Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

Every time you try and spread those little brown-shirted wings, I'm going to clip them. But beyond that I am not interested in hijacking Mike's thread to re-litigate your failings.

You brought it up! I tied it (revisionism) to what BM described as a productive and necessary endeavor.

[attofishpi]

For instance if I was celebrating the New Year and someone had drunk all the booze I'd settle for toasting the New Year in water.

Where's the relevance to the "miracle"?

There is and was no miracle; there never was a miracle at the wedding in Cana. There was simply Jesus saying "Use water if you have run out of wine". Remember Jesus was a respected rabbi. and folks would take his advice.

However if you for a reason best known to yourself prefer to account for something that happened by saying it was miraculous, that's your choice.

That's not in my Bible, which one are you using and do provide the verse that states that.

[Belinda]

Where's the relevance to the "miracle"?

There is and was no miracle; there never was a miracle at the wedding in Cana. There was simply Jesus saying "Use water if you have run out of wine". Remember Jesus was a respected rabbi. and folks would take his advice.

However if you for a reason best known to yourself prefer to account for something that happened by saying it was miraculous, that's your choice.

That's not in my Bible, which one are you using and do provide the verse that states that.

I was paraphrasing.

[accelafine]

I see what Flash means re 'Alexis Jacobi'.
They always claim to 'be Jewish'
Why do they always choose the Holocaust to 'revise'? Why don't they 'revise' the use of the atom bomb and deny it ever happened? Or the My Lai massacre? Or in fact ANY well documented historical event (or even not well-documented ones) apart from any that involve Jews? They even deny the one that was videoed and streamed live on the internet. I mean, what does it take? What is the reason for this peculiar anomaly? It's a complete mystery....
That said, I'm pretty sure Flash is a 'free plasticiner' so his 'outrage' is hollow to say the least

[attofishpi]

There is and was no miracle; there never was a miracle at the wedding in Cana. There was simply Jesus saying "Use water if you have run out of wine". Remember Jesus was a respected rabbi. and folks would take his advice.

However if you for a reason best known to yourself prefer to account for something that happened by saying it was miraculous, that's your choice.

That's not in my Bible, which one are you using and do provide the verse that states that.

I was paraphrasing.

Nah, I can't let this slide - don't pester me again with your nonsense woman!

[attofishpi]

...seriously




I just found a Schrodinger beer (once I opened the door)

[Belinda]

That's not in my Bible, which one are you using and do provide the verse that states that.

I was paraphrasing.

Nah, I can't let this slide - don't pester me again with your nonsense woman!

Watch your language! The above reveals a bias towards despising women.

You need to learn a little more about the use of reason when you make personal choices. For instance, when you seek the cause of how a broken bone heals without medical or surgical intervention please consider if the healing was magical or was it more probably bones' tendency to heal themselves.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis, I want to take a moment to sincerely apologize if I’ve been too harsh, confrontational, or dismissive at times. It’s clear that your perspective comes from a place of deep reflection, and while we may approach the world differently, I respect the sincerity and gravity of the issues you’re wrestling with. As an atheist, I haven’t faced the profound spiritual struggles or the existential depth you describe, and my own experiences may indeed be far removed from what you’re going through. I can only imagine the weight of those questions about the status of your soul and your connection to Christianity, both in this life and beyond.

It seems to me a good idea to accept in others what amounts to very different world-pictures. I am sure that you have many people in your life who see things differently than you do and, I gather, you are adept at letting them know that that's ok while you hold to your own views.

The more difficult part to this question of worldviews and the conflict between them is that, presently, our own *world* is being torn apart by these conflicts. When it comes to those matters people believe are *truly consequential* the conflicts become matters of polemic and also of cultural war.

So, and in any case, we need to take all of that into consideration when we discuss the differences that inform us.

What I’ve been trying—perhaps too forcefully—to convey is the value of going back to the basics: stripping away assumptions, ideologies, and distractions to uncover what is observable, testable, and foundational. For me, that’s the rock-solid ground I trust. I truly believe that from this bedrock of understanding, we can rebuild, rethink, and reshape our worldview in a way that’s compassionate, constructive, and inclusive.

If you believe what you believe then no one could condemn you for being forceful.

