Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Age]

I'm only interested in what is true.

Ha!

Henry and IC are the ones arguing aboout this simply because the idea of 'determinism' offends their religious beliefs.

Actually, no. I've used no religious grounds whatsoever

LOL It does NOT matter one iota if you have not used ANY religious grounds whatsoever, the fact REMAINS the idea of 'determinism' OFFENDS your 'religious BELIEFS'.

Which, by the way, is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS considering the Fact that 'your religious BELIEFS' rely on a PRE-DETERMINED PLAN have ALREADY BEEN SET, in MOTION.

-- and as somebody "only interested in what is true," one might think you would have noticed that.

"accelafine" EXPRESSED A Truth. you, however, are ust DESPERATELY 'TRYING TO' AVOID THAT Truth.

In point of fact, there are very religious people who are very committed to Determinism.

SO WHAT? you, OBVIOUSLY, have a DIFFERENT 'religious BELIEF/S'.

They're called "Calvinists." Being "only interested in what is true," I thought you might want to know that.

See HOW this one, ONCE AGAIN, 'TRIES TO' DEFLECT, and DECEIVE, here.

[Atla]

As for everyday philosophy, I disagree there with BigMike too, he wants us to always keep determinism in mind.

I found that it's better if we only keep the major constrains in mind: we can't break the laws of physics, and our brain/mind can be shaped by many things: personality disorders, inherited issues, brain damage, seasonal variances, brain inflammation, VAness etc. etc. Then there are arguably all kinds of personality types based on how we think and feel and perceive and process, see the MBTI for example etc. Some of the above factors can be changed to some degree over time, some can't be.

But aside from the above, we should live as if we had total freedom in how we think and choose. Much better for us psychologically than keeping always in mind that we are always 100% determined.

[Age]

Atla, still wrestling with concepts of causality and determinism, though I appreciate the effort. A quick clarification for you: you were taken off my ignore list yesterday or perhaps the day before. The timing, like much in this deterministic world, is conditioned by prior interactions. Consider it a causal inevitability.

Now, on to the substance—or lack thereof—of your comment. Your claim that causality has no known direction is a valid observation within specific frameworks, such as in some interpretations of quantum mechanics or discussions of time symmetry in physics. However, the directionality of causation that we perceive is tied to entropy, as you correctly note, and this "arrow of time" is the framework within which determinism operates on the human scale. It’s not about where causality "flows" but about understanding that interactions—my preferred term, since action and reaction occur simultaneously—are the core of everything we observe. I use "causation" for the sake of the general public, who seem to better grasp its implications, but interactions more accurately describe the simultaneity of these phenomena.

You're on a philosophy forum where someone might point out that you haven't actually thought this through.

ONCE AGAIN, whilst you human beings are BELIEVING some thing is true, then you are NOT ABLE TO DO what is sometimes called and referred to as 'thought through'. IN BELIEF you are STUCK, COMPLETELY.

Human experience is inherently tied to entropy, but it's a non sequitur to conclude that therefore causation has a forward direction.

Well WHAT ELSE is 'the direction' called, which absolutely EVERY thing is PERCEIVED to be MOVING IN, EXACTLY?

Also, bringing in TOTALLY UNRELATED 'things', like 'forward direction', is NOT the BEST thing to do in philosophy forums, nor IN DISCUSSIONS.

'Causation' OBVIOUSLY EXISTS, which is more or less the ONLY thing that "bigmike" is FIGHTING CONTINUOUSLY FOR, here.

Now, if you BELIEVE that 'causation' does NOT EXIST, then just provide 'your arguments' for SAID BELIEF.

As for your musings on quantum effects and their hypothetical impact on free will, I must admit it sounds more like wishful thinking than serious science. The quantum Zeno effect, while fascinating, doesn’t grant autonomy; it’s still bound by the probabilistic framework of quantum mechanics. To leap from there to ideas like prayer, the law of attraction, or "stopping the clock with your attention" is to indulge in speculation untethered from rigorous evidence. These notions may be enticing, but until science provides a substantive mechanism, they remain in the realm of pseudoscience or metaphysical fancy.

But this isn't about the probabilistic framework, that framework is always a given.

