> Its not like the field of theology is doing any better at it. As a comprehensive whole, even as somewhat of a supporter, the results seem unimpressive to me.

> Its not like the field of theology is doing any better at it. As a comprehensive whole, even as somewhat of a supporter, the results seem unimpressive to me. But then this overlooks at least two things: - we do not have access to an accurate counterfactual reality machine, thus we ~~must~~ speculate (note: the ~~ ~~ is intended to cross out the enclosed word, as supported on Reddit) - there may be substantial unrealized value within subsets of theology (I'm a big proponent of Taoism, but then I'm surely biased (which is not necessarily synonymous with incorrect)) > We’ve tried sending thoughts and prayers at every single peoples we face, but it just doesn’t seem to work. See the "accurate counterfactual reality machine" comment above. Two questions: - is this intended as an accurate representation of theology? If not, what is it intended as? - it seems to me that: delusion is a substantial contributor to causality, most of human communication (some exceptions exist) is at least partially delusional (in a technical sense of the word, not pejorative), and arguably causality is the most important known phenomenon - from my frame of reference, science seems to have very little serious interest or knowledge about either (delusion and causality), yet despite this seems to have somehow ascended to the throne of the de facto superior metaphysical framework for discovery of reality. Is it just me, or does something seem "off" about this state of affairs? inb4: popular and persuasive thought terminating cliches/memes.