Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[henry quirk]

I don’t mistake your dismissal for a refutation.

Mike, all I'm doin' is pointin' out -- over and over and over, across multiple threads -- the contradiction in your own thinkin'.

This...

I engage with others’ reasoning not because I expect to change everyone’s mind. That would be naive. Most people are too entrenched in their beliefs, too resistant to evidence, or too limited by their intellectual or emotional frameworks to be swayed. But among the noise, there are always a few—the intelligent, the honest, the curious—who can be reached. Those are the ones I’m speaking to.

...is meaningless if this...

your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is true.

[BigMike]

I don’t mistake your dismissal for a refutation.

Mike, all I'm doin' is pointin' out -- over and over and over, across multiple threads -- the contradiction in your own thinkin'.

This...

I engage with others’ reasoning not because I expect to change everyone’s mind. That would be naive. Most people are too entrenched in their beliefs, too resistant to evidence, or too limited by their intellectual or emotional frameworks to be swayed. But among the noise, there are always a few—the intelligent, the honest, the curious—who can be reached. Those are the ones I’m speaking to.

...is meaningless if this...

your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is true.

Henry, what exactly do you think my "contradiction" is? Please articulate it clearly, because simply repeating the claim that I’m contradicting myself doesn’t make it true. If you’re suggesting that determinism somehow invalidates the act of engaging with others’ reasoning, you’re fundamentally misunderstanding how determinism operates.

Under a deterministic framework, every interaction—every critique, every response—becomes part of the cascade of inputs that influence thought and behavior. My engagement with others’ reasoning isn’t meaningless; it’s one of those inputs. And while determinism doesn’t guarantee outcomes, it allows for the possibility that certain minds—those open to evidence, logic, and reason—might shift in response to that engagement. That’s how influence works within a deterministic system: it doesn’t rely on "free will" but on the right combination of inputs to produce a change.

Now, let’s pivot back to the main question: Can the religious be trusted? This isn’t about abstract debates on determinism—it’s about whether reasoning built on faith, which prioritizes belief over evidence, can be relied upon in intellectual discourse or decision-making. Faith-based reasoning often sidesteps accountability to facts, and this undermines trust. That’s the issue we’re here to address, not to endlessly circle back to a supposed "contradiction" that doesn’t exist. So, Henry, do you want to engage with the actual topic, or are you determined to stay in the weeds?

[BigMike]

Do you not feel even the slightest pang of shame when you consider the toll this orthodoxy has taken on our species? The sheer weight of lives lost, minds silenced, progress delayed? For centuries, brilliant thinkers and innovators lived in fear—fear of heresy, fear of death, fear of being burned alive for daring to say, “I think the world might work differently than you say it does.” Galileo? Silenced. Hypatia? Murdered. Bruno? Burned. And for what? To defend an orthodoxy that demanded submission over understanding.

BigMike, let’s take a deep dive into the swamp and mud-infested quagmire of these wild & whirling assertions you belch-forth here.

If you now examine your OP in the light of this paragraph and the post it came from, you will be able to distinguish your actual purpose and intention and, as well, be better able to understand why some (myself obviously) see you as driven by specific and active ideological imperatives. For this reason, when bringing up Huxley and Brave New World, one must ponder what BigMike’s University would teach and how the educational conditioning vat would operate in a process of intellectual reconditioning. And what curriculum the State’s educational program would adopt to educate the New Man.

You are dealing in hot-button emotionalized anti-religion tropes that are very susceptible to over-heated rhetoric. However, you and many who are pulled by seductive rhetorical gravity into such an adamant and inflexible position as yours is, lose your ground in understanding and appreciating “reality” in a fair historical sense and — note this — become ideologues of the anti-religion position. What this means (and what I have discovered in my own researches) is that you develop a contrived, exaggerated and rather historically revisionist view of the influence of religion (and theological principles) in intellectual culture and describe it (as you do) in sheerly negative terms.

The problem with the entirety of your position is that it is intellectually tendentious in a very ideologically-driven sense. But when one encounters more balanced and better-prepared historians and intellects, one is introduced to a better-reasoned perspective about the positive and creative influence of theology in Occidental culture. For example the historian Christopher Dawson. Or James J. Walsh’s The Thirteenth Greatest of Centuries. Or such philosophers as Etienne Gilson in The Unity of Philosophical Experience.