If your "4D philosophy" is an attempt to reconcile determinism with metaphysical notions of free will, you’re free to pursue it—but understand that adding dimensions doesn’t exempt interactions from the deterministic web they inhabit. It’s all part of the same interconnected system, regardless of the scale or perspective.

It's no such attempt, I'm a determinist no matter how many dimensions.

YET you MISSED that "bigmike" just CLAIMED, and ADMITTED, that you are ACTUALLY 'FREE' to do things.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, goes COMPLETELY AGAINST what it has spend most of its time here 'TRYING TO' ARGUE and FIGHT FOR.

[Age]

I didn't say the 'process was ridiculous'. I was saying you can't have it both ways. You put a lot of words in my mouth. It seems to me that you are tying yourself into knots trying to reconcile 'determinism' with 'non determinism'. I don't see any difference between your 'better world' scenario and 'free will'.

Accelafine, I didn’t put words in your mouth; I clarified your apparent misunderstanding. If you think I’m “tying myself into knots,” it’s only because you’re struggling to grasp the distinction between determinism and the experience of making decisions within it.

There’s no reconciliation of determinism with "non-determinism" here because I am not arguing for any form of metaphysical free will. The "better world" scenario you mention is entirely deterministic. Here’s how: understanding that our choices and actions are caused doesn’t mean those actions disappear—it means they are part of the causal chain. Recognizing this allows us to work within that chain to influence future outcomes. That influence isn’t free in a metaphysical sense; it’s causally determined by our understanding, intentions, and circumstances.

The difference between determinism and free will lies in the source of our actions. Free will suggests actions originate independently of causation, which is nonsense. Determinism shows that all actions—including those aimed at creating a "better world"—are driven by prior causes. There’s no contradiction, no knot, no sleight of hand.

Your inability to see this distinction is not an indictment of determinism; it’s evidence of its explanatory power. You can’t "choose" to see the point until the necessary conditions—experience, understanding, perhaps a bit more reflection—cause it to occur to you. That’s determinism, in action, whether you like it or not.

You certainly provide a lot of food for thought.

Maybe so, for some of you.

But what "bigmike" does NOT provide, exactly like the rest of you posters here, are ACTUAL DEFINITIONS for the words that it USES, here.

That doesn't happen often on here

JUST MAYBE you do NOT STOP and THINK ABOUT what others say and write here OFTEN.

There is so-called 'food for thought', as some call it, ABSOLUTELY EVERYWHERE here. However, and VERY SADLY, if not all of you most of you VERY RARELY STOP to JUST CONSIDER what is being ACTUALLY SAID, ACTUALLY MEANT, and ACTUALLY INTENDED. And not just by others but even by "your" OWN 'selves' as well.

[Age]

Every one of my existing, that is to say, still operating neurons have predetermined, prior to forcing my determination, to terminate all involvement in a thread that once again is going nowhere except for its emergence into a liquid pool of pure BS.

BUT, this thread is ANOTHER thread, which is going, EXACTLY, WHERE I WANT it TO GO.

That is TO SHOWING and PROVING HOW, when people are BELIEVING some thing to be true, then they ARE ABSOLUTE CLOSED, and COMPLETELY CUT OFF, TO what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct, in Life.

By the way if there is some so-called 'pure bull shit' ANYWHERE in this or another thread, then WHY NOT JUST EXPOSE it for what it REALLY IS, to you?

Also, did you NOT NOTICE the absolute CONTRADICTION in CLAIMING to terminate absolutely ALL involvement in the EXACT SAME thread that you are SPEAKING and WRITING IN?

[Age]

As for everyday philosophy, I disagree there with BigMike too, he wants us to always keep determinism in mind.

OF COURSE "bigmike" wants you others to HAVE and FOLLOW the EXACT SAME BELIEF that "bigmike" DOES. LOL you DO the EXACT SAME thing "yourself" "atla". you want others to HAVE and KEEP the EXACT SAME BELIEFS that you HAVE, and KEEP. This is ANOTHER UNFORTUNATE DOWNFALL of KEEPING and MAINTAINING BELIEFS, which can NOT be BACKED UP, SUPPORTED, and SUBSTANTIATE with ACTUAL PROOF.

