Well, that’s where the analysis of material interests comes into play. The idea that if you’re a good person (don’t disrupt the status quo) then you’ll get into heaven is a narrative that furthers the material interests of those in charge. That isn’t enough to disprove it, but it is enough to treat it with suspicion, and the lack of evidence paints a pretty clear picture.

You do have a point with the examples of animism. Since everyone makes some assumptions on that point, it’s worth questioning those assumptions and considering alternatives, but I guess to me, those assumptions aren’t very load bearing. There are few cases where someone’s opinion on a topic is based on their assumptions about consciousness. We could imagine, for example, someone arguing against veganism on the basis that animals don’t have souls or consciousness, but if you ask that person whether they’re opposed to animal cruelty regarding cats and dogs, they’ll probably say yes. The consciousness line, in that case, is just a rationalization.

It’s also something where if someone says, “Well, I think it’s this way,” there’s not like, compelling evidence you can show them to prove them wrong. If a debate hinges on theories of consciousness, it’s likely to result in “agreeing to disagree.” Generally, if it comes up, I’d just try to make the best argument I can within the other person’s framework of consciousness rather than getting caught up in such an abstract disagreement.