The picture presented through these historical works will offer you a contravening picture to your rhetorical extremism. The truth of the matter is that religion (and specifically Catholicism and Christian theology) in Occidental culture has had so many different levels of influence that when one grasps this, one’s overall and general picture changes.

What I think “we” are dealing with here is far more complex and challenging than meets the heated rhetor’s eyes. I read you as a Hyper-Liberal ideologue with a bizarre Scientistic perceptual platform. In many ways you will find your analogues on this forum and in ‘modern philosophy’. Flash, Dubious, Accelafine, Promethean and a dozen others are expositors of these radically anti-Christian postures. And they too (in my opinion) operate from an over-heated rhetorical base that clouds their capacity to see clearly and fairly.

Like you they are driven in their perspectives. I understand this to be a fault. My view is that we must stand back and view all of this from some distance in order to arrive at more judicious perspectives.

My view of you is that you are a convoluted intellect invested in convoluting ideological positions. But this “you” is not solely a singular person but a driven and even a determined perspective which has been cobbled together for a range of purposes and “infects” people.

The real meaning here (what might be taken away from this conversation) in my view has to do with intellectual contamination by that which I define as “overheated”, extremist and tendentious. These infect our present and all of us, in one degree or another.

(If you think that Red Guard clip exaggerates the potential ramifications of ideological extremism then think again. We are living through such a time.)

Alexis, your verbose critique is heavy on speculative rhetoric and light on substance, but let’s cut through it. You accuse me of being driven by an “ideologically overheated” position, suggesting that my critique of religious orthodoxy somehow lacks nuance or historical balance. Yet, while you’re busy accusing me of extremism, you entirely dodge the central issue: the harm caused by contradictions embedded in faith-based reasoning and their implications for intellectual trustworthiness.

If you’re so concerned with “balanced” perspectives, answer this straightforward question: is ex contradictione quodlibet false? Or do you accept that from a single contradiction, anything—anything—can be justified, including the most heinous acts imaginable? Religious orthodoxy, particularly in its most dogmatic forms, is riddled with contradictions. It insists on immutable truths while consistently reshaping itself to fit changing social norms. It claims divine authority while contradicting observable reality. And from these contradictions, we see centuries of suffering justified—wars, inquisitions, witch hunts, forced conversions. These aren’t just historical footnotes; they’re the direct results of a framework that prioritizes faith over reason, dogma over evidence.

Let’s bring this to the present. If contradictions in religious reasoning allow for “anything,” what safeguards do we have against their abuse? What stops someone from using the very same faith-based contradictions to justify oppression, violence, or denial of progress? This isn’t some “overheated” hypothetical; it’s a pattern repeated throughout history, and it persists in more subtle forms today—anti-science rhetoric, bigotry cloaked as tradition, and resistance to social progress.

You seem more invested in critiquing the tone of my argument than addressing its substance. So let’s focus: do you deny that contradictions in faith-based reasoning undermine intellectual integrity and can justify any conclusion, no matter how dangerous or destructive? If you accept this, then the harm done by religious orthodoxy isn’t just a relic of the past; it’s an ongoing threat. If you deny it, then explain how ex contradictione quodlibet doesn’t apply to the contradictions embedded in religious dogma.

We’re not talking about hypothetical dangers here. The intellectual contamination you accuse me of describing is real, and its effects are measurable. If you want to claim otherwise, do so directly. But spare me the rhetorical hand-waving about “overheated positions” unless you’re prepared to confront the central point: contradictions in religious reasoning aren’t harmless—they’re dangerous.

[Alexiev]

Now, let’s pivot back to the main question: Can the religious be trusted? This isn’t about abstract debates on determinism—it’s about whether reasoning built on faith, which prioritizes belief over evidence, can be relied upon in intellectual discourse or decision-making. Faith-based reasoning often sidesteps accountability to facts, and this undermines trust. That’s the issue we’re here to address, not to endlessly circle back to a supposed "contradiction" that doesn’t exist. So, Henry, do you want to engage with the actual topic, or are you determined to stay in the weeds?

First of all, the "evidence" for most of what we believe is simply this: people we trust tell us it is so. None of us have performed the experiments, examined the stars, or travelled at the speed of light. However, we accept the credentialled scientists' opinions on these matters, just as religious people accept the credentialled opinions of religious leaders. Your beliefs are "faith based" just as those of the religious are. You simply have faith in different sources.

