Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Atla]

He speaks so eloquently about his misguided ideology, either he's a genius to come up with such eloquent sentences on the fly, or he must have practiced them for years?

[Atla]

Truth, as we understand it, is a correspondence between internal representations and external reality.

Truth is not some ethereal, free-floating entity; it’s an emergent property of deterministic systems that align internal representations with external conditions.

I stand in awe …

I find it a bit weird though to call the accuracy of our internal representations "truth", we seem to be skipping a step or two. I'd say accurate representations usually help establish what the "truth" probably is, but for example if I have an accurate representation of a rainbow, that doesn't mean that a rainbow as such really is out there. We need more than just the brain's evolved internal mechanisms to decipher what's going on.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I find it a bit weird though to call the accuracy of our internal representations "truth", we seem to be skipping a step or two. I'd say accurate representations usually help establish what the "truth" probably is, but for example if I have an accurate representation of a rainbow, that doesn't mean that a rainbow as such really is out there. We need more than just the brain's evolved internal mechanisms to decipher what's going on.

My understanding of BM’s position is that the facts of science, that enable all our technologies (physics et cetera), is where the “truths” that he refers to are located. And “truths” of that sort is realized when one has grasped a physical phenomenon and how it operates. He has a mind of a certain type: literal perhaps. He is after all a mathematician (according to his own admission). His mind has been trained along geometrical and mathematical lines (like in the proofs of Euclid’s Elements).

My impression of his endeavor is that he seeks a bedrock, the bedrock, upon which he can reasonably construct his physicalist worldview. He hangs everything on that peg. Thus the physicist is the man with the tools to decipher and “explain” reality, and thus life. Philosophy seems only relevant to him insofar as it offers a rhetorical means to communicate the “value” he recognizes.

The missionizing aspect of his discourse is the most interesting or telling feature. “All speech is sermonic,” said Richard Weaver, from the selling of breath mints to more developed, and consequential, formulations about “reality”. We are always preaching something.

BigMike really wants to convince his readership that he has a grip on bedrock truths (that trump other epiphenomenal truths, i.e. illusions). If you don’t agree you will be cast aside. No counter-conversation will be brooked.

We need more than just the brain's evolved internal mechanisms to decipher what's going on.

To describe “what is going on” must involve definitive statements which, if I understand correctly, require explanations that have a final tone. The terms of an explanation must seem ultimate, incapable of further analysis, and then they are “true” beyond questioning.

I personally do not have too much problem with sciency explanations of what goes on around us, and in us. The real pressing questions however are those that pertain, very directly, to metaphysical interpretive models, not to science definitions.

(Hello BigMike. I hope you know that I know that you read what I write and all those that you have on ignore!)

[Atla]

The real pressing questions however are those that pertain, very directly, to metaphysical interpretive models, not to science definitions.

According to whom? Someone can reject both Mike's misapplication of science definitions, and metaphysical interpretive models that aren't compatible with science (are seen as fictional).

[Alexis Jacobi]

The real pressing questions however are those that pertain, very directly, to metaphysical interpretive models, not to science definitions.

According to whom? Someone can reject both Mike's misapplication of science definitions, and metaphysical interpretive models that aren't compatible with science (are seen as fictional).

Yes, I think I understand the reasons for your challenge to my assertion that “the real pressing questions however are those that pertain, very directly, to metaphysical interpretive models, not to science definitions”. It is definitely possible to reject both.

The reason I make that statement is simply because it seems to me that “the metaphysical interpretive models” are far more necessary, far more long-lived, and certainly persistent for (what I assume is) a larger majority. They seem to me a huge part of “human concern” and they always show up. (And BigMike is really selling what amounts to a metaphysic, an interpretive models, and an actionable anthropology).

All those concerns (those of metaphysics) seem always at the forefront in our literature, art, social theories and politics. Everywhere I turn I find expressions of those concerns.

In any case, metaphysical models and interpretation definitely occupy the larger part of my concerns.

