> until something happens to you that pulls your perspective, your personal perspective, so far out of line with your current beliefs, you will never believe
I would argue that these are the circumstances under which it is most important to push back against claims that are manifestly, self-evidently false according to basic empirical criteria.
> ...manifestly, self-evidently false according to basic empirical criteria.
Which is fine, as far as it goes. I think there's an argument to be made against Scientism, however, where people are rejecting notions that aren't "manifestly, self-evidently false", but instead aren't even falsifiable. How does that make sense? How can someone take that position, and still consider themselves rational?
Some of the greatest names in the history of science were also mystics. (I'm not talking about Newton being an alchemist and drinking mercury; I'm talking about the likes of Bohm, Einstein, Schrödinger, &c.) We've, instead, decided to repudiate that kind of thinking, and I think that costs us, dearly. The number of scientists of faith, who do perfectly legitimate science but have to hide their beliefs, is staggering, and, frankly, offensive. We have failed if that's how we want to play.
Yes, defending the credulous from the predatory, a stated motivation of so many anti-religionists, is a valuable thing. It should be lauded. So very, very many of the anti-religionists I've met are profoundly smug about their beliefs, though. That's not valuable. That serves no-one. That is actively harmful.
Anything that creates a narrative where you're somehow "better than" the people around you, is mental garbage. It's an ego trap. It should be shouted down far more loudly than whether or not people believe in an invisible man in the sky who watches them masturbate, if that belief is not subsequently used to disenfranchise and dehumanize others — not least because that very "better than"-ness is the root of how we disenfranchise and dehumanize one another.
Hard atheists are often among the most vocally, militantly, confrontationally proselytizing people I've ever seen. The irony is really ugly.
Do you really think we know all of the forces at work, that we can perceive them or detect them with the tools we have?
Its rather arrogant to think that we know even "most" of how the universe works, let alone all of it... and if you can admit that we know very little overall, then the empirical data we do have has a lot less weight...
I would argue that these are the circumstances under which it is most important to push back against claims that are manifestly, self-evidently false according to basic empirical criteria.