At first blush I have certain issues with the *destroy everything and see what will be left standing* approach. I realize you did not say *destroy everything* but perhaps only ruthlessly examine and question everything. My view is actually elitist: I believe that we have to turn to people who we believe have *genuine knowledge* and allow them to educate us about those issues you have described here as "assumptions" and "ideologies". My views have to do with respect for authority and also bases of knowledge that have been established. There is a type of mind (often a brash youthful and arrogant mind) that believes it has the capability of overturning established orders of thought because of what seems right in a moment. They wind up destroying things that should not be destroyed and causing harm. A more mature approach is to go far more slowly when one consideres renovation and certainly revolution.

But this is a whole conversation unto itself.

You mentioned breakthroughs and the transformative power of small realizations. That resonates deeply with me. I think the process of growth and understanding often comes in those moments when something clicks—a connection, a perspective, a new way of framing a question—and that ripple can create profound change.

I agree -- conceptually. But I admit that I also see dangers.

In this forum, I’ve been hoping to share ideas and perspectives that might spark those ripples, even if indirectly, in a “six degrees of separation” way. My goal isn’t to win debates but to plant seeds of thought that might lead, eventually, to a kinder, more empathetic world. I truly believe that a better world is possible—not through force or blind faith, but through knowledge, understanding, and the courage to question and build anew.

However, it sound like you don't imagine *ripples* operating toward you and your perspectives (?)

I think that I agree that a kinder and more empathetic world is a good thing. But then I wonder: How will people like Flash, Accelafine and Age be brutally punished in this "kinder' world you envision?! (That was a joke of course).

Thank you for sharing your perspective and for being willing to engage, even when our views differ. I hope you can see that beneath the sharp edges of my words, there’s a genuine desire to connect, to understand, and to encourage others to “dare to know.”

To be honest: I have at times thought that it might be best to hold to a *qualified atheism* perspective as one's general position. Simply because all religions are far too colored with their *pictures* and they struggle to reduce things to the *actual meaning* of what those pictures mean.

All of this, and I mean all of it, was gone over in detail during the 17th century. In this thread we are merely going over the same material. The notion of the *imagined picture* we receive and through which we visualize the world, and metaphysics through, in contradistinction to *the way things really are* which always demands that a reasoned and rational approach is required to gain clarity.

There is of course much to be said on this topic.

Really, my largest issue with your propositions has to do with what I sense you desire in relation to *social engineering*. My effort has been to express my doubts and concerns in that area.

Finally, I do want to state here that though Hitler was a bad bad man, that he did love his pets! Give credit where credit is due!

[henry quirk]

My apologies for the delay in response. I had family matters to attend to.

Anyway, back into it...

Quarks and photons are elementary particles. By definition, they are not "made of" anything simpler within our current understanding of the Standard Model of particle physics. They are the foundational building blocks, and their properties—mass, charge, energy, and spin—are precisely measurable and experimentally verified.

Sayin' a quark is made of quark or a photon is made of photon is no answer. You don't know what either are made of. No one does.

And a quark has never been measured, or observed, or recorded. We infer they exist (remember that -- we infer they exist -- it'll come up later, in this post or one soon after).

These are facts, not "promissory materialism."

The promissory materialism is when you assert man is meat, and only meat, without any verifiable explanation of how elementary particles create mind. Sayin' oh, that's an emergent property doesn't explain how it works. It's just you promising the answers are coming...someday. And until they do we ought just accept it.

Your insistence that I "show my work" ignores the mountains of empirical data already accumulated by neuroscience, physics, and biology. Correlations between brain activity and emotions are demonstrated through fMRI scans, electrical studies, and neurochemical analysis. Memory and thought processes have been tied to synaptic activity and neural networks. This isn’t an "assertion"; it’s evidence-based science.

Nuthin' in the empirical evidence proves man is just meat and not a free will. How's it go? Correlation does not imply causation?

And you, sir, haven't even bothered to actually pony up any of the empirical evidence. You assert, that's it, that's all.

Well, to be fair, you did foist up Libet's work a few times. But you misinterpreted the results. And when I challenged your misinterpretation with a link to Libet's own words on the work, you dismissed him without even reading what he had to say. You disregarded the thinking of the man whose work you hold out as an evidence.