Perhaps, of course, your faith is justified and theirs is not. Nonetheless, you should recognize the parallels as well as the differences.

Regarding the religious tortures and atrocities you enumerate, atheists are guilty too. Think of the Communists, or the Fascists. Their faith in the "scientific state" led to witch hunts, just as European Christianity's faith did in the 16th century. You object to religious resistance to curbing climate change. But what caused climate change in the first place? Wasn't it the technology that resulted from modern science? Didn't the A-bomb burn more people than the Inquisitors? If we are going to tally up the harm, religion may well come a distant second to science (although, of course, science has also benefitted humankind, as, perhaps, has religion).

Has religion promoted or curbed human wickedness? Probably both -- but whether the sum is positive or negative is difficult to determine.

As we've discussed earlier, it is simply incorrect that the religious "prioritize belief over evidence". Instead, they trust different sources of evidence. They see spiritual enlightenment as evidence. They see historical accounts that others may find dubious as evidence. They see personal revelation as evidence. Your obsession with one and only one kind of evidence limits you.

Can scientists be trusted? Well, the recent scandals about fudged data in economics suggests they cannot. Can our own eyes be trusted? Well, in your case probably not if they saw God appear in a burning bush and say, "I am what I am." We all color our perceptions and beliefs through paradigms in which we are emotionally invested: and you seem to be more emotionally invested in your paradigm than most of us agnostics.

[BigMike]

Now, let’s pivot back to the main question: Can the religious be trusted? This isn’t about abstract debates on determinism—it’s about whether reasoning built on faith, which prioritizes belief over evidence, can be relied upon in intellectual discourse or decision-making. Faith-based reasoning often sidesteps accountability to facts, and this undermines trust. That’s the issue we’re here to address, not to endlessly circle back to a supposed "contradiction" that doesn’t exist. So, Henry, do you want to engage with the actual topic, or are you determined to stay in the weeds?

First of all, the "evidence" for most of what we believe is simply this: people we trust tell us it is so. None of us have performed the experiments, examined the stars, or travelled at the speed of light. However, we accept the credentialled scientists' opinions on these matters, just as religious people accept the credentialled opinions of religious leaders. Your beliefs are "faith based" just as those of the religious are. You simply have faith in different sources.

Perhaps, of course, your faith is justified and theirs is not. Nonetheless, you should recognize the parallels as well as the differences.

Regarding the religious tortures and atrocities you enumerate, atheists are guilty too. Think of the Communists, or the Fascists. Their faith in the "scientific state" led to witch hunts, just as European Christianity's faith did in the 16th century. You object to religious resistance to curbing climate change. But what caused climate change in the first place? Wasn't it the technology that resulted from modern science? Didn't the A-bomb burn more people than the Inquisitors? If we are going to tally up the harm, religion may well come a distant second to science (although, of course, science has also benefitted humankind, as, perhaps, has religion).

Has religion promoted or curbed human wickedness? Probably both -- but whether the sum is positive or negative is difficult to determine.

As we've discussed earlier, it is simply incorrect that the religious "prioritize belief over evidence". Instead, they trust different sources of evidence. They see spiritual enlightenment as evidence. They see historical accounts that others may find dubious as evidence. They see personal revelation as evidence. Your obsession with one and only one kind of evidence limits you.

Can scientists be trusted? Well, the recent scandals about fudged data in economics suggests they cannot. Can our own eyes be trusted? Well, in your case probably not if they saw God appear in a burning bush and say, "I am what I am." We all color our perceptions and beliefs through paradigms in which we are emotionally invested: and you seem to be more emotionally invested in your paradigm than most of us agnostics.

Alexiev, your response veers away from the central issue by creating false equivalences and muddying distinctions that are critical to this discussion. Let’s bring it back to the question at hand: Can the religious be trusted in intellectual discourse and decision-making when their reasoning prioritizes faith over empirical evidence? That’s the focus, and everything else is a distraction.

Your claim that all beliefs are “faith-based” because we trust experts or evidence we haven’t directly verified conflates two very different kinds of trust. Trust in scientific consensus, for instance, is rooted in a system of verification, peer review, and falsifiability—processes designed to eliminate bias and error over time. Religious faith, on the other hand, often begins with conclusions and resists scrutiny, relying on unverifiable claims and personal revelation. These aren’t “just different sources of evidence”; they’re fundamentally different approaches to understanding reality.

