Thanks for the comment. It seems to me that the issue of God is infinitely more important than whether or not current physics is (mostly? nearly?) true. So what if I form false beliefs about physics (unless, of course, I’m a physicist, or am designed bombs or something). But false beliefs about God may thwart or hinder my most important relationship – with God. And it could affect what religious group I join, how I spend a good portion of my income, my sex life, where I school my kids, etc. I take it this is why you’re not moved by my reasons for moving away from the stance of Restraint about theological difficulties.

I know it’s fashionable among mainstream analytic philosophers to defer to scientists, but I’m very wary of that. I see many scientists (1) so wrapped in practical concerns that they’re not too worried about the truth or rationality of their views, (2) propounding metaphysical claims based on current theories, not realizing the giant non sequiturs they’re committing. And more disturbingly, the more developed my own philosophical views are, the more I hold views which physicists tend to assume are false. E.g. presentism, theism, libertarian free will, dualism. So I’m wary of treating them as experts in any truly philosophical (or theological) matters. Finally, (3) some form of moderate non-realism about scientific theories is far from crazy. The more history of science you know, then more this point gets drilled into you.

It looks like I have restraint with regards to lots of things that I say about physics. I believe that the sentences I utter about quantum mechanics express truths, truths that some people have found quite important, but I can’t profess to understand or be able to explicate the theories (doctrines) that underlie these things that I express. However, I feel confidant that I can point you to someone who can explain the truths expressed by my utterances. The thing is, I don’t feel at all motivated by any of your three reasons to inquire more into matter, and further, it seems perfectly reasonable for me not to pursue inquiry. So, what is it that distinguishes the religious case from physics?