As for your soul, Henry, the burden of proof is on you. You’re the one proposing something beyond the physical—a ghostly puppeteer pulling the strings of your neurons. Where’s your evidence for this "soul" having any measurable property or causal influence? I’m not asserting the soul doesn’t exist; I’m simply asking you to meet the same evidentiary standards you demand from science.

I say man is a hylomorph (I've said this several times in this thread), not a soul in a meatcar or a phantom pulling meat strings. Start with Aristotle, move on to Aquinas, then look up mere hylomorphism and staunch hylomorphism for more. Educate yourself in the alternates before dismissing stuff you obviously know nuthin' about. Descartes's theater ain't the whole of it.

As I say: this is your thread, one of several, wherein you make claims about man's nature. None of us have an obligation to put up alternate ideas. You, though, have an obligation to support your assertions. You haven't done that yet.

But, okay, I'll throw you a bone (with the understanding you're not off the hook for backin' your claims).

Fact: severing the corpus callosum doesn't result in two minds. Despite all communication between the hemispheres ending, there is only one mind, identity, personality. If mind were solely the result of brain activity, with each hemisphere independent of the other, shouldn't there be a fragmented mind? Aside from some perceptual disfunction, the person remains the same.

What can we infer?

Fact: Hemispherectomies involve removing half the brain. If mind is solely brain product shouldn't this enormous loss of brain tissue dramatically affect personality, intelligence, memory, etc.? It doesn't.

What can we infer?

I already pointed out Wilder Penfield's work with epileptics. He found seizures, a brain-wide event, had no bearing on mind. He found and was never able to induce a seizure that affected purely mental faculties. Why? Also, while he was to, for example, stimulate the brain to cause a patient's arm to move, he was never able to fool the patient into thinkin' he had moved his own arm. The patient was always able to distinguish between what he did of his own accord and was Penfield induced. Why?

What can we infer?

There are other evidences, but let's start with these.

By the way: I can reference all of the above. I will if you'll actually read and consider. If, though, as before, you just dismiss it all out of hand, well, I won't waste my time.

determinism doesn’t require answers to every metaphysical question to function as a framework.

Of course not. But you have made claims, specific claims about man's nature, and it behoves you to back them. You haven't done that yet.

[BigMike]

Alexis, I want to take a moment to sincerely apologize if I’ve been too harsh, confrontational, or dismissive at times. It’s clear that your perspective comes from a place of deep reflection, and while we may approach the world differently, I respect the sincerity and gravity of the issues you’re wrestling with. As an atheist, I haven’t faced the profound spiritual struggles or the existential depth you describe, and my own experiences may indeed be far removed from what you’re going through. I can only imagine the weight of those questions about the status of your soul and your connection to Christianity, both in this life and beyond.

It seems to me a good idea to accept in others what amounts to very different world-pictures. I am sure that you have many people in your life who see things differently than you do and, I gather, you are adept at letting them know that that's ok while you hold to your own views.

The more difficult part to this question of worldviews and the conflict between them is that, presently, our own *world* is being torn apart by these conflicts. When it comes to those matters people believe are *truly consequential* the conflicts become matters of polemic and also of cultural war.

So, and in any case, we need to take all of that into consideration when we discuss the differences that inform us.

What I’ve been trying—perhaps too forcefully—to convey is the value of going back to the basics: stripping away assumptions, ideologies, and distractions to uncover what is observable, testable, and foundational. For me, that’s the rock-solid ground I trust. I truly believe that from this bedrock of understanding, we can rebuild, rethink, and reshape our worldview in a way that’s compassionate, constructive, and inclusive.

If you believe what you believe then no one could condemn you for being forceful.

At first blush I have certain issues with the *destroy everything and see what will be left standing* approach. I realize you did not say *destroy everything* but perhaps only ruthlessly examine and question everything. My view is actually elitist: I believe that we have to turn to people who we believe have *genuine knowledge* and allow them to educate us about those issues you have described here as "assumptions" and "ideologies". My views have to do with respect for authority and also bases of knowledge that have been established. There is a type of mind (often a brash youthful and arrogant mind) that believes it has the capability of overturning established orders of thought because of what seems right in a moment. They wind up destroying things that should not be destroyed and causing harm. A more mature approach is to go far more slowly when one consideres renovation and certainly revolution.

