This is actually pretty simple. The conflict is between the universal claim of the primacy of subjective experience and the fact that only intersubjective statements can be proven, are predictive and “work.”
It appears the human, and possibly animal, brain is hardwired for magical thinking. Thus, random patters are given meaning and the world is filled with all sorts of agency even from inanimate and fantasy objects. So, effectively everyone believes, or really just say they believe, in magic and the supernatural. It is a human universal.
The basis for human magical thinking is the claim in “Mind over matter” or wish it and it is true. Philosophy also makes the same claim as theology. Thus, supernatural and religious statements claim that private experiences are factually real, predictive and descriptive of everyday experiences. So notions about a “god(s)” are really just individuals saying that their private subjective experiences-words connect to some supernatural reality/thing/experience.
Now the body sensations of the primacy of subjective experiences are very strong, triggering the autonomic nervous system instantly and powerfully. These are also statements and behaviors found in children and appear to be just carried into adulthood. So, there had to be a strong adaptive value – a long time ago. Maybe not so much now.
Certainly, the drive for experimentally developed and predictable intersubjective knowledge was driven by the failure of wholly subjective, magical statements to predict anything. There would be no medicine, engineering, airplanes, cellphones if subjective experiences/beliefs/statements were the basis for professional and critical behaviors. Historically, “Mind over matter.” was a fatal claim – and still is in medical matters, and engineering.
Now, since the primacy of subjective experience is hard-wired, it appears, it will only reactively respond to any questions. As any evolved trait would. However, since, by definition, there are no provable subjective statements the nature of language is being attacked. Intersubjective statements are being said to be unreliable. They too have subjective parts. This is only true because everyday language has subjectivity at it’s core. Thus, math is more used.
Then there is the odd claim that because some intersubjective stamens cannot yet be made, consciousness and certain extreme physics events, the whole enterprise of inter subject statements is false. It seems because physics is so much in pop media it is trotted out – while all other sciences are ignored, esp biology. The likely solution to the “hard problem of consciousness” is that it is trivial. It is the core belief in the primacy of subjective experience and besides other animals don’t need it. More wishful thinking.
Then there is additional semantic word play. All this reallyy shows is that a culture and language with subjectivity at its core is increasingly inadequate for useful statements.