[attofishpi]

What is completely being overlooked by Mike is that according to the likes of Sir Roger Penrose, consciousness is not computable. If something is not computable, then it doesn't comply with determinism. Qualia sensations are not programmable, cannot be computed etc..thus our ultimate decision making process is of our own will.

Now, I've just climbed out of the sack having had some lovely interaction with the love side of this GOD entity. Yes, we are getting along swimmingly these days, although the other morning whilst walking Donnie he did state "I am angry" to me from the aether. Then I thought, mmm seems this entity is likely pissed off with me because I drank half a carton of lager and a bottle of Chardonnay, but it didn't respond to my quizzing re that.

Anyway, the reason I bring GOD into this, yet again, is that everyday I think my GOD consciousness is a miracle!! That a pile of atoms arranged in a certain way permit me to be consciously aware of my surroundings via qualia sensations --- honestly, it's borderline miraculous and the FACT IS we simply take it for granted, well, Y wouldn't we? ---> we were born with it.

[accelafine]

What is completely being overlooked by Mike is that according to the likes of Sir Roger Penrose, consciousness is not computable. If something is not computable, then it doesn't comply with determinism. Qualia sensations are not programmable, cannot be computed etc..thus our ultimate decision making process is of our own will.

Now, I've just climbed out of the sack having had some lovely interaction with the love side of this GOD entity. Yes, we are getting along swimmingly these days, although the other morning whilst walking Donnie he did state "I am angry" to me from the aether. Then I thought, mmm seems this entity is likely pissed off with me because I drank half a carton of lager and a bottle of Chardonnay, but it didn't respond to my quizzing re that.

Anyway, the reason I bring GOD into this, yet again, is that everyday I think my GOD consciousness is a miracle!! That a pile of atoms arranged in a certain way permit me to be consciously aware of my surroundings via qualia sensations --- honestly, it's borderline miraculous and the FACT IS we simply take it for granted, well, Y wouldn't we? ---> we were born with it.

Penrose is not a neuroscientist and he's also aligned himself with some 'questionable' characters in his dotage.

[attofishpi]

He's not even doing that well. He is trying to use the same thing both to describe how the world comes to be the way that it is (an adequate use for it) but also to explain how the world can be better than it is (an improper use for it). The second use undermines the first.

But we see this same shit all the time. The guy who thought he can prove that the world is a simulation usually also thinks he can show some important way you ought to react to that.

Que? Me?

I CAN prove beyond a reasonable DO_U_BT that there is an intelligence behind the construct of our perception of REAL_IT_Y -- those viewing my evidence just need to remain reasonable to comprehend it.

Whether GOD is projecting a simulation of a prior reality, I doubt that. Personally, and since I believe in Christ, I believe GOD to be DIVINE - but certainly from my empirical evidence and analysis of this entity and interactions with it since 1997, it is akin to AI nonetheless..

[accelafine]

He speaks so eloquently about his misguided ideology, either he's a genius to come up with such eloquent sentences on the fly, or he must have practiced them for years?

He obviously has the writing gift--something that would be alien to you. I'm sure you can do 'something' well. Everyone has 'something'--even you.

[attofishpi]

What is completely being overlooked by Mike is that according to the likes of Sir Roger Penrose, consciousness is not computable. If something is not computable, then it doesn't comply with determinism. Qualia sensations are not programmable, cannot be computed etc..thus our ultimate decision making process is of our own will.

Now, I've just climbed out of the sack having had some lovely interaction with the love side of this GOD entity. Yes, we are getting along swimmingly these days, although the other morning whilst walking Donnie he did state "I am angry" to me from the aether. Then I thought, mmm seems this entity is likely pissed off with me because I drank half a carton of lager and a bottle of Chardonnay, but it didn't respond to my quizzing re that.

