Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[Atla]

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.

Empty wishful thinking, humans are mediocre and already capped out. The reality is that enough change is not possible, unless we gene engineer a superior human species that won't exterminate itself in the near future. But this too would probably take too much time.

(Or an alien species saves us from ourselves, or some other kind of big miracle happens. Wouldn't count on these.)

[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.

Empty wishful thinking, humans are mediocre and already capped out. The reality is that enough change is not possible, unless we gene engineer a superior human species that won't exterminate itself in the near future. But this too would probably take too much time.

(Or an alien species saves us from ourselves, or some other kind of big miracle happens. Wouldn't count on these.)

Atla, your pessimism is understandable but not insurmountable. Let’s start with one undeniable truth: between you, me, and any other person alive, there are only six degrees of separation. That means getting through to just a few—those who are willing to listen, reflect, and act—has the potential to ripple outward and influence the world far more quickly than you might imagine.

You argue that humanity is capped out, that we’re mediocre and doomed unless some grand external force intervenes. But consider this: the course of human history has been shaped by individuals who refused to accept such inevitability. Revolutions in thought, science, and society didn’t arise from the masses suddenly awakening—they came from a small number of determined individuals who introduced ideas that sparked change. Those ideas spread because humans are inherently connected, and influence travels through these connections faster than we often realize.

You may dismiss this as "wishful thinking," but it’s rooted in reality. Social networks—both literal and metaphorical—are the conduits through which ideas and actions propagate. Every person reached represents a node in that network, a link to countless others. If even a handful of people internalize a vision for something better, if they act as catalysts for change, the effects can cascade in ways that are difficult to predict but undeniably powerful.

Gene engineering, alien intervention, or miraculous events might sound like the only solutions to you, but they miss the power of collective, incremental action. Change doesn’t have to be immediate or all-encompassing to matter. Progress is cumulative, and while it may seem slow or insufficient in the moment, it builds over time. Each conversation, each shared idea, each small victory adds to that momentum.

You say humanity is mediocre, but mediocrity isn’t a death sentence. It’s a challenge. And determinism—far from being an excuse to give up—reminds us that our actions, no matter how small, are part of the causal chain that shapes the future. If you dismiss the potential for meaningful change, you’re not just resigning yourself to mediocrity—you’re contributing to it.

So, no, I don’t accept that change is impossible or that humanity is doomed to stagnation. The connections between us, the ripple effects of even the smallest actions, and the persistence of those who refuse to give up on progress are proof that we’re not as powerless as you might think. It’s not about miracles or saviors—it’s about recognizing the power inherent in our interconnectedness and using it to nudge the world forward, one degree of separation at a time.

[Dubious]

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)

People will believe what suits them to believe, that is, whatever makes them comfortable. That hasn't changed since the bible was written or Christianity was invented. It's a choice one makes while one lives...and that's all I got to say on the matter because there really isn't much more to say; certainly not on this site. Dream all you want, it's the reality which rules, the upshot of which lies in the future and has nothing to do with atheism!

[Atla]

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.

Empty wishful thinking, humans are mediocre and already capped out. The reality is that enough change is not possible, unless we gene engineer a superior human species that won't exterminate itself in the near future. But this too would probably take too much time.

(Or an alien species saves us from ourselves, or some other kind of big miracle happens. Wouldn't count on these.)

Atla, your pessimism is understandable but not insurmountable. Let’s start with one undeniable truth: between you, me, and any other person alive, there are only six degrees of separation. That means getting through to just a few—those who are willing to listen, reflect, and act—has the potential to ripple outward and influence the world far more quickly than you might imagine.

You argue that humanity is capped out, that we’re mediocre and doomed unless some grand external force intervenes. But consider this: the course of human history has been shaped by individuals who refused to accept such inevitability. Revolutions in thought, science, and society didn’t arise from the masses suddenly awakening—they came from a small number of determined individuals who introduced ideas that sparked change. Those ideas spread because humans are inherently connected, and influence travels through these connections faster than we often realize.

