Can the Secularists be Trusted?

[promethean75]

Fishpie's version of Pascal's Wager except we will assume he's been drinking so we'll call it Pascal's Lager ot something like that. Pretty solid argument though, Pascal's Lager.

[BigMike]

Will's point about "stories" was clearly a jab at the unscientific narratives people use to ascribe meaning beyond the observable and testable.

It's not a jab at anyone. If you ask a bunch of physicists who the greatest ever of their number was, many of them will say Isaac Newton. Here's something I wrote for Philosophy Now:

Having dismissed Descartes’ explanation of how gravitational attraction works, Newton included a passage known by a phrase that occurs in it: hypotheses non fingo – ‘I make no hypotheses’. He writes: “But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I make no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.” To Newton, an explanation of how something works isn’t essential to science; as long as the mathematical model gives us the power to map, predict, and manipulate our environment, the job of physics is done. As the passage concludes: “And to us it is enough, that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.” The explanation of why it works isn’t that important to science. As Osiander had said, what matters is, can you use the theory?

You can read the whole thing here: https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

Long story short: the explanation, hypothesis, story, call it what you will, that you attach to scientific theory can be useful in that it is much easier to manipulate a concept like warped spacetime, than it is to jiggle the numbers. However, it makes no difference to the utility of Einstein's field equation whether gravity is actually caused by warped spacetime.

Will, your point is well-taken, and the historical perspective you offer is both thoughtful and relevant. I’ve always admired Newton’s hypotheses non fingo stance—it’s a reminder that science is fundamentally about utility and predictive power rather than metaphysical explanations.

I’d extend that admiration to Einstein’s work, particularly his original paper on general relativity. Reading it was like an incredible introductory course on tensor analysis—it balances mathematical elegance with profound clarity, making the underlying concepts far more approachable than many later interpretations. Einstein’s ability to frame gravity as warped spacetime doesn’t just serve as a practical model; it reshaped how we even think about the fabric of reality.

That said, I completely agree with your closing thought: whether gravity “is” warped spacetime or something else entirely doesn’t alter the utility of Einstein’s field equations. The beauty of physics lies in its ability to map, predict, and manipulate, regardless of whether our “stories” about the mechanisms align with ultimate truth. As Newton and Einstein both understood, science thrives on what works.

Isaac Newton was undeniably one of the greatest scientific minds in history, but his personality left much to be desired. Beneath his genius lay a man who was often insecure, combative, and deeply vindictive, which colored many of his interactions with contemporaries and shaped his legacy in more ways than one.

He had a knack for making enemies—and keeping them. One of his most infamous rivalries was with Robert Hooke, a fellow scientist at the Royal Society. Hooke claimed that Newton failed to properly credit his contributions to the study of gravitation, particularly the idea that celestial bodies followed elliptical orbits. Newton, not one to take criticism lightly, retaliated with a vengeance. As president of the Royal Society, he is alleged to have used his position to systematically erase Hooke’s contributions. No known portrait of Hooke survives, and many speculate Newton had a hand in this erasure, ensuring Hooke’s image was lost to history. Whether or not this is entirely true, it aligns with Newton’s penchant for holding grudges and using his power to settle personal scores.

His feud with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz over the invention of calculus is another glaring example of Newton’s vindictiveness. Both men independently developed the foundational principles of calculus, but when Leibniz published his work first, Newton saw it as an affront. He accused Leibniz of plagiarism and spearheaded a campaign to discredit him. Newton even orchestrated an “impartial” investigation into the matter by the Royal Society, conveniently writing the committee’s findings himself—anonymously, of course—and predictably concluding that Newton was the true inventor. Leibniz’s reputation was tarnished, and he died with his name sullied by the controversy. Newton’s behavior in this episode was not merely defensive; it was actively destructive. According to Stephen Hawking, Newton wrote in his private journal about how much he enjoyed breaking Leibniz's heart after learning of his passing.

His prickly demeanor extended beyond professional rivalries. He was, by all accounts, a loner. He had few close friends and seemed to prefer his own company to the companionship of others. While some of this can be attributed to his intense focus and introverted nature, his disdain for social niceties and his willingness to alienate colleagues likely exacerbated his isolation. Newton wasn’t just socially awkward; he could be downright cruel when he felt slighted, which happened often.

Outside of his groundbreaking work in physics and mathematics, Newton’s interests veered into the bizarre. He was obsessed with alchemy, spending years attempting to uncover the secrets of the philosopher’s stone—a mythical substance said to grant eternal life and turn base metals into gold. This pursuit, while not uncommon for the time, seems odd given his otherwise rational mind. Newton also delved deeply into theology, convinced that the Bible contained hidden codes and divine truths waiting to be decoded. These obsessions consumed him to the point of paranoia, with Newton reportedly burning some of his papers and notes to keep his rivals from exploiting his work.

