[thisoneisreal]

You didn't ask me, but I can respond as someone with a similar background. I grew up in a religious household. I spent about a decade from ages 18-28 studying philosophy both academically and casually, then entered a technical field and got reaquainted with science.

Many philosophical problems informed my view of religion, but probably the most profound were Carl Sagan's invisible dragon and the problem that there are so many differing and incompatible religions. Many religious people will freely admit their beliefs have no evidence, and yet from my point of view, if that's true, how can anyone claim their particular religion is correct? Why should I believe in Hinduism instead of Catholicism? I never got a satisfactory answer to that in any of my philosophy classes or reading. (The problem of evil is another strong one, but didn't have as big of an impact on me as the first two.)

As far as science goes, the two main contributors to that were biology and physics (although there are some countervailing forces there: the order of the universe truly does seem miraculous). Jay Gould's essay "non-moral nature" where he describes parasites that lay their eggs on paralyzed victims, then the eggs hatch and the larvae eat the victims alive, was probably the first thing I read that had bearing on religion. But if you look at nature generally there is obviously an overwhelming amount of suffering. Kids who die from random genetic mutations, animals that get eaten alive crying. I could never square any of that with God.

As far as physics, what really gets me is the sheer immensity and seeming indifference to human scales. Because of the speed of light, we are basically trapped within our own universe. Space is mostly an enormous empty void, and there is no sign that any other planet would be especially hospitable to our species. On a more mundane level, human beings have been killed in incredibly stupid ways, like the guy who was irradiated to death because of a software bug in the x-ray machine. So you put all of that together and it just doesn't suggest any sort of divine guidance to everything going on around us. (Which isn't to say there aren't counterarguments, but that's the sort of evidence and thought processes I imagine the parent was referring to.)

[seec]

Not the person who asked either but I appreciate the effort.

My sentiment is very similar.

To the science part I will add that, at least, it has some explanatory power that is useful. It's finding checks out and makes many areas of our life better and more confortable. No religion can come close to the benefits of science, especially when you consider that humanity was actually doing science before it was even called that (in a cruder way but nonetheless).

Religion is systematically about imposing the morals and superiority of one group upon the others while offering very little in return. It has been the justification for plenty of domination and suffering and that alone should tell you that something is wrong.

If God existed, he would have killed the religious zealots creating the suffering or at the very least prevented their actions.

[BalinKing]

Thanks for the thoughtful response!

Not necessarily trying to debate or anything—clearly you've put a lot of intellectual effort into this over the years already—but I find one point you made particularly interesting. (Disclaimer: I am a Christian.) Namely, that "religious people will freely admit their beliefs have no evidence." There are some (many?) religions where this is the case, but I honestly don't think Christianity is one of them—the Bible puts a strong emphasis on evidence. For example:

- The gospels themselves are composed of three primary sources as well as a secondary source.

- Jesus made specific prophetic claims (famously, the destruction of the Second Temple in Mark 13:2, or that he would be crucified in Matthew 20:18-19).

- 1 Corinthians 15:6 references more than five hundred eyewitnesses, most of whom were claimed to be still living.

- Acts 17:17 describes Paul as "reasoning" with secular Greek philosophers (instead of merely, say, "moralizing" or "persuading"), although I suppose these discussions may have been more philosophical than empirical given the Greeks' philosophical bent.

- The gospels claim that even the Pharisees did not deny Jesus' miracles, but merely attributed them to malign influence (Mark 3:22) or just decided to kill him (Matthew 12:14).

- Jesus' parable in Luke 16:19–31 implies that for some people, getting more evidence will not actually change their minds, regardless of how persuasive it would be.

Of course one could (and should) argue that an emphasis on historicity is not itself evidence; but I just wanted to point out that Christianity is not one of the religions where you just have to believe blindly. On the contrary, the Bible presents unbelief in the face of evidence as a main obstacle between us and God (cf. Romans 1:18–20).