You may dismiss this as "wishful thinking," but it’s rooted in reality. Social networks—both literal and metaphorical—are the conduits through which ideas and actions propagate. Every person reached represents a node in that network, a link to countless others. If even a handful of people internalize a vision for something better, if they act as catalysts for change, the effects can cascade in ways that are difficult to predict but undeniably powerful.

Gene engineering, alien intervention, or miraculous events might sound like the only solutions to you, but they miss the power of collective, incremental action. Change doesn’t have to be immediate or all-encompassing to matter. Progress is cumulative, and while it may seem slow or insufficient in the moment, it builds over time. Each conversation, each shared idea, each small victory adds to that momentum.

You say humanity is mediocre, but mediocrity isn’t a death sentence. It’s a challenge. And determinism—far from being an excuse to give up—reminds us that our actions, no matter how small, are part of the causal chain that shapes the future. If you dismiss the potential for meaningful change, you’re not just resigning yourself to mediocrity—you’re contributing to it.

So, no, I don’t accept that change is impossible or that humanity is doomed to stagnation. The connections between us, the ripple effects of even the smallest actions, and the persistence of those who refuse to give up on progress are proof that we’re not as powerless as you might think. It’s not about miracles or saviors—it’s about recognizing the power inherent in our interconnectedness and using it to nudge the world forward, one degree of separation at a time.

Irrelevant in the age of WMDs and environmental collapse. It's only a matter of time. I'm not pessimistic, I'm simply a realist. That's what determinism tells us: unless we change human nature, it will be our undoing, and quite possibly fairly soon.

[attofishpi]

People will believe what suits them to believe, that is, whatever makes them comfortable. That hasn't changed since the bible was written or Christianity was invented. It's a choice one makes while one lives...and that's all I got to say on the matter because there really isn't much more to say.

...this is rather peculiar Dubious.

I'm in a rather strange spot in my point in time & space, and as you know I've always respected you and your atheism. (btw 7am after a big night)

...well anyway, I've spent tonight drinking Peroni *a lovely Italian lager....nonetheless, contemplating the fact that I have many sore parts of my body since yet again, having to deal with a group of stupid people.

But anyway, I want to embarrass you by stating that I love you. (ok, the reason was not to embarrass you or me, but I am very good at smacking the crap out of people's feelings, especially at this time of stupid season - ya know, where the man I love more than NE did wot he did, for a reason u should by now comprehend, even if u don't believe it happened. Je_sus CHRIST


Honestly mate, I came home - got a very sore ankle after feeling the need to throw some idiot in front of a moving truck.. I wonder sometimes, wot world is this life of Brian in - to deserve such ....woteva - I HATE GOD with these moments..BECAUSE...I know GOD (and I wonder Y it permitted this)

Does this entity truly want me to keep away from ALL of my ol' friends? - woteva

I did tear up tho, thinking of you (my FAVOURITE atheist) ---fuk nose Y I find U so intriguing as an inquisitive atheist.


I love u doood, have a good Christmas.

[attofishpi]

Dubious, just so we (i) don't need to feel any embarrassment ..this was the song I was listening to where tears poured down my cheeks

Underworld
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcPbfZ1apSc


..ya fuk nose Y

[seeds]

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...?

Hmm, let me think about that for a moment...



Nah,...never.

Can the Religious Be Trusted?

It's not that I don't understand and agree with your noble intentions in wanting to help humanity to rise above the conflict-inducing mythological nonsense handed down to us in the form of the incompatible world religions.

However, let me pose to you the same questions that I pose to all those who try to rid the world of religious (spiritual/supernatural) beliefs.

Pretend that you have been completely successful in convincing billions of humans to give up the religious beliefs that, for the most part, bring them hope, solace, and comfort in life,...

...and then tell us what it is you have to offer as a replacement for those beliefs that will, in turn, have a similar utility and psychological effect?

For example, what words of comfort and solace does your materialistic theory have to offer to grieving parents who just lost their young child to an accident or disease?



Or, what does the theory of determinism suggest that a heartbroken father should say to his terminally ill (and terrified) young daughter...



...who asks him: "Daddy, what's going to happen to me when I die?"

Should he be brutally honest and inform her of the cold and harsh truth of the eternal oblivion implicit in determinism?