While Newton’s scientific contributions are unparalleled, his flaws are just as remarkable. He used his genius as a weapon, wielding his intellect to crush dissent and settle scores. He was quick to feel slighted, relentless in seeking retribution, and wholly unyielding in his opinions. His brilliance was undeniable, but it came with a cost—a legacy of brilliance tainted by vindictiveness, pettiness, and a life lived in the shadow of grudges and eccentricity.

His story is a reminder that genius does not equate to moral virtue. Behind his revolutionary discoveries in physics and mathematics lay a deeply human—and deeply flawed—individual whose insecurities and rivalries are as much a part of his history as the Principia.

[BigMike]

Fishpie's version of Pascal's Wager except we will assume he's been drinking so we'll call it Pascal's Lager ot something like that. Pretty solid argument though, Pascal's Lager.

Voltaire, the sharp-witted critic of dogma and institutionalized religion, saw Pascal’s Wager as an insult to genuine faith. To Voltaire, belief based on self-interest—hedging your eternal bets, as it were—wasn’t faith at all. It was cowardice, a submission to fear rather than the pursuit of truth or virtue.

[Atla]

Reverse Pascal's wager: this universe is a reverse test of faith, created by God. He leads us to believe that he doesn't exist, and wants to see who among us chooses to believe in him anyway.

The ones who don't, the atheists, go to Heaven. The spineless coward theists don't. God didn't want to spend all eternity with those folks.

[promethean75]

The worst thing that ever happened to Pascal's Wager was Nietzsche's Wager (the Eternal Recurrence).

N's wager would be the more rational wager to make if there were no god and at least the possibility of some kind of repetition of events in the universe or 'as' the universe.

If you take N's wager and end up being wrong, you've lost nothing because you never again exist. But if you are right, and what you do now will be done again and again... well, that's like being a master of fate. You're like an author who's writing a book, a screenplay which will play out every time the dice roll your number again. You're like a god that is designing itself very slowly over eons of time, over and over again the plot plays out... maybe some quantum fluctuation causes an abberation in the code, and this time around, you order the fajita instead of the stuffed releno.

What would be the underlying driving force in this willing of oneself that occurs forever and ever over and over again? Remember, there's no god, no final purposes, and nothing to answer to but brute force and suffering... all of it morally meaningless... a shit show of shameless shenanigans. You can do whatever tf you want, and that includes hating on people that think they can do whatever tf they want. It's a total free-for-all. What's going on here? What would do such a thing if not a will to create in innumerable forms and forces, all of it fantastic and strange. Look at all the bizarre species on this planet. Wtf is that?

Bro. You gotta go with N's wager if you're going to make it out of here alive.

[FlashDangerpants]

Will's point about "stories" was clearly a jab at the unscientific narratives people use to ascribe meaning beyond the observable and testable.

It's not a jab at anyone. If you ask a bunch of physicists who the greatest ever of their number was, many of them will say Isaac Newton. Here's something I wrote for Philosophy Now:
...
Long story short: the explanation, hypothesis, story, call it what you will, that you attach to scientific theory can be useful in that it is much easier to manipulate a concept like warped spacetime, than it is to jiggle the numbers. However, it makes no difference to the utility of Einstein's field equation whether gravity is actually caused by warped spacetime.

Will, your point is well-taken, and the historical perspective you offer is both thoughtful and relevant. I’ve always admired Newton’s hypotheses non fingo stance—it’s a reminder that science is fundamentally about utility and predictive power rather than metaphysical explanations.

The thing is... you have been telling us that the story you like (determinism; rendered absolute across all sorts of domains where it cannot possibly be observed, by conservation laws which likewise cannot be observed in all domains). And you have been very mean about anybody not accepting it as the perfect all-encompassing argument you wish it was.

[promethean75]

"The ones who don't, the atheists, go to Heaven."

I wouldn't agree more. If a God did exist, the sole purpose of theology would be for showing intelligent people what God is not and has nothing to do with. It's almost that bad; religious concepts and claims so absurd one would expect only to find them in children's books. This has to be on purpose. When you turn your radio on scan and it stops for a moment on a christian station and you hear one of those inspirational jesus is my guiding light songs, that actually just happened. God made that song happen so you can hear how horrible christian R&B singers are.

This is how God winks at genuine philosophers. Think of the whole history of religion as a comedy series God produced for atheists to watch.

[Alexiev]

That said, I completely agree with your closing thought: whether gravity “is” warped spacetime or something else entirely doesn’t alter the utility of Einstein’s field equations. The beauty of physics lies in its ability to map, predict, and manipulate, regardless of whether our “stories” about the mechanisms align with ultimate truth. As Newton and Einstein both understood, science thrives on what works.

Unfortunately, your determinist worldview can map, predict, and manipulate nothing when it comes to human behavior and choices. That's been my point all along. Instead, it is strictly metaphysical and unscientific.

