I dunno, A-G. In certain cases, that might be impossible. :^)
But maybe we could try this. It has been alleged (in the article at the top) that on the materialist/physicalist/naturalist view, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between a Karl Marx and a Mother Theresa. And indeed, in terms of this theory (or doctrine -- maybe dogma would be an even better word), there is no difference: Both K. Marx and Mother Theresa are alike in being astronomically complex bundles of very smart chemicals.
So what? Human existence has a physical basis. But that physical basis does not and cannot account for the very real, observable differences between two human beings.
The chemicals cannot tell you that Mother Theresa all her life served Life; and that Marx, a self-described atheist, didn't have very much to say about Life at all. But every time his dogma was tried -- and there have been many attempts to instantiate it in various forms -- human beings died by the millions, and the planet was otherwise laid waste.
The person who refuses to be concerned about such human differences suggests to me that he is suffering from what Cicero called aspernatio rationes, the "contempt for reason." Indeed, such "refuseniks" strike me as being totally irrational ... engaged in a flight from reality.
And yet we see their products. I have particularly in mind the work of Steven Pinker, Richard Lewontin, and Peter Singer. But I'm sure the list could be extended. But yoyu get my drift.
Thanks so much for your wonderful essays today, dear A-G!