Yes, humans have committed atrocities under various banners, including secular ideologies like communism and fascism. But that’s not the point. The issue is whether the reasoning behind those actions was grounded in evidence and accountability or justified by unexamined dogma and contradictions. Whether religious or secular, reasoning that prioritizes belief over evidence leads to dangerous outcomes because it cannot self-correct. That’s why the atrocities you cite, while horrific, don’t absolve faith-based reasoning of its role in suppressing truth and enabling harm.

Your suggestion that the religious don’t prioritize belief over evidence but instead trust “different sources of evidence” is another deflection. Spiritual enlightenment, personal revelation, and historical accounts are not evidence in any rigorous sense—they’re subjective experiences or interpretations. Trusting them as equivalent to empirical evidence creates a system where anything can be justified, as contradictions are easily swept under the rug in favor of preserving belief. This is precisely why faith-based reasoning is unreliable and why we need to question its trustworthiness in intellectual and decision-making contexts.

Finally, your attempt to draw parallels between my confidence in evidence-based reasoning and religious emotional investment misses the point entirely. My "paradigm" doesn’t demand unwavering belief—it’s grounded in processes that welcome scrutiny, invite doubt, and evolve with better evidence. That’s not emotional investment; it’s intellectual accountability. If you want to conflate that with dogmatic faith, you’re not engaging honestly with the discussion.

So let’s not get sidetracked. The question remains: Can the religious be trusted when their reasoning is built on unverifiable claims and contradictions? If your answer is “yes,” you’ll need to explain how such reasoning holds up under scrutiny. If your answer is “no,” then we’ve already addressed why that is. Either way, let’s stop spinning in circles and address the heart of the matter.

[BigMike]

Let me answer my own question. The question of whether the religious can be trusted isn’t just provocative—it’s foundational to understanding the role of reasoning in society and in our collective progress. The answer lies in the inherent contradictions within faith-based reasoning, the dangers those contradictions pose, and the ways they undermine intellectual integrity and accountability.

Faith-based reasoning operates on a principle fundamentally at odds with evidence-based inquiry: it begins with conclusions and molds the world to fit them. This isn’t trust in evidence—it’s trust in authority, tradition, or subjective experiences that cannot be verified. When faith is prioritized over observable facts, it creates a framework where contradictions thrive unchecked. From these contradictions, anything can be justified—wars, oppression, the suppression of knowledge—all cloaked in the sanctity of belief. And from contradictions, we know logically that any falsehood can be defended and any atrocity rationalized.

Look at history: countless lives lost to the Inquisition, to witch hunts, to forced conversions—all justified by faith. The same faith that silenced thinkers like Galileo, murdered Hypatia, and burned Bruno. These weren’t isolated events; they were the natural consequence of a system that placed belief above evidence and accountability. When faith-based reasoning encounters challenges, it doesn’t adapt; it doubles down, often at great human cost.

Even today, the consequences of this mindset linger. Anti-science movements, often rooted in religious ideology, deny climate change, reject vaccines, and perpetuate ignorance in education systems. These aren’t harmless disagreements—they’re existential threats, all stemming from the same refusal to let evidence lead and belief follow. The trustworthiness of such reasoning isn’t just questionable—it’s dangerous.

To trust someone intellectually is to trust that their reasoning will adhere to principles of honesty, rigor, and evidence. Faith, by its very nature, resists these principles. It doesn’t self-correct when confronted with contradictions; it rationalizes them. It doesn’t evolve in light of better evidence; it entrenches itself. And it doesn’t seek accountability; it demands deference.

This isn’t to say religious people are inherently untrustworthy as individuals—many are kind, moral, and deeply sincere. But when their reasoning is guided by faith, it’s tethered to a method that prioritizes what must be true over what is true. That’s the crux of the issue: faith-based reasoning cannot meet the standards required for intellectual trust. It’s not about attacking individuals; it’s about recognizing the limitations of the framework they use.

So, can the religious be trusted? If trust requires intellectual honesty and accountability to evidence, then the answer is clear: only in so far as their faith does not guide their reasoning. Where faith takes precedence, trust falters, because truth becomes secondary to belief, and contradictions are given free reign to justify anything. The danger lies not in their intentions, but in the nature of faith itself. And that’s a risk humanity can no longer afford to take lightly.

