[fortytwo79]

This kind of condescension towards religion is so close-minded, and it's incredibly tiring. I think you'd be surprised just how much the faithful appreciate and embrace science, and how much philosophical thinking about reality and existence we actually do. Adult religiousness is not the same as the cartoon version that children are introduced to, that so many atheists use to attack. The lazy, unintellectual thing to do is to base all your understanding of reality only on what science can describe, and to never explore beyond what can be proven as a "fact." Your statement about explaining away facts paints the faithful as simple-minded rubes, which is a cheap shot and is absent any understanding of how the religious actually view the world.

[dqpb]

> This kind of condescension towards religion is so close-minded, and it's incredibly tiring.

I live in the US, God Bless America, where religion is shoved in your face over and over again from childhood to adulthood (it’s incredibly tiring).

I’m intimately aware of the philosophies and mental capabilities of “the faithful”. Religion has earned every ounce of condescension that it receives.

> The lazy, unintellectual thing to do is to base all your understanding of reality only on what science can describe, and to never explore beyond what can be proven as a "fact."

Science is exploration. Religion is not.

[fortytwo79]

And yet, you shut down the possibility of religion without any degree of exploration.

I don't need you to be religious. I understand annoyance with the fact that the culture you're in is pushing something you don't agree with (I experience that as well on other topics). What I take issue with is the attitude that religion deserves condescension and vitriol, simply because you don't subscribe to it, or because you find it annoying. I see no recognition that faith and logic aren't mutually exclusive.

Don't have religion - that's fine. But don't pretend to understand (and then trivialize) any religious tenet, if you're unwilling to fairly explore it.

> Science is exploration. Religion is not.

You're conflating religiousness with dogma. Dogma, by definition, is belief without exploration. Religion, however, invites endless exploration.

[dqpb]

> And yet, you shut down the possibility of religion without any degree of exploration.

You are both a reader and a writer of fiction!