I’ll rephrase it for you, because I really think you might learn from a sincere discussion of this:
It takes a significant amount of superstition to believe in metaphysical naturalism.
<><><
It might be a tad presumptuous on your part to think I’ve never had those discussions.
I have no problem with your amended statement at all. Silly to think we can quantify and compare the amount of superstition to believe x or y.
My apologies for being presumptuous, and for not being clear. I was referring to a general quantification, not a numerically measured one.
But let’s not miss the point: the commonly held assumption that science disproves things like faith and the existence of entities beyond the physical world is a bit superficial.
If I again seem to be condescending and it upsets you, this is not my intention. I admit sometimes I try to illustrate the fact that the commonly held assumption is not necessarily the most well thought out view. I think this is necessary largely because the left—whether in a political context or on matters of faith and science—often presumes to have the intellectual advantage when in most if not all cases the leftist view comes from at least a mild to moderate deficit in the analytical process.