[Alexiev]

So let’s not get sidetracked. The question remains: Can the religious be trusted when their reasoning is built on unverifiable claims and contradictions? If your answer is “yes,” you’ll need to explain how such reasoning holds up under scrutiny. If your answer is “no,” then we’ve already addressed why that is. Either way, let’s stop spinning in circles and address the heart of the matter.

All scientific claims are "unverifiable", as Karl Popper elucidated. Science is based on inductive reasoning -- that's why the claims are unverifiable.

Claude Leve-Strauss claimed that myth addresses the contradictions inherent in human life by comparing different paradoxes and contradictions.

In addition, despite the sola scriptura attitudes of some modern fundamentalists. Religion is not limited to myth. It includes ritual, community, singing, etc. What does it mean to "trust" rituals, or hymns or friendship and community? Can we trust something has value, without obsessing about the foundations for that value?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yet, while you’re busy accusing me of extremism, you entirely dodge the central issue: the harm caused by contradictions embedded in faith-based reasoning and their implications for intellectual trustworthiness.

Anyone who studies history, religious history, and Europe, would know of many different “harms” associated with ideological authoritarianism. These are known and understood. So no, I did not include a list. These things are generally known.

I would point out to you that there are a whole range of “harms” associated with modern secularism and of course the communist and socialist régimes that most fully embraced the ideological platform you seem associated with. You really must stand back from your own position to gain a sense of how such programs have been attempted. It is simply intellectually prudent to do so.

You should be aware that many, even all, of the concerns that you refer to have been considered and thought about by worthy and I think qualified intellects (Christopher Dawson for example). Yet they hold to certain fundamentals that, I think, you will far too quickly abandon because of your zealotry.

[BigMike]

So let’s not get sidetracked. The question remains: Can the religious be trusted when their reasoning is built on unverifiable claims and contradictions? If your answer is “yes,” you’ll need to explain how such reasoning holds up under scrutiny. If your answer is “no,” then we’ve already addressed why that is. Either way, let’s stop spinning in circles and address the heart of the matter.

All scientific claims are "unverifiable", as Karl Popper elucidated. Science is based on inductive reasoning -- that's why the claims are unverifiable.

Claude Leve-Strauss claimed that myth addresses the contradictions inherent in human life by comparing different paradoxes and contradictions.

In addition, despite the sola scriptura attitudes of some modern fundamentalists. Religion is not limited to myth. It includes ritual, community, singing, etc. What does it mean to "trust" rituals, or hymns or friendship and community? Can we trust something has value, without obsessing about the foundations for that value?

Alexiev, your response cleverly dances around the core question, but it doesn’t answer it. Instead, you pivot to discussing the limitations of scientific claims and the broader cultural aspects of religion. That’s fine, but it avoids the matter at hand: Can the religious be trusted when their reasoning is rooted in unverifiable claims and contradictions?

First, let’s clarify something: while Karl Popper highlighted the limitations of inductive reasoning, he also emphasized that scientific claims are falsifiable, not unverifiable. This means that scientific frameworks are open to being proven wrong, which is precisely what makes them reliable. They adapt, evolve, and improve over time. Faith-based reasoning does not. It begins with conclusions and bends reality to fit them, refusing to submit to the same rigorous tests. This is where trust falters—not because faith-based claims are inductive, but because they are insulated from falsification and accountability.

You mention Claude Lévi-Strauss and myth addressing human contradictions, which is an interesting point, but it’s a side note at best. The question isn’t whether myth serves a cultural or psychological function; it’s whether reasoning guided by myth and faith can be trusted in intellectual and decision-making contexts. Myths may comfort, inspire, or provide a sense of identity, but they do not hold up as reliable guides to objective truth. That’s not their purpose. Conflating the cultural and symbolic value of myth with the epistemic trustworthiness of faith-based reasoning is a misstep.

As for rituals, hymns, and community, they are undeniably valuable to many people. But these are practices and experiences, not reasoning processes. Trusting that a hymn can inspire or that a ritual can build community is not the same as trusting that faith-based reasoning can reliably lead to truth. Conflating these categories dilutes the issue. The question isn’t about the social or emotional benefits of religion; it’s about whether faith-based reasoning can meet the standards required for intellectual trust. And the answer remains no, because it prioritizes belief over evidence and leaves contradictions unchallenged.