And lastly, what specific words or vital aspect of the philosophy of determinism would be useful for this little girl...



...to recall in the few remaining moments of her life before the vulture comes in to devour her flesh?

Come on, BigMike, if you want to eradicate religious beliefs and the "glimmer of hope" they provide that there might be more to life than what meets the eye,...

...then how about you give us the best and most memorable lines from your materialistic philosophy that will help humans endure the darkest hours of their finite moments of life.

The point is that if you just employ a little bit of critical reasoning based on the above scenarios, then I think you'll find that belief in some sort of afterlife...

(even if it's a lie, or a "necessary hypothesis" as per Kantianism)

...is a vital aspect of humanity's overall wellbeing.

We just need to come up with a more logical vision of the afterlife, one that even a hardcore determinist might tentatively agree with.
_______

[BigMike]

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...?

Hmm, let me think about that for a moment...



Nah,...never.

Can the Religious Be Trusted?

It's not that I don't understand and agree with your noble intentions in wanting to help humanity to rise above the conflict-inducing mythological nonsense handed down to us in the form of the incompatible world religions.

However, let me pose to you the same questions that I pose to all those who try to rid the world of religious (spiritual/supernatural) beliefs.

Pretend that you have been completely successful in convincing billions of humans to give up the religious beliefs that, for the most part, bring them hope, solace, and comfort in life,...

...and then tell us what it is you have to offer as a replacement for those beliefs that will, in turn, have a similar utility and psychological effect?

For example, what words of comfort and solace does your materialistic theory have to offer to grieving parents who just lost their young child to an accident or disease?



Or, what does the theory of determinism suggest that a heartbroken father should say to his terminally ill (and terrified) young daughter...



...who asks him: "Daddy, what's going to happen to me when I die?"

Should he be brutally honest and inform her of the cold and harsh truth of the eternal oblivion implicit in determinism?

And lastly, what specific words or vital aspect of the philosophy of determinism would be useful for this little girl...



...to recall in the few remaining moments of her life before the vulture comes in to devour her flesh?

Come on, BigMike, if you want to eradicate religious beliefs and the "glimmer of hope" they provide that there might be more to life than what meets the eye,...

...then how about you give us the best and most memorable lines from your materialistic philosophy that will help humans endure the darkest hours of their finite moments of life.

The point is that if you just employ a little bit of critical reasoning based on the above scenarios, then I think you'll find that belief in some sort of afterlife...

(even if it's a lie, or a "necessary hypothesis" as per Kantianism)

...is a vital aspect of humanity's overall wellbeing.

We just need to come up with a more logical vision of the afterlife, one that even a hardcore determinist might tentatively agree with.
_______

Seeds, your response touches on an undeniable truth about human nature: we seek comfort in the face of suffering and the unknown, and religion has long served that purpose for many. But let’s be clear about what’s at stake here. The question isn’t about taking away comfort or hope—it’s about whether we can base those vital aspects of human wellbeing on something truthful rather than on contradictions or unverifiable claims.

You ask what materialism or determinism can offer grieving parents, a dying child, or a suffering individual facing unimaginable circumstances. These are deeply human, deeply painful situations, and no philosophy—religious or otherwise—can erase that pain. What we can offer, however, is an honest, compassionate, and shared acknowledgment of reality, paired with a focus on what truly matters: the connections we forge, the love we share, and the meaning we create together in the limited time we have.

To the grieving parents: we offer the recognition that their child’s life, however brief, was meaningful in ways that transcend theology. We celebrate the joy their child brought, the impact they had, and the ripples of their existence that will carry on in the lives they touched. Grief does not require falsehoods to heal; it requires time, understanding, and support.

To the terrified child facing death: we offer presence, love, and the assurance that they are not alone. Determinism doesn’t demand brutal honesty in the face of terror—it calls for compassion. A parent can hold their child and speak of the love that surrounds them, the peace that will follow, and the beauty of their courage and strength.

