those pesky questions. There will be no reliably way of verifying the truth or falsity of those 'goddidits'. As a technique for answering questions, 'goddidits' are useless, they answer nothing. But what if one has either an experience, or tends to a natural bias in belief? Oh... deny the self you would say. You should probably look to psychology before making use of 'goddidits'. The major problem with articles such as this is not that it fails to understand science, but that it fails to understand 'religion'. Sylvia seems to assume that any strongly held belief -- anything taken on 'faith' -- is perforce "religion". On the contrary. It may be an ideology, but not all ideologies are religious. The best efforts to define "religion," a complicated array of beliefs and practices in thousands of cultures around the world, have noted simply that at its core religion is a belief in the supernatural, as Tylor put it in the late 19th century. Science, which since the Enlightenment has been characterized by an explicit rejection of supernatural causes, forces, or beings in explanation, is therefore and quite simply not a religion, however much 'scientism' may be a passionately held ideology. Exactly and assuming that whole swathes of people are just regurgitating rote arguments isn't going to help things. It's in fact part of what makes the arguments unpleasant the attacks on the person rather than the points they've made. You'll find if you actually engage a lot of people do learn