You ask if we can “trust something has value without obsessing about the foundations for that value.” Sure, we can acknowledge the subjective value of religion to individuals and communities. But this isn’t about subjective value—it’s about objective trustworthiness in reasoning. Can faith-based reasoning be trusted to reliably discern truth or guide decisions affecting others? That’s the question. And until faith adopts the same accountability to evidence and scrutiny as science, the answer will remain a clear and resounding no.

[Alexis Jacobi]

BigMike: Religious orthodoxy, particularly in its most dogmatic forms, is riddled with contradictions. It insists on immutable truths while consistently reshaping itself to fit changing social norms. It claims divine authority while contradicting observable reality. And from these contradictions, we see centuries of suffering justified—wars, inquisitions, witch hunts, forced conversions. These aren’t just historical footnotes; they’re the direct results of a framework that prioritizes faith over reason, dogma over evidence.

In the fullest scope — this is my own belief — I do not think any logical system can offer enough knowledge or information about how life is to be lived, but also about those “reasons” for existence and living of life, and certainly about meaning. So, Euclid has his place as do his glorious proofs. But (again in my view) these operate like a tuned, purring motor in their conceptual domain but cannot be applied in all domains.

Contradiction (in the sense I think you mean) are rife in life and are especially considered by those of wide experience and education. I am not sure how to advise you, Mr Mathematics!

You seek an Absolutist System; desire to apply it to your perceptual system; and to construct an actionable ideological program out of it.

You must begin at least to see this before I will be able to drag you, by the nose, to the next level. Once there it will feel weird and uncomfortable for a while, but I assure you that you will learn to appreciate the vistas offered.

Here, myself and other forum denizens rescue you from your self-determined destiny! See, some witches must be killed!

It’s all going to be okay, Mike.

[BigMike]

Yet, while you’re busy accusing me of extremism, you entirely dodge the central issue: the harm caused by contradictions embedded in faith-based reasoning and their implications for intellectual trustworthiness.

Anyone who studies history, religious history, and Europe, would know of many different “harms” associated with ideological authoritarianism. These are known and understood. So no, I did not include a list. These things are generally known.

I would point out to you that there are a whole range of “harms” associated with modern secularism and of course the communist and socialist régimes that most fully embraced the ideological platform you seem associated with. You really must stand back from your own position to gain a sense of how such programs have been attempted. It is simply intellectually prudent to do so.

You should be aware that many, even all, of the concerns that you refer to have been considered and thought about by worthy and I think qualified intellects (Christopher Dawson for example). Yet they hold to certain fundamentals that, I think, you will far too quickly abandon because of your zealotry.

Alexis, your response is yet another attempt to sidestep the specific question and shift the focus to broader ideological comparisons. Let me clarify something: acknowledging the harms caused by ideological authoritarianism, secular or religious, doesn’t absolve faith-based reasoning of its contradictions or the damage it has caused. These are separate issues, and conflating them doesn’t move the discussion forward.

The question is simple: Can faith-based reasoning be trusted when it inherently prioritizes belief over evidence and embraces contradictions? This isn’t about whether secular ideologies have caused harm—of course they have. The difference lies in the mechanisms of accountability. Secular systems, flawed as they may be, are theoretically subject to revision when evidence proves them wrong. Faith-based reasoning resists such accountability because its foundation is belief, not evidence.

Your appeal to historical thinkers like Christopher Dawson doesn’t address the contradictions within faith-based reasoning. It’s a diversion. The insights of past intellectuals are valuable, but they don’t resolve the fundamental problem: faith-based reasoning operates in a way that allows contradictions to persist unchecked. And from those contradictions, as logic demonstrates, anything—anything—can be justified. That’s not zealotry; it’s a statement about the inherent instability of reasoning that isn’t grounded in evidence and falsifiability.

You accuse me of not standing back from my position, but I’d argue the reverse: you’re so intent on deflecting from the flaws of faith-based reasoning that you refuse to confront them directly. Address the issue: can reasoning built on unverifiable claims and contradictions ever meet the standards of intellectual trustworthiness? If the answer is no—and history strongly suggests it is—then we must question the role of faith-based reasoning in any discussion that demands intellectual integrity. Anything less is just an evasion.

[Atla]

Oh, where do I even begin with the sheer audacity of what’s happening here, in this very forum? A space supposedly dedicated to philosophical inquiry, critical thinking, and truth-seeking—yet what do we see? The same tired defenses of faith, the same evasions, the same refusal to grapple honestly with the damage religious orthodoxy has wrought on human progress. It’s as if the lessons of history—the suppression, the fear, the stifling of intellectual freedom—have been scrubbed from memory, dismissed as irrelevant, or worse, defended as virtuous.