To the starving girl in the image of unbearable suffering: we don’t offer empty promises about an afterlife. Instead, we work to create a world where such suffering doesn’t exist. The very fact that this image horrifies us is proof that we can and should act to prevent such tragedies. The determinist response isn’t to focus on comforting lies but to change the conditions that create this suffering in the first place.

You argue that belief in an afterlife, even if false, has utility. Perhaps it does for some. But does that utility justify perpetuating ideas that so often lead to harm, exclusion, and conflict? The comfort of belief comes at a cost: the suppression of truth, the denial of responsibility, and the perpetuation of systems that hinder progress and understanding.

What determinism offers isn’t easy or comforting in the traditional sense, but it’s grounded in the one thing that unites us all: the reality of our shared humanity. It reminds us that every action we take matters because it shapes the world we leave behind. It calls us to focus on what we can do here and now, to build a legacy of love, compassion, and progress—not because of some promise of eternity, but because it’s the right thing to do.

And as for a “more logical vision of the afterlife,” perhaps we don’t need one at all. Perhaps the meaning of life isn’t found in what comes next, but in how fully and authentically we live the lives we have. If that’s not enough, then maybe the real question isn’t about materialism or determinism—it’s about why we struggle to see the beauty and worth in the finite moments that make up our existence.

[Alexiev]

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.

You appear to have tunnel vision, Mike. There are many ways of approaching the truth -- reason and logic are two, but they are not the only ones. You might equally ask, "Can novelists and poets be trusted?" What's wrong with subjective values? Aren't "values" by their nature subjective instead of objective.

YOu might as well argue that the best way to understand physics is by studying physics. Who would argue? But is physics (and the material world) the only thing worth studying? What about aesthetics, or metaphysics or ethics? Perhaps poets -- subjective though they may be -- are more enlightening discussing beauty, or love, or courage than physicists. And what do we care about in this world? The revolution of the planets, or our love for our spouses and children? I'd trust Francis of Assisi to be more enlightening in these areas than Isaac Newton. Wouldn't you?

By the way, your constant harangues about how I am not addressing your question are annoying. I'll write my posts, you may write yours. Controlling the debate is a debaters trick, and not a particularly cunning one.

[BigMike]

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.

You appear to have tunnel vision, Mike. There are many ways of approaching the truth -- reason and logic are two, but they are not the only ones. You might equally ask, "Can novelists and poets be trusted?" What's wrong with subjective values? Aren't "values" by their nature subjective instead of objective.

YOu might as well argue that the best way to understand physics is by studying physics. Who would argue? But is physics (and the material world) the only thing worth studying? What about aesthetics, or metaphysics or ethics? Perhaps poets -- subjective though they may be -- are more enlightening discussing beauty, or love, or courage than physicists. And what do we care about in this world? The revolution of the planets, or our love for our spouses and children? I'd trust Francis of Assisi to be more enlightening in these areas than Isaac Newton. Wouldn't you?

By the way, your constant harangues about how I am not addressing your question are annoying. I'll write my posts, you may write yours. Controlling the debate is a debaters trick, and not a particularly cunning one.

Alexiev, your response has a certain charm, but it evades the key issue. Once again, we’re cycling back into abstractions and distractions instead of addressing the central question. You accuse me of tunnel vision, but let’s be honest—you and others here keep dragging us off-topic by mischaracterizing my argument or turning this into yet another round of "let’s question determinism" or "let’s talk about the value of myths." It’s exhausting.

I’m not saying subjective values don’t matter. Of course, love, beauty, and courage are meaningful. But those are emotional experiences, not epistemological claims. The question isn’t about whether poets or novelists can convey beauty or whether Francis of Assisi can inspire. It’s about trust in reasoning—reasoning that guides beliefs, decisions, and claims about reality. If someone’s reasoning process prioritizes belief over evidence or shields itself from scrutiny, then it cannot be trusted to reliably guide intellectual inquiry or decisions that affect others. That’s the point.

You accuse me of trying to control the debate. Let me be clear: I’m not trying to control anything; I’m trying to get back to the actual topic instead of rehashing the same tangential arguments. You’re free to write your posts, as am I. But when you continuously avoid engaging with the core question by pivoting to unrelated points, I will call it out. That’s not a "debater’s trick"—it’s an attempt to keep the discussion meaningful and focused.

