evidence". I specifically said that reports of supernatural or incredible events require superior evidence to be accepted than those of prosaic events.. Why you repeated my point as if it differed from yours is a mystery. To say that (for example) the Gospels do not constitute evidence is ridiculous. They clearly have evidentiary value, although that does not imply we need to accept the evidence as historical truth.

All beliefs are "unverifiable" -- as you would know if you were familiar with the Philosophy of Science. No experiments can be replicated (it is the RESULTS that are replicated, and to replicate them one must subscribe to a particular world view).

I'm curious. What potential evidence would falsify your deterministic world view? If it is unfalsifiable, how is it "scientific"? We're not talking about the Conservation Laws (those could be falsified), but about determinism in general.

[BigMike]

You appear to be unable to understand my position. I will not recapitulate the evidence in support of religion -- we'll leave that to the Catholic Church (when it comes to asserting saintly miracles), or Fundamentalists (when it comes to supporting historical support for the Bible). I need not repeat it (why would I, since I don't believe it any more than you do).

When a person gives "evidence" in a court of law the jury need not accept it. That doesn't mean it isn't "evidence". I specifically said that reports of supernatural or incredible events require superior evidence to be accepted than those of prosaic events.. Why you repeated my point as if it differed from yours is a mystery. To say that (for example) the Gospels do not constitute evidence is ridiculous. They clearly have evidentiary value, although that does not imply we need to accept the evidence as historical truth.

All beliefs are "unverifiable" -- as you would know if you were familiar with the Philosophy of Science. No experiments can be replicated (it is the RESULTS that are replicated, and to replicate them one must subscribe to a particular world view).

I'm curious. What potential evidence would falsify your deterministic world view? If it is unfalsifiable, how is it "scientific"? We're not talking about the Conservation Laws (those could be falsified), but about determinism in general.

Alexiev, your position seems to rest on a mix of sophistry and evasion, dressed up as philosophical nuance. Let me cut through the clutter and address your points directly because this tactic of shifting definitions and claiming misunderstood intentions is getting old.

First, your insistence that the Gospels “constitute evidence” misses the mark entirely. Sure, they’re evidence of something—human storytelling, cultural narratives, theological intentions—but they’re not evidence of the supernatural claims they make. This distinction isn’t “ridiculous”; it’s foundational to any rational discussion about what constitutes credible evidence. You seem to conflate claim with proof, which is precisely why discussions about trusting faith-based reasoning often hit a wall.

Your comparison to courtroom evidence is equally flawed. In a court of law, evidence is scrutinized under strict rules, cross-examined, and weighed against competing testimony and physical facts. It doesn’t get a free pass just because someone presents it. Religious “evidence” typically fails these tests. Testimonies of miracles, for instance, are unverifiable, unrepeatable, and conveniently insulated from falsification. If you want to argue for their evidentiary value, you’ll need to do better than vaguely gesturing at what the Catholic Church or fundamentalists claim.

Now, your point about replication in science is a blatant misunderstanding of how scientific methodology works. Yes, results are replicated, and those results are what matter. That’s the whole point: reproducibility allows us to separate objective truths from subjective interpretation. This isn’t a “worldview” issue—it’s a standard that applies regardless of personal beliefs. Science is grounded in methods that minimize bias, whereas religious claims thrive in its shadow by avoiding scrutiny altogether.

Your repeated challenge about falsifiability in determinism is more of the same rhetorical misdirection. Determinism is not an isolated “worldview”; it’s a logical conclusion drawn from the consistent application of cause-and-effect relationships observed in physical laws. If you want to falsify determinism, show evidence of causeless events at a macro level. Demonstrate actions or phenomena that violate the conservation laws or occur outside the bounds of cause and effect. Until then, your “curiosity” about its scientific validity feels more like a red herring than a serious critique.

So, let me flip this back to the central question you keep sidestepping: can religious reasoning be trusted when it routinely relies on claims that cannot be falsified, verified, or replicated under any rigorous standard? You claim to reject these beliefs yet still defend their validity as “evidence.” That contradiction undermines your credibility in this discussion. Either you’re arguing for faith-based reasoning, or you’re not. Pick a lane, Alexiev, because dancing around the edges of this conversation only reinforces why faith-based approaches are fundamentally untrustworthy in intellectual debates.