Do you not feel even the slightest pang of shame when you consider the toll this orthodoxy has taken on our species? The sheer weight of lives lost, minds silenced, progress delayed? For centuries, brilliant thinkers and innovators lived in fear—fear of heresy, fear of death, fear of being burned alive for daring to say, “I think the world might work differently than you say it does.” Galileo? Silenced. Hypatia? Murdered. Bruno? Burned. And for what? To defend an orthodoxy that demanded submission over understanding.

The frustration is palpable. Imagine where we might be if these suppressive forces had not existed. Imagine if curiosity, observation, and evidence had been met with encouragement rather than execution. Instead of centuries spent fitting square truths into round theological holes, we might have leapt forward into the Enlightenment and beyond, unimpeded. The Industrial Revolution might have happened in the first millennium, not the eighteenth century. Germ theory might have been discovered in the Roman Empire. Entire centuries of suffering—of ignorance—could have been avoided.

And what’s worse, this harm isn’t in the past. It continues. Right here, in this forum, I see the same refusal to confront the reality of religion’s role in suppressing progress. The same deflections, the same excuses. Religion inspires literacy? Sure—for the purpose of reading scripture. Religion funds art and architecture? Yes—but only when it serves as propaganda for itself. Knowledge was always allowed to grow, but only in ways that conformed to dogma. Progress could exist, but only as long as it didn’t challenge power.

You, sitting here reading this—have you ever stopped to consider what you’re defending when you defend this orthodoxy? Do you even realize that by refusing to confront these truths, by clinging to the comforts of tradition or faith, you are part of the very forces that have held humanity back? That you are complicit in perpetuating the very mindset that led to centuries of stagnation, suffering, and ignorance?

This isn’t about scoring points in an argument. This is about the potential of humanity—potential that has been stolen, suppressed, erased, not by chance but by choice. By the choice to prioritize belief over evidence, dogma over discovery. Every day that we fail to challenge this orthodoxy, every day that we excuse or justify it, we are part of the problem.

So yes, feel ashamed. Feel deeply and profoundly ashamed. Because the harm isn’t abstract. It’s real. It’s measurable. And it’s happening now. For every moment spent defending what is indefensible, another mind is lost, another breakthrough delayed, another opportunity squandered. If that doesn’t disturb you, if that doesn’t haunt you, then you are part of the reason humanity isn’t where it could—and should—be.

That's why insight into determinism is probably no game changer either. Humanity was probably never destined for greatness. Unfortunately we are right where we "should" be.

(Unless we can gene-engineer smarter and more empathetic humans before the planet is blown up.)

[Alexis Jacobi]

We are talking at cross-purposes, Mike. My object is preservation of meaning & value even when they have come to us through pictures we no longer believe are actually representative.

You have a very obvious object as well but seem unaware of a range of problems closely associated with it.

A quote from Ortega y Gasset that influenced my own understanding.

"Professional noisemakers of every class will always prefer the anarchy of intoxication of the mystics to the clear and ordered intelligence of the priests, that is, of the Church. I regret at not being able to join them in this preference either. I am prevented by a matter of truthfulness. It is this: I think that any theology transmits to us much more of God, greater insights and ideas about divinity, than the combined ecstasies of all the mystics; because, instead of approaching the ecstatic skeptically, we must take the mystic at his word, accept what he brings us from his transcendental immersions, and then see if what he offers us is worth while. The truth is that, after we accompany him on his sublime voyage, what he succeeds in communicating to us is a thing of little consequence. I think that the European soul is approaching a new experience of God and new inquiries into that most important of all realities. I doubt very much, however, if the enrichment of our ideas about divine matters will emerge from the mystic's subterranean roads rather than from the luminous paths of discursive thought. Theology---not ecstasy!"

[attofishpi]

Oh! You mean compared to your implicit belief in the bible starting with Adam and Eve and finally by believing in Jesus you will save your soul and all who don't conform are doomed for hell?

Do you mean that kind of logic and rationality?

Just checking!

Very good Dubious..

I do like IC since he clearly loves the man that went to his death insisting we LOVE & TRUST each other, with what remains of HIS_STORY, all that can remain--> our FAITH in Him.