So, let’s set the record straight. I’m not here to deny the value of subjective experiences or to claim that science is the only lens through which we should view the world. But when it comes to evaluating whether reasoning rooted in faith and contradictions can be trusted in intellectual or decision-making contexts, the answer is no. Faith-based reasoning, by its nature, evades accountability to evidence and scrutiny, and that’s a dealbreaker when trust and truth are on the line.

Now, can we finally move on and discuss the topic without spinning in the same repetitive circles? If not, it’s not me who has the tunnel vision—it’s the collective refusal to engage with the actual question. Let’s stop the endless deflections and address the matter at hand. Or is that too much to ask?

[seeds]

To the terrified child facing death: we offer presence, love, and the assurance that they are not alone. Determinism doesn’t demand brutal honesty in the face of terror—it calls for compassion. A parent can hold their child and speak of the love that surrounds them, the peace that will follow, and the beauty of their courage and strength.

Pretend that you are the little girl's father.

She asked you a specific and unambiguous question:

"...Daddy, what's going to happen to me when I die?..."

She is absolutely terrified at the thought of dying in the next day or so, and no amount of hugging and avoiding answering her direct question is going to diminish her fear.

In which case, are you so utterly unyielding in your rigid belief in determinism that you (at the very least) couldn't just say...

"...Sweetie, I don't know. No one knows for sure..."

...???

Which, in fact, is the actual truth, for crying out loud, despite your bullheadedness in denying that fact.

Or even better yet, to truly help comfort your little girl, why in the world couldn't you simply say...

"...You are going to awaken into a more beautiful world, and that mommy and daddy will soon be joining you there. It's going to be wonderful..."

...???

I mean, for goodness' sake, man, it's not like after she actually dies in, say, two days from the moment of that comforting conversation, that she's going to be in a position to accuse you of lying to her. For, according to your take on determinism, her life and consciousness will have blinked out of existence - forever.

Come on, my articulate friend, you need to rejoin scarecrow and the cowardly lion in the search for that special item ❤ you are missing.
_______

[iambiguous]

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.

Just for the record...

"Determinism: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions." dictionary.com

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable."
wiki

And with any number of religious denomination there's the part that revolves around assumptions that a God, the God, my God is omniscient. And how is that not yet another manifestation of determinism?

[henry quirk]

Here’s the brutal truth: 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.

Mike, no rock, rolling downhill, has ever persuaded another rock, rolling downhill, to change direction, stop, or roll uphill.

-----

Mike, you're nonreligious and I wouldn't trust you to take out my garbage.

How's that for an answer?

[BigMike]

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.

Just for the record...

"Determinism: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions." dictionary.com

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable."
wiki

And with any number of religious denomination there's the part that revolves around assumptions that a God, the God, my God is omniscient. And how is that not yet another manifestation of determinism?

If you’re pointing out that an omniscient God implies determinism, you’re absolutely right. But here’s the irony: many religious individuals simultaneously cling to the belief in free will and moral responsibility while asserting God’s omniscience—a glaring contradiction. It’s precisely this kind of doublethink that makes their reasoning untrustworthy in intellectual discussions. You can’t have it both ways.

[BigMike]

Here’s the brutal truth: 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.

Mike, no rock, rolling downhill, has ever persuaded another rock, rolling downhill, to change direction, stop, or roll uphill.

-----

Mike, you're nonreligious and I wouldn't trust you to take out my garbage.

How's that for an answer?

Henry, your response is colorful, I’ll give you that. But you’re still dodging the point. Rocks rolling downhill don’t write philosophy, debate ideas, or contemplate trustworthiness—because they don’t have brains, neural networks, or the capacity for learning and reasoning. Humans, as deterministic systems, do. That’s the critical difference you keep overlooking.

And as for trusting me to take out your garbage? I’m not asking for your trust in menial tasks—I’m asking for intellectual honesty when discussing whether faith-based reasoning can reliably lead to truth. If you’re not interested in engaging with that question, your quip about garbage is as irrelevant as it is dismissive.