The ONLY REAL WAY you can KEEP these BELIEFS 'alive' is by 'TRYING TO' get as many other people to HAVE and HOLD the EXACT SAME BELIEF/S.

I found that it's better if we only keep the major constrains in mind: we can't break the laws of physics, and our brain/mind can be shaped by many things: personality disorders, inherited issues, brain damage, seasonal variances, brain inflammation, VAness etc. etc.

LOL This one, STILL, HOLDS, MAINTAINS, and KEEPS the BELIEF that it and you other human beings have your OWN 'minds', and as this one WILL SHOW and PROVE WILL 'TRY TO' get you others to HAVE and KEEP the EXACT SAME YET TO BE PROVED True BELIEF.

Then there are arguably all kinds of personality types based on how we think and feel and perceive and process, see the MBTI for example etc. Some of the above factors can be changed to some degree over time, some can't be.

LOL BECAUSE this one was DIAGNOSED with a VERY SERIOUS MENTAL ISSUE, this one KEEPS 'LOOKING AT' MENTAL ISSUES as being the CAUSE for ANY and EVERY one else who does NOT have the EXACT SAME BELIEFS that this one HAS, and HOLDS ONTO.

LOL JUST some times "atla" others have DIFFERENT views and beliefs than you do BECAUSE your own views and beliefs ARE JUST ILLOGICAL and NONSENSE.

But aside from the above, we should live as if we had total freedom in how we think and choose.

LOL WHY 'should' absolutely ANY one live with what is, essentially, just A LIE.

Now, if 'you', REALLY, had so-called 'TOTAL FREEDOM', then please EXPLAIN to the readers, here, WHO and WHAT the 'you' is, EXACTLY, which, SUPPOSEDLY, has 'TOTAL FREEDOM' in HOW 'it' thinks and chooses.

you can also EXPLAIN HOW, EXACTLY, this 'you' ACTUALLY OBTAINED 'TOTAL FREEDOM', FROM 'past experiences'/events'.

But, OBVIOUSLY, you WILL NOT. AGAIN, BECAUSE of the 'previous events' AND the 'deterministic process'.

Much better for us psychologically than keeping always in mind that we are always 100% determined.

LOL Even "bigmike" has ALREADY PROVED that it can NOT ALWAYS KEEP, 'in thought', that it is ALWAYS 100% determined.

one would HAVE TO BE A Truly CLOSED individual to even just to BEGIN to BELIEVE that 'you' are EITHER ALWAYS 100% 'determined' OR 100% 'free'.

[Age]

ONCE MORE,

EVERY one HAS 'THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE', which is what the two words 'free will' can be ASSIGNED TO.

However,

EVERY one CAN ONLY 'CHOOSE' from a LIMITED SET of 'thoughts', which ALL OF have come from what an individual human body has 'previously experienced'.

Therefore, BECAUSE OF 'pre-determining factors' A species HAS evolved, into creation, WITH the 'ABILITY TO CHOOSE' to DO whatever it SO WISHES, and DESIRES.

However, until THAT species can create, and cause, the 'ACTUAL world', which they ALL DESIRE. and WANT to live WITH, and IN, they first HAVE TO WAIT for 'deterministic factors' to come about BEFOREHAND.

(What those 'factors' are, EXACTLY, by the way, are ALREADY KNOWN, well by some of 'us' anyway.)

[Belinda]

ONCE MORE,

EVERY one HAS 'THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE', which is what the two words 'free will' can be ASSIGNED TO.

However,

EVERY one CAN ONLY 'CHOOSE' from a LIMITED SET of 'thoughts', which ALL OF have come from what an individual human body has 'previously experienced'.

Therefore, BECAUSE OF 'pre-determining factors' A species HAS evolved, into creation, WITH the 'ABILITY TO CHOOSE' to DO whatever it SO WISHES, and DESIRES.

However, until THAT species can create, and cause, the 'ACTUAL world', which they ALL DESIRE. and WANT to live WITH, and IN, they first HAVE TO WAIT for 'deterministic factors' to come about BEFOREHAND.
We

(What those 'factors' are, EXACTLY, by the way, are ALREADY KNOWN, well by some of 'us' anyway.)

But we can take a "leap of faith" that we have free will and this enables us to be agents of change.
It's unnecessary to have a philosophical argument with oneself before one gets out of bed in the morning.