But this is a whole conversation unto itself.

You mentioned breakthroughs and the transformative power of small realizations. That resonates deeply with me. I think the process of growth and understanding often comes in those moments when something clicks—a connection, a perspective, a new way of framing a question—and that ripple can create profound change.

I agree -- conceptually. But I admit that I also see dangers.

In this forum, I’ve been hoping to share ideas and perspectives that might spark those ripples, even if indirectly, in a “six degrees of separation” way. My goal isn’t to win debates but to plant seeds of thought that might lead, eventually, to a kinder, more empathetic world. I truly believe that a better world is possible—not through force or blind faith, but through knowledge, understanding, and the courage to question and build anew.

However, it sound like you don't imagine *ripples* operating toward you and your perspectives (?)

I think that I agree that a kinder and more empathetic world is a good thing. But then I wonder: How will people like Flash, Accelafine and Age be brutally punished in this "kinder' world you envision?! (That was a joke of course).

Thank you for sharing your perspective and for being willing to engage, even when our views differ. I hope you can see that beneath the sharp edges of my words, there’s a genuine desire to connect, to understand, and to encourage others to “dare to know.”

To be honest: I have at times thought that it might be best to hold to a *qualified atheism* perspective as one's general position. Simply because all religions are far too colored with their *pictures* and they struggle to reduce things to the *actual meaning* of what those pictures mean.

All of this, and I mean all of it, was gone over in detail during the 17th century. In this thread we are merely going over the same material. The notion of the *imagined picture* we receive and through which we visualize the world, and metaphysics through, in contradistinction to *the way things really are* which always demands that a reasoned and rational approach is required to gain clarity.

There is of course much to be said on this topic.

Really, my largest issue with your propositions has to do with what I sense you desire in relation to *social engineering*. My effort has been to express my doubts and concerns in that area.

Finally, I do want to state here that though Hitler was a bad bad man, that he did love his pets! Give credit where credit is due!

Alexis, your concerns about social engineering are valid and deserve thoughtful consideration. I can understand why the notion of altering societal structures or influencing individual behavior might raise alarms, especially when it comes to the potential for misuse or unintended consequences. But let me ask you to consider this from my perspective for a moment.

If we accept that everything we do—our thoughts, actions, decisions—are fundamentally driven by our genes, previous experiences, and exposures, then doesn’t it follow that the only way to meaningfully address systemic issues is to change the environment that shapes those exposures? If we do nothing, we leave the outcomes to chance—or worse, to the manipulation of bad actors who exploit ignorance, fear, and division for their own ends.

I don’t dismiss authority; in fact, I deeply respect the centuries of scientific studies, observations, and documentation that form the bedrock of human knowledge. That’s the authority I turn to—not the loudest voice in the room, but the accumulated wisdom of rigorous inquiry and evidence. My aim isn’t to tear everything down recklessly but to build something better and more stable on the solid ground of understanding.

Doing nothing—or clinging to the status quo—can be just as dangerous as ill-conceived social engineering. What I advocate for is a deliberate, thoughtful approach that acknowledges the causal web we’re all a part of and seeks to improve it in ways that are compassionate, evidence-based, and inclusive.

If you were in my shoes, faced with a world where harm and cruelty often stem from ignorance and manipulation, would you not feel compelled to act? Would you not see the reshaping of the environment, through education, empathy, and understanding, as the only viable way forward?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You present things, your predicates, your conclusions, as a mathematician. And you point out that, examined as such, the proof has one obvious conclusion. (You referred to Euclid’s Elements). You present the case, draw the conclusion, present it to your peers, and presented in that way they have (according to you) no genuine alternative but to agree with your conclusions.

I don’t dismiss authority; in fact, I deeply respect the centuries of scientific studies, observations, and documentation that form the bedrock of human knowledge. That’s the authority I turn to—not the loudest voice in the room, but the accumulated wisdom of rigorous inquiry and evidence. My aim isn’t to tear everything down recklessly but to build something better and more stable on the solid ground of understanding.

