You put into very readable language what I have felt to be true for some time. What I appreciate about your comment also is you mention the necessity to unders

You put into very readable language what I have felt to be true for some time. What I appreciate about your comment also is you mention the necessity to understand their presuppositions and reason that way (at least sometimes). I feel like the issue with many discourses going on right now is a lack of good faith understanding of the other "sides" presuppositions. And yet, it can be so painful for someone to even pretend they can identify with the following belief for example this belief > So if science leads you to the conclusion that life has no transcendent purpose (and it does) then, on their world-view, science must be wrong, full stop The much easier tact for lets say a standard pro-science metropolitan is to decide the YEC-er person actually knows what is "true" (e.g. what the metropolitan thinks is obvious) but is actively choosing to do wrong. Then you can refute their point as purposely provoking _and_ also put them in the "bad people" box with one little mental facade. I'm not trying to build a purposely weak example of either group, I think all humans have a simplifying mechanism when it comes to viewpoints/ideas and that we need that to survive in some sense- and that we do it all the time probably in benign ways. But acknowledging what other people believe is a great skill to build I think.