..however, I do feel IC maybe feels he is betraying some of that 'faith' if he decides to look at it - the Bible from a more realistic, logical, rational manner and is in fact forcing himself to be a 'good Christian' and believe it all literally.

Whatever beliefs people insist on believing is beyond anyone's ability to control. What remains is to default to the saying, to each his own.

To me Jesus comes across as an entity to be feared, not loved.

To a certain degree I only agree with the fear, that being the wrath of GOD. That is the attribute of GOD i'd recommend abstaining from.

To the part about not loving Je_SUS...i'd recommend U work on comprehending what that man did, and for Y

A god doesn't behave like a human extortionist demanding protection money

I think (in that statement) U R a victim of not seeing Christ for the churches.

..or he'll burn the place down. Take for example one of the greatest depictions of Christ in Western art, the Last Judgment by Michelangelo. This is more a depiction of an enraged tyrant than any god in one's ability to imagine.

..again, a man placing his interpretation via the CHURCHES B4 CHRIST.

In other words, what IS IT ACTUALLY....to be a simple Christian...me.

Christ's sayings too as rendered in the Bible, are mostly reiterations of what was already understood in that time. There is nothing novel about it when Jesus came around but to merely confirm it.

Oh shit, oh no don't tell me something was said prior to any wisdom Christ spoke (Y did GOD not block it )

I have no objection to the creation of a god as a messianic symbol of hope on an ecumenical scale leading into a future guided by the necessary insight to be the kind of entities who strive - though never fully achievable -

Fuck it, gonna say it - the dude states to me I am perfect. ya LMFAO ...fact is, i got form.

toward a consummation of human potential; in effect, that we, among the other scribes sure to also exist in the cosmos, do not remain untold; but that requires a sophistication beyond our ability to express.

Most unfortunately, humans remain as pathetic as ever in the creation of their gods but most of all, in their behaviour toward the planet which created humans and every other living thing which ever walked, crawled or lived in its oceans.

..sad isn't it. Yet when I walk my dog every morning I am still even perplexed by a leaf in a gum tree. More to the point, that I want to understand the underlying logic that this leaf plays within the DNA of that tree, the chemistry, the physics...but we as a human don't normally have the time to learn such matters of matter...by the time a natural human life passes - on average. Unless we become SAGES.

What can one say! The fate of a garbage species is to eventually get anonymously dumped into a cosmic landfill...a story that could have been told as a success story but prevented themselves from telling.

..and therein lies the ultimate lie. The place where dreams die into a piece of pooo (no vision, no hope - ATHEISM)

[BigMike]

That's why insight into determinism is probably no game changer either. Humanity was probably never destined for greatness. Unfortunately we are right where we "should" be.

(Unless we can gene-engineer smarter and more empathetic humans before the planet is blown up.)

Atla, your response, though resigned and disillusioned, deserves a deeper reflection. If humanity was never destined for greatness, as you suggest, then determinism doesn’t just strip away the illusion of free will—it also strips away any excuse for complacency. Whether or not we were "destined" for anything, we are still part of the causal chain that determines what happens next. Insight into determinism might not be a game-changer in and of itself, but the actions that insight inspires could be.

The notion that we’re "right where we should be" is a comforting surrender, an abdication of responsibility to forces we ostensibly cannot control. But here’s the thing: determinism doesn’t absolve us of the need to act—it demands it. Every breakthrough, every advancement, every moment of human progress came about because someone, somewhere, added a new variable into the chain. Understanding determinism doesn’t mean throwing up our hands and accepting stagnation; it means recognizing our role in shaping the next link in the chain, however small it might seem.

You mention gene-engineering smarter, more empathetic humans as a potential escape route, and you’re not wrong that technology could be a path forward. But technology is not a savior—it’s a tool. Without the will to use it wisely, without the vision to guide its development, it’s just another toy for humanity to misuse. That will and that vision come from us—from the minds willing to confront the uncomfortable truths about where we’ve been and where we are now.

Resignation to humanity’s supposed mediocrity is no better than defending the dogmas that have held us back. Both perspectives leave us trapped in the same cycle of inaction and missed potential. The insight determinism offers isn’t just about understanding why things are the way they are—it’s about realizing that, even in the absence of free will, change is possible. Progress is possible. But only if we refuse to let history’s failures define our future. That, Atla, is where greatness could still lie—not in destiny, but in determination.