The problem with asking the question "why?" is that it isn't relevant or valid in all contexts. "How?", though, is. "Why?" is a question that applies exclusively to living beings - trying to apply that question to the universe as a whole inserts an unwarranted element of anthropomorphism. "Why?" attempts to explain the meaning of an event or an item, but meaning is something that is created by the minds of living beings, it is not an inherent property of an object or a place. A hammer is only a hammer when viewed in such a context by a person; without that very specific context, it is merely a small bit of wood and metal that just happen to be arranged in a specific shape together. Meaning comes from within, not without, which is why it is foolish to attempt to look for any sort of external meaning from existence. [i]You[/i] decide the meaning of your own existence, as do we all.

My point is that both are a search for greater understanding. Regardless of the "validity", "necessity", or "likelihood" of it as seen by others, it's still the pursuit of some form of knowledge. And people should not feel threatened by, or otherwise hamper another's pursuit of greater understanding in their own lives. My attempt to prove that Dan Aykroyd is the reincarnation of the easter bunny in no way limits, or interferes with another man's work in quantum physics. The two are mutually exclusive. The problem only arises once one person or group attempts to dictate the actions of another based on their perception of understanding. But that rests the problem square on the shoulders of the bullish and power-hungry, not the pursuit itself.

People can believe in whatever crazy things they want, but that doesn't make those things correct, and it certainly doesn't make them equal. Believing that Dan Akroyd is [i]literally[/i] the Easter Bunny does not expand anyone's understanding of anything, because it is not based on any evidence and it is not a falsifiable claim. Such 'information' does not constitute a quest for knowledge, but a replacement of knowledge with fantasy. Now if a person chooses to live their life in such a way, that is their prerogative. The problem is that most people who believe in such unsubstantiated claims are not content to keep them to themselves; they feel the need to spread their viewpoint as far and wide as they can, and this causes society serious problems. A handful of people who think Dan Akroyd is the Easter Bunny are a curiosity - a nuisance, even. But millions? A billion? And as the belief spreads, as these things are wont to do, it changes, like the largest game of telephone ever played. So now you have a billion people with a similar unsubstantiated belief who don't agree on the specifics of that belief, which causes all sorts of arguments and conflicts between them. Not to mention, these people see this ridiculous notion as the truth, and they will expect that their children are taught to believe it as well - after all, we all want our children to have the truth. But schools teach only the facts, and there is no evidence to support the notion that Dan Akroyd is the Easter Bunny reincarnated. So now these Akroyd followers, who are no longer just some harmless splinter group of strange people, but are in fact [i]millions[/i] strong, have actual political clout, and can effectively campaign to get their nonsense into school's curriculums. This harms not only their own children, who will have this claim that can't be verified or supported taught to them as the truth from an early age, but non-believer's children as well, and the children of people who believe in different things. All of these people grow up with incorrect information, and only some of them will be likely to realize the error in their education and overcome the disadvantage they were given intellectually. Now what happens when the people who believe that Chevy Chase is Santa Claus hear that the Akroyd followers have gotten their nonsense into classrooms? They certainly won't want that idiocy taught to their children! Well, we're going to have to teach all sides of the issue, aren't we? If one of them can get their views taught in school, then what's really stopping any of them from doing the same? If one is not going to draw the line at verifiable facts, then what really is the point of a school at all? At what point do we stand up and tell these people that they are to be considered wrong in the eyes of society, that they can believe what they want to as long as they keep it to themselves, but that society as a whole will not indulge their absurd nonsense past a certain point? It is the understanding and 'tolerance' of the more rationally-minded people that allows these sorts of fantasies to masquerade as being equally-valid as any claim obtained through reason, but the truth of the matter is, they are not equal. And if we want to live in a society that values science and understanding, then certain limits are going to have to be placed on viewpoints that are unsubstantiated and unverifiable.