>>18040542
Science kills faith because it slowly robs the world of the conditions where belief could even make sense. Once you start seeing the universe not as a stage for divine providence but as a system of impersonal forces and mathematical regularities the old framework collapses. The Christian promise of a purposeful cosmos overseen by a personal God gets hollowed out until it's just poetry without substance. What's left is this mechanistic machine-world indifferent to our existence where "meaning" is no longer baked into the structure of reality. That's why atheism and nihilism inevitably grow in the soil of scientific rationalism, it strips away the illusions that kept people anchored in hope. Nietzsche saw it clearly, the same devotion to truth that Christianity demanded ends up killing Christianity because science takes that demand to its logical conclusion. And when you stand in that stripped-down landscape you don't find God, you find a void. The more science advances the wider that void becomes until faith looks less like a foundation and more like a coping mechanism that can't survive its own children.

>>18040545
>meaning is no longer baked into the structure of reality
There's room for purposes in your own life and this is part of realit, just not one we can surely assign to the destiny of existence in general.

>>18040542
>all the philosophical arguments have been debunked
>"who created the uncreated first mover?"

>>18040560
...that's what nihilism means. Life's meaning is what you make of it yourself. Not an intrinsic ontological property of human life. The purpose of life isn't to seek God or follow Jesus or transcend Samsara, life just exists.

>>18040578
>that's what nihilism means. Life's meaning is what you make of it yourself
That's not what nihilism means. Nihilism (or at least nihilism regarding meaning) claims that meaning does not exist, full stop. Not even self-made meaning.

>>18040578
>Life's meaning is what you make of it yourself
That's existentialism and not what my statement implies. Shared meaning is consensus drive and primarily unconscious

>>18040542
>>18040545
Isn't it weird how religion and science can't coexist? They should be completely different strata, yet they fight for dominance. They must be offering the same thing. Not contact with the divine, and not any scientific breakthrough, but competing visions of the world. All responses to the essential problem of predicting the future, the best outcome for you and yours. One set of circumstances call for science and another religion, that's why we don't ban either one.

More to the point, God exists. Religion is a path to the truth by and for humans. It's the imperial system to science's empirical metric. Religious thought easily communicates concepts that take extreme mental gymnastics for the secularist. One of these is the divine.

Scholars and intellectuals know their place in the universe (think dunning-krueger graph) and feel the vast loom of human history around us, guiding every step. The deterministic past that knows all futures, and the indecipherable portion left to every man. They feel the great love and all other emotions that hold us, and made us. They talk to the great mind that frustrates and humbles. Every word is linked to a humanity so much greater than the self, the more you learn the crazier it gets.

Or you could just believe in biblical God. Even though this is a system designed to educate the ignorant, leading to fights over the length of Noah's Ark, religion deals with a lot of correct and high-level philosophical ideas, and it doesn't require you to have a stem degree. You do have one, right? As a "science worshipper" you should get one or go back to the church.

>>18040542
>>18040545
Religion isn't really about evidence. Faith is a feeling. Most people convert through personal experience not rational justifications. Every reply below this is made by a homosexual.