Anyway, the reason I bring GOD into this, yet again, is that everyday I think my GOD consciousness is a miracle!! That a pile of atoms arranged in a certain way permit me to be consciously aware of my surroundings via qualia sensations --- honestly, it's borderline miraculous and the FACT IS we simply take it for granted, well, Y wouldn't we? ---> we were born with it.

Penrose is not a neuroscientist and he's also aligned himself with some 'questionable' characters in his dotage.

Just like Richard Dawkins isn't a physicist and people think he has the reasonable argument that GOD does not exist!

Honestly, I'll listen to a physicist over ANY other scientist as the ultimate reasoning on such matters of matter

[accelafine]

What is completely being overlooked by Mike is that according to the likes of Sir Roger Penrose, consciousness is not computable. If something is not computable, then it doesn't comply with determinism. Qualia sensations are not programmable, cannot be computed etc..thus our ultimate decision making process is of our own will.

Now, I've just climbed out of the sack having had some lovely interaction with the love side of this GOD entity. Yes, we are getting along swimmingly these days, although the other morning whilst walking Donnie he did state "I am angry" to me from the aether. Then I thought, mmm seems this entity is likely pissed off with me because I drank half a carton of lager and a bottle of Chardonnay, but it didn't respond to my quizzing re that.

Anyway, the reason I bring GOD into this, yet again, is that everyday I think my GOD consciousness is a miracle!! That a pile of atoms arranged in a certain way permit me to be consciously aware of my surroundings via qualia sensations --- honestly, it's borderline miraculous and the FACT IS we simply take it for granted, well, Y wouldn't we? ---> we were born with it.

Penrose is not a neuroscientist and he's also aligned himself with some 'questionable' characters in his dotage.

Just like Richard Dawkins isn't a physicist and people think he has the reasonable argument that GOD does not exist!

Honestly, I'll listen to a physicist over ANY other scientist as the ultimate reasoning on such matters of matter

Idiot. There is no 'argument' possible that proves something doesn't exist--which is why the onus is on those who make their stupid claims. At least it's better than the word of a delusional schizophrenic who is too thick to connect dots.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Further comment directed to Atla:

There is a prose poem quoted in WB Yeats Ideas of Good and Evil, this is the ending sentence:

“You have taken the east from me, you have taken the west from me, you have taken what is before me and what is behind me; you have taken the moon, you have taken the sun from me, and my fear is great that you have taken God from me.”

[attofishpi]

Penrose is not a neuroscientist and he's also aligned himself with some 'questionable' characters in his dotage.

Just like Richard Dawkins isn't a physicist and people think he has the reasonable argument that GOD does not exist!

Honestly, I'll listen to a physicist over ANY other scientist as the ultimate reasoning on such matters of matter

Idiot. There is no 'argument' possible that proves something (GOD) doesn't exist--which is why the onus is on those who make their stupid claims. At least it's better than the word of a delusional schizophrenic who is too thick to connect dots.

Listen you ol' bat - if you are going to engage with me with derision, then don't bother. Address my statements or fuck off.

Richard Dawkins wrote a book precisely attempting to prove that: "The GOD Delusion"

Atheists are the ones that are DELUDED.

[accelafine]

Just like Richard Dawkins isn't a physicist and people think he has the reasonable argument that GOD does not exist!

Honestly, I'll listen to a physicist over ANY other scientist as the ultimate reasoning on such matters of matter

Idiot. There is no 'argument' possible that proves something (GOD) doesn't exist--which is why the onus is on those who make their stupid claims. At least it's better than the word of a delusional schizophrenic who is too thick to connect dots.

Listen you ol' bat - if you are going to engage with me with derision, then don't bother. Address my statements or fuck off.

Richard Dawkins wrote a book precisely attempting to prove that: "The GOD Delusion"

Atheists are the ones that are DELUDED.

You wouldn't call me that to my face you flaccid old fuck, and addressing your statement is exactly what I did.

[attofishpi]

..and they wonder why men insist on having Mens Clubs & why men sometimes come across misogynistic.