But you do dismiss authority — that operating outside of your chosen domain where “genuine truth” is mined. All this follows from your core predicates.

Now, do you think that Flash should be a) castrated (there are so few pure-voiced castrati in our world today!), tortured with red-hot pokers, or simply banished?!?

(How you answer will tell me where you really stand ethically.)

[BigMike]

You present things, your predicates, your conclusions, as a mathematician. And you point out that, examined as such, the proof has one obvious conclusion. (You referred to Euclid’s Elements). You present the case, draw the conclusion, present it to your peers, and presented in that way they have (according to you) no genuine alternative but to agree with your conclusions.

I don’t dismiss authority; in fact, I deeply respect the centuries of scientific studies, observations, and documentation that form the bedrock of human knowledge. That’s the authority I turn to—not the loudest voice in the room, but the accumulated wisdom of rigorous inquiry and evidence. My aim isn’t to tear everything down recklessly but to build something better and more stable on the solid ground of understanding.

But you do dismiss authority — that operating outside of your chosen domain where “genuine truth” is mined. All this follows from your core predicates.

Now, do you think that Flash should be a) castrated (there are so few pure-voiced castrati in our world today!), tortured with red-hot pokers, or simply banished?!?

(How you answer will tell me where you really stand ethically.)

Alexis, you’re right to highlight the mathematical analogy I used with Euclid’s Elements. My reference to it wasn’t just a nod to its enduring legacy but a demonstration of how repetition and study, through brain plasticity, can strengthen synapses and fundamentally change how we process and understand complex ideas. The process isn’t unique to mathematics; it applies across disciplines, whether in the sciences, the arts, or ethics. It’s how we grow intellectually and emotionally, rewiring our brains to better grasp reality.

Now, as for dismissing authority—what I reject is unearned authority, the kind that demands adherence without evidence or inquiry. If an authority can substantiate its claims through rigorous evidence, I don’t just respect it; I embrace it. But I won’t accept assertions, no matter how venerable, if they crumble under scrutiny. That’s not rebellion; it’s discernment.

Regarding your jest about Flash and ethical decisions: my ethics are rooted in compassion and a belief in growth, not in punishment or cruelty. So while your options seem to have been presented in humor, I’d argue for something far more constructive: a candid dialogue where differences can be explored and, perhaps, common ground found. After all, isn’t that the real measure of progress?

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

Okay Mike, I am down with all this -- just a few quibbles. I'll get to that later. For now, and for Accelafine's benefit (if it is actually possible to benefit her either in an empathetic world or in a cruel, Hitlerian world) I submit some super-eights from my own Bar Mitzvah.

I'll suspend Flash's involuntary bris for now until I get more ethical clarity.

[BigMike]

...

Okay Mike, I am down with all this -- just a few quibbles. I'll get to that later. For now, and for Accelafine's benefit (if it is actually possible to benefit her either in an empathetic world or in a cruel, Hitlerian world) I submit some super-eights from my own Bar Mitzvah.

I'll suspend Flash's involuntary bris for now until I get more ethical clarity.

Your ability to pivot from critique to humor is, as always, remarkable—though I suspect it might leave some scratching their heads, especially Accelafine. That said, I appreciate your willingness to "suspend Flash's involuntary bris" until further ethical clarity emerges. After all, even the sharpest of disagreements deserve a fair and measured approach, rather than—shall we say—hasty surgical interventions.

As for quibbles, I'm more than ready to engage. Let’s untangle whatever threads you find loose in my tapestry of arguments. And if you have more super-eights to share, I’m here for it—though I might suggest balancing nostalgia with substance as we navigate these deeper waters.

[attofishpi]

I was paraphrasing.

Nah, I can't let this slide - don't pester me again with your nonsense woman!

Watch your language! The above reveals a bias towards despising women.

I admire women, woman!

(*my Mum was one of them)
(** I far prefer women to men, my Dad is one of them)

You need to learn a little more about the use of reason when you make personal choices.

You are one of the last people upon the forum that I will take advice re reasoning skills from

..For instance, when you seek the cause of how a broken bone heals without medical or surgical intervention please consider if the healing was magical or was it more probably bones' tendency to heal themselves.

I have no idea wot u r talking about.