[BigMike]

ONCE MORE,

EVERY one HAS 'THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE', which is what the two words 'free will' can be ASSIGNED TO.

However,

EVERY one CAN ONLY 'CHOOSE' from a LIMITED SET of 'thoughts', which ALL OF have come from what an individual human body has 'previously experienced'.

Therefore, BECAUSE OF 'pre-determining factors' A species HAS evolved, into creation, WITH the 'ABILITY TO CHOOSE' to DO whatever it SO WISHES, and DESIRES.

However, until THAT species can create, and cause, the 'ACTUAL world', which they ALL DESIRE. and WANT to live WITH, and IN, they first HAVE TO WAIT for 'deterministic factors' to come about BEFOREHAND.
We

(What those 'factors' are, EXACTLY, by the way, are ALREADY KNOWN, well by some of 'us' anyway.)

But we can take a "leap of faith" that we have free will and this enables us to be agents of change.
It's unnecessary to have a philosophical argument with oneself before one gets out of bed in the morning.

Ah, Belinda, the ever-convenient "leap of faith." It’s a delightful escape hatch, isn’t it? When the hard reality of causality becomes uncomfortable, just leap over it and pretend metaphysical free will exists. But here’s the problem: ignoring the deterministic nature of reality doesn’t make it go away, and your "faith" in free will doesn’t enable change—it merely decorates determinism with comforting illusions.

You don’t need a philosophical argument with yourself to get out of bed because determinism doesn’t render you passive. The complex, causally determined processes in your brain—your desires, motivations, and routines—are already at work, propelling you into action. Your ability to act as an "agent of change" is entirely dependent on those deterministic factors, not on some mystical notion of uncaused will.

What’s fascinating is that you don’t need to pretend free will exists to recognize your ability to make decisions and influence outcomes. Understanding that those decisions are shaped by prior causes doesn’t undermine your agency; it grounds it in reality. So by all means, get out of bed and do what you feel compelled to do. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that pretending free will exists somehow gives us powers we wouldn’t otherwise have. Determinism is what enables you to act, not what prevents it.

[Belinda]

ONCE MORE,

EVERY one HAS 'THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE', which is what the two words 'free will' can be ASSIGNED TO.

However,

EVERY one CAN ONLY 'CHOOSE' from a LIMITED SET of 'thoughts', which ALL OF have come from what an individual human body has 'previously experienced'.

Therefore, BECAUSE OF 'pre-determining factors' A species HAS evolved, into creation, WITH the 'ABILITY TO CHOOSE' to DO whatever it SO WISHES, and DESIRES.

However, until THAT species can create, and cause, the 'ACTUAL world', which they ALL DESIRE. and WANT to live WITH, and IN, they first HAVE TO WAIT for 'deterministic factors' to come about BEFOREHAND.
We

(What those 'factors' are, EXACTLY, by the way, are ALREADY KNOWN, well by some of 'us' anyway.)

But we can take a "leap of faith" that we have free will and this enables us to be agents of change.
It's unnecessary to have a philosophical argument with oneself before one gets out of bed in the morning.

Ah, Belinda, the ever-convenient "leap of faith." It’s a delightful escape hatch, isn’t it? When the hard reality of causality becomes uncomfortable, just leap over it and pretend metaphysical free will exists. But here’s the problem: ignoring the deterministic nature of reality doesn’t make it go away, and your "faith" in free will doesn’t enable change—it merely decorates determinism with comforting illusions.

You don’t need a philosophical argument with yourself to get out of bed because determinism doesn’t render you passive. The complex, causally determined processes in your brain—your desires, motivations, and routines—are already at work, propelling you into action. Your ability to act as an "agent of change" is entirely dependent on those deterministic factors, not on some mystical notion of uncaused will.

What’s fascinating is that you don’t need to pretend free will exists to recognize your ability to make decisions and influence outcomes. Understanding that those decisions are shaped by prior causes doesn’t undermine your agency; it grounds it in reality. So by all means, get out of bed and do what you feel compelled to do. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that pretending free will exists somehow gives us powers we wouldn’t otherwise have. Determinism is what enables you to act, not what prevents it.