[Immanuel Can]

So atheists behave morally...

Some do. Some don't. And none have to, and none have warrant from Atheism for so doing. But you already know all that.

... without any perceived benefit for it or punishment for not being so.

Why would you suppose that's true? Do you think Atheists are unaware of the legal system, or of the practical advantages of things like embezzlement or theft? I don't see why you'd suppose they're ignorant of those things. I would think they certainly do weigh benefits vs. punishment, though. Everybody does, whatever they believe.

But they don't imagine God will ever establish justice. That much might be true. By definition, they don't just disbelieve in objective morals but also in God and in the Final Judgment...so how could they? Unfortunately for them, disbelief is no insulation against ultimate realities.

But why would an Atheist consider moral behaviour "admirable," whatever the motive? Atheism gives no reason for a person to be more admired for being good than being evil. It's not just blame that disappears in their worldview, but also praise. There's no basis for either.

So you can note their behaviour. But if you were an Atheist, you would have no grounds to "admire" it.

I'm agnostic and I see no reason to believe that any God will ever establish justice, given his track record in this universe full of dangers and natural disasters.

Well, seeing you're an agnostic, there's no logical reason you should "admire" anybody, and no reason you should criticize any "track record" either. By your own admission, you don't know of any objective criteria by which anything should be "admired" or "criticized." Like the Atheists, you're simply in no position to complain or object, and no position to applaud or admire, either.

That's the old "praise and blame" problem that is so familiar to ethicists. Absent any objective moral realities, there are no grounds that can identify anything as worthy of either approval or of criticism. You're just in a moral vacuum, then, like you're floating in empty space, with no sense of "up" or "down."

That being so, you should stop complaining, right? Except that, just like the Atheists, nobody lives as an agnostic either. We all try to praise and blame all kinds of things -- even those who claim there are no moral truths.

Finally, if you're all in knots over the "environmental crisis," was it God or man that created that?

[Immanuel Can]

Part of the problem is that "secular" simply means "non-sacred." It's a negation with no positive content entailed. Somebody who's a "secularist," then, would be somebody who thinks nothing should be privileged as "sacred."

But then, secularists still want various things to be treated as sacred. They still believe in human rights, for example, or in their own autonomy, or in the responsibility of the state to remain non-religious, or in moral duties, or the liberty to terminate their own life, or the right of law, or social justice, or a life they have created...some are even environmentalists or vegans, treating animals or the planet itself as sacred.

The only way one can maintain such beliefs turns out to be not to think very hard about the warrant for regarding any of those things as sacred; because once you've declared NOTHING sacred, there isn't a road back to justifying those values. So secularism can only be maintained by the expedient of not thinking, of not being consistent, of not trying to ground one's beliefs in reason.

Instead, secularism tends to expend all its energies on deploring the religious, as if insulting others was somehow the same thing as proving and rationally grounding one's own beliefs. But of course, it's not. Even if, say, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, paganism and Theosophy are wrong in their entirety, that realization would not go one step in the direction of showing that a secularist's own preferred values were justified.

If secularism behaved genuinely secularly, it would amount to Nihilism. There's no other logical resting place for it.

Fortunately for us all, secularism is never logically followed to its own natural conclusions. If it were, we would not be living in societies, but in a permanent state of confusion and strife...for no values at all would be justifiable. So we may all thank our lucky stars that secularism is not self-aware.

Yes, they have many, many, countless even, Beliefs that they automatically presume as 'Sacred' among the liberal-left-marxist contingent (socially), but they are not self-aware or self-cognizant of their blind-spots.

They blithely insist they have none.

In that respect, they're worse than clueless; they don't even know what a 'clue' would be. They actually seem to think they've magically arrived at the perfect point of Archimedian neutrality, and that "secular" automatically means "without any suppositions at all."

I don't know why the "religious right" don't act offensively against them, and challenge their 'Secular' belief systems.

Well, because "religious right" is a thing that doesn't actually exist. It's a meme from the Left. The truth is that the secularists are opposed by a wide variety of ideologies, each proceeding from a different angle, not from some mythical identical "right."

It's been a one-way attack direction for decades now, at least since the 1990s that I've experienced. The attacks are against the 'Sanctity' of religious-right belief systems, but not against the Sanctity of secular-left belief systems.

That's because secularists do not even imagine they're anything but neutral, and so they simply dismiss any suggestion that they have a "faith" or a "belief" in anything at all. And not many among their opposition understand how foolish that is, or how to challenge it.

The secular-left, however, tend to presume their belief systems as "automatically given" and "not doctrinal". Yet, they treat Universities, Professors, PhD, "Scientists-Experts" as Divine figures. "Trust the Experts!"

Now you've got it. That's exactly it.

