We do not have a religious faith problem we have a scientific reality problem if one would accept scientific realism over religious faith’s antirealism there would be no religious faith problem.

Some may wonder how philosophy helps anything. To answer this we must recognize what is unique about philosophy and not just in how it is an aid in expressing oneself with precision or helping one in learning to think critically, rationally, or skeptically. Neither is it to write books and articles beyond the understanding of the general public or research philosophers publish just for one another. Rather philosophy’s value harkens to its historical mission who is not merely to find the truth, but to use the truth to improve the quality of human life. Philosophy cannot be allowed to be thought as unscientific or irrelevant because A to Z philosophy is involved in (almost) EVERYTHING and has the potential to change the very fabric of who they are as human beings. Philosophy was originally meant to change lives and it can and should be that way again today since everything under the sun is relatively a subject for philosophy. Therefore, philosophy to the rescue means we can assert the truth that truth is always open to future correction. Truth is not a limited commodity but can be understood by approximations, warrants, conjectures, or levels of certainty. Understanding then requires critical reflection. It is valuable to be reasonable and have an inquiring mind. Thus, it is rational to have reasonable skepticism as well. More specifically, scientific skepticism which is to point out that whatever way the knowledge of anything is justified is open to evaluation, assessment, appraisal, analysis, judgment, or criticism. Thus, what is to be referred to then should be classified as reasonable doubt which as a useful reflective appraisal, we do need to have a reasonable amount of support, warrant, and justification for beliefs and assertions of truth or knowledge like asking the: who, what, where, when, why, and how of information being offered. These reasonable doubt questions could be as follows:

“Who said you can trust that?”

“What do you have to support that?”

“Where did that information come from?”

“When was that written and by whom?

“Why do you trust that?”

“How do you know that?”

Can you recognize a flawed argument when you hear one? We can be prone to thinking errors for a variety of reasons. Thus, incapable of grasping that is beyond our understanding by lack of information, limitation, or basis so that we are constantly susceptible to unnecessary small critical thinking missteps all the way to unwarranted denialism or dogmatism. Accepting reality as it is or as I propose it to be naturalistic, scientific, realistic, and godless seems to be challenged quite often by those who I see to be experiencing unwarranted denialism or dogmatism because they see the naturalistic, scientific, and godless alternative as undermining traditional values or mystic wisdom. This unwarranted denialism or dogmatism is often found connected to many forms of pseudoscience, anti-science, superstitious, folklore, theological, or religious thinking which actually connects to worldviews of antirealism, idealism, supernaturalism, etc.