If one were not constrained one could not be an agent for change. Consider the principle of leverage as in muscles acting upon bones and joints. Thus far I think we agree. Besides ,ontic Free Will is not the same as the freedom that depends upon constraints. Ontic Free Will is incompatible with determinism and is a superstition and a reification of relative freedom to choose.
I don't know about Kierkegaard, but I feel that the problem( as you stated it) of leaps of faith arises only when choices are difficult.

[henry quirk]

But we can take a "leap of faith" that we have free will and this enables us to be agents of change. It's unnecessary to have a philosophical argument with oneself before one gets out of bed in the morning.

Uh, no. According to Mike...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...so, sorry, B, any leap of faith is just causally inevitable neuronal activity. And you can never be an agent of change becuz, like that rock, you'll only do what you must. You have no relative freedom.

[BigMike]

But we can take a "leap of faith" that we have free will and this enables us to be agents of change.
It's unnecessary to have a philosophical argument with oneself before one gets out of bed in the morning.

Ah, Belinda, the ever-convenient "leap of faith." It’s a delightful escape hatch, isn’t it? When the hard reality of causality becomes uncomfortable, just leap over it and pretend metaphysical free will exists. But here’s the problem: ignoring the deterministic nature of reality doesn’t make it go away, and your "faith" in free will doesn’t enable change—it merely decorates determinism with comforting illusions.

You don’t need a philosophical argument with yourself to get out of bed because determinism doesn’t render you passive. The complex, causally determined processes in your brain—your desires, motivations, and routines—are already at work, propelling you into action. Your ability to act as an "agent of change" is entirely dependent on those deterministic factors, not on some mystical notion of uncaused will.

What’s fascinating is that you don’t need to pretend free will exists to recognize your ability to make decisions and influence outcomes. Understanding that those decisions are shaped by prior causes doesn’t undermine your agency; it grounds it in reality. So by all means, get out of bed and do what you feel compelled to do. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that pretending free will exists somehow gives us powers we wouldn’t otherwise have. Determinism is what enables you to act, not what prevents it.

If one were not constrained one could not be an agent for change. Consider the principle of leverage as in muscles acting upon bones and joints. Thus far I think we agree. Besides ,ontic Free Will is not the same as the freedom that depends upon constraints. Ontic Free Will is incompatible with determinism and is a superstition and a reification of relative freedom to choose.
I don't know about Kierkegaard, but I feel that the problem( as you stated it) of leaps of faith arises only when choices are difficult.

Ah, Belinda, your invocation of the leap of faith into free will warrants a closer look, especially because it risks justifying harm and cruelty under the guise of autonomy. The key danger of this leap lies in how it perpetuates a shallow understanding of choice and accountability, one that ignores the deeply interconnected, causally determined nature of reality.

For those who truly understand—those whose synaptic connections in the brain have been appropriately strengthened or weakened through exposure to evidence and critical thinking—this understanding nudges them toward decisions that are less punitive, less dismissive of context, and more informed by the underlying causes of behavior. They grasp that human actions, even the harmful ones, arise from complex causal chains involving genetics, environment, and prior experiences. A leap of faith into free will, by contrast, encourages a simplistic narrative where individuals are seen as wholly autonomous agents deserving of blame or praise disconnected from those causes.

This faith in free will often justifies continued harm and cruelty. It fuels systems of retribution that punish rather than rehabilitate, perpetuates inequalities by attributing success or failure solely to personal effort, and blinds people to the systemic and environmental changes needed to prevent harm. If one assumes people "could have done otherwise" independent of their circumstances, there’s little incentive to explore and address the factors that lead to harm in the first place.

Leaps of faith may feel comforting, especially when choices are difficult, but they come at the cost of deeper understanding. Rather than leaping into illusion, the better path—for those whose neural pathways have been shaped to accommodate such insights—is to work within the deterministic framework, recognizing how understanding causality shapes more compassionate and effective responses to the challenges we face.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What’s fascinating is that you don’t need to pretend free will exists to recognize your ability to make decisions and influence outcomes. Understanding that those decisions are shaped by prior causes doesn’t undermine your agency; it grounds it in reality. So by all means, get out of bed and do what you feel compelled to do. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that pretending free will exists somehow gives us powers we wouldn’t otherwise have. Determinism is what enables you to act, not what prevents it.

Finally — in any case from my perspective — you seem to be stuck in rhetorical loops, undergirded by a reductionist “scientism”, that bizarrely negates the notion of genuine agency that seems to be of vital importance to you (personally), and renders your philosophy into neurosis.

I extend my hand to you and I promise to help you and, if you will cooperate, to cure you! Determine, by an act if your will, to accept my nudge to cause the hi-fi needle to jump the track so that the song can continue!

With that said, it is 5:15 AM, cold, with a thin layer of frosted snow covering the ground. I am required to be up and at ‘em; a clear causal chain leading to this moment in time when responsibility demands that I get up, right now, and perform an array of preordained tasks, but I refuse! I will not get up. I am staying in bed and defying causation and, to a degree, my duty as a responsible citizen and earthling!

[BigMike]

What’s fascinating is that you don’t need to pretend free will exists to recognize your ability to make decisions and influence outcomes. Understanding that those decisions are shaped by prior causes doesn’t undermine your agency; it grounds it in reality. So by all means, get out of bed and do what you feel compelled to do. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that pretending free will exists somehow gives us powers we wouldn’t otherwise have. Determinism is what enables you to act, not what prevents it.

Finally — in any case from my perspective — you seem to be stuck in rhetorical loops, undergirded by a reductionist “scientism”, that bizarrely negates the notion of genuine agency that seems to be of vital importance to you (personally), and renders your philosophy into neurosis.

I extend my hand to you and I promise to help you and, if you will cooperate, to cure you! Determine, by an act if your will, to accept my nudge to cause the hi-fi needle to jump the track so that the song can continue!

With that said, it is 5:15 AM, cold, with a thin layer of frosted snow covering the ground. I am required to be up and at ‘em; a clear causal chain leading to this moment in time when responsibility demands that I get up, right now, and perform an array of preordained tasks, but I refuse! I will not get up. I am staying in bed and defying causation and, to a degree, my duty as a responsible citizen and earthling!

Alexis, how noble of you to offer a "cure" for what you perceive as my neurosis, all while gleefully engaging in a caricature of the argument at hand. But let’s dissect this melodramatic defiance of causation, shall we? Your refusal to get out of bed is not some bold act of rebellion against determinism—it’s merely a part of it. Your so-called refusal, your decision to "stay in bed," arises from the same causal web that brought you to this moment. Your environment, your mental state, your past experiences—all these factors converge to make that refusal inevitable.

To claim otherwise is to indulge in a fantasy of uncaused choice, a fantasy that collapses under scrutiny. Every thought you entertain, every action you take, is the result of physical processes in your brain shaped by prior causes. Deciding to stay in bed, feeling smug about it, and imagining it as defiance of causation are themselves outcomes of causation.

As for your assertion that my perspective negates genuine agency, you’re still clinging to a mystical notion of agency that requires it to be uncaused. What I’ve consistently argued is that agency exists as an emergent property of deterministic processes. Genuine agency doesn’t require the absence of causation; it requires an understanding of it. When you claim to "defy" causation, you’re merely proving the limits of your own understanding, not its absence.

As I’ve said before, Schopenhauer’s insight—"a man can do what he wills, but not will what he wills"—gets close but doesn’t go far enough. I prefer: a man can’t do what he wills; he wills what he does. And that will aint free. Our desires, intentions, and choices are not free-floating phenomena; they arise entirely from prior causes—your biology, your experiences, and even random molecular processes. These are what determine your "wants," and by extension, your actions.

So stay in bed if you wish, Alexis. But don’t delude yourself into thinking that your act is anything other than a predictable outcome of the very determinism you claim to defy. Your "freedom" is as illusory as your offer of a cure.

P.S. You're still in the box.

[promethean75]

"Ah, Belinda, your invocation of the leap of faith into free will warrants a closer look"

I love how Mike B always begins his post by an overdone recognition of the excellence of the question posed to him... like a professor pacing before a chalkboard who suddenly stops, turns on his heel, and points to a student with his pointer announcing, "an excellent question, Belinda, and, indeed, one we must take a closer look at! Now then, as we established earlier... [begins pacing again with one hand tucked behind him]