But it's worse than that. Most of them actually have no idea about wehat the "professors" or the "experts" or the "scientists" actually think. They just blithely assume that whatever the secularists themselves happen already to believe, in their unthinking, un-self-aware way, IS the "automatically given" or "not doctrinal" thing.

They're then blind to how they act almost exactly same as the Fundamentalism of the religious-right, without being self-aware of their own biases, ignorance, and beliefs. But they do not have a Moral system against Pridefulness, disallowing their pretentions and haughtiness. The holier-than-thou attitude is not unique to the Right, but very much common among the Left.

I would go further. Any "holier than thou" attitude that perhaps used to characterize the more conservative religionists is now considerably abated by confusion and relativism within their own fold; most of them are becoming insular and withdrawn from public life, and trying to survive. Meanwhile, the insane fervour of the Left has overtaken anything you find among most of them.

For example, I don't know of any religionists (outside of Islam, perhaps) that are silencing, devoicing, deplatforming, rioting, censoring, doxxing, abusing, burning down, beating up, and so on...

But the Lefties are doing it. It's in the news every day.

[seeds]

There are infinite factors that go into every Belief-system. That you and all the other Secularists overlook these "facts", demonstrates to me that very few, or none of you, are really serious about your 'Sciences'.

I can't speak for all the other secularists, but many of us take science to be fundamentally a pragmatic endeavour. It is, for example, an observable, verifiable fact that stones fall to Earth if you drop them. The science comes in when you measure things like the mass of the stone, the distance it falls and the time it takes. Repeat the experiment with different objects and heights, see if there is a pattern in the data; if so devise a formula that accounts for the pattern you have discerned. Use that formula for any purpose to which it applies, and to any purpose to which it doesn't apply, use another formula. If it pleases you to do so, make up a story about why stones fall as they do; it won't make any difference to the behaviour of stones.

Well said, Will! Your focus on the pragmatic foundation of science is spot on, especially when paired with its remarkable predictive power. The formulas derived from observable patterns, like those describing falling stones, don’t just explain—they predict future behavior with precision. That’s the strength of science: it gives us tools to understand and navigate the world, grounded in evidence rather than stories.

Metaphorically speaking, human science is nothing more than the tedious process of trying to "reverse-engineer" a vast machine (the universe) that has been designed and created by "aliens" who are infinitely more advanced than humans.

And, for whatever reason, the aliens wanted to make the "machine" seem as though it were a "naturally-occurring" phenomenon.

And as I have suggested elsewhere,...

...modern material scientists are the metaphorical equivalent of a group of Neanderthals roaming through the woods who stumble upon a running, 350 horsepower, V8 engine.

And after many days of grunting, head scratching, and beating the engine to pieces with clubs and rocks, one of the more intelligent among them...

(Richard Dawkins' great, great, great --> times 10^3 grandfather named "Og")

...was somehow able to figure out how it works.

In a flurry of grunts and hand gestures, Og sez:

“...fire make shiny thing push down and turn other shiny thing...”

And with that the group moves on, completely satisfied in thinking that they have resolved the mystery of the engine.

The point is that the general attitude and ethos of modern science is not unlike the above Neanderthals who are self-satisfied in understanding how the machine works...

...yet seem to hold very little concern regarding the utter mystery of how such a purposeful and fine-tuned machine could have come into existence in the first place.
_______

[promethean75]

"Finally, if you're all in knots over the "environmental crisis," was it God or man that created that?"

Please show me in the bible where it says, "thou shalt not build factories or drive wheeled gasoline powered contraptions"

[Gary Childress]

Some do. Some don't. And none have to, and none have warrant from Atheism for so doing. But you already know all that.

Why would you suppose that's true? Do you think Atheists are unaware of the legal system, or of the practical advantages of things like embezzlement or theft? I don't see why you'd suppose they're ignorant of those things. I would think they certainly do weigh benefits vs. punishment, though. Everybody does, whatever they believe.

But they don't imagine God will ever establish justice. That much might be true. By definition, they don't just disbelieve in objective morals but also in God and in the Final Judgment...so how could they? Unfortunately for them, disbelief is no insulation against ultimate realities.

But why would an Atheist consider moral behaviour "admirable," whatever the motive? Atheism gives no reason for a person to be more admired for being good than being evil. It's not just blame that disappears in their worldview, but also praise. There's no basis for either.

So you can note their behaviour. But if you were an Atheist, you would have no grounds to "admire" it.

I'm agnostic and I see no reason to believe that any God will ever establish justice, given his track record in this universe full of dangers and natural disasters.

Well, seeing you're an agnostic, there's no logical reason you should "admire" anybody, and no reason you should criticize any "track record" either. By your own admission, you don't know of any objective criteria by which anything should be "admired" or "criticized." Like the Atheists, you're simply in no position to complain or object, and no position to applaud or admire, either.

That's the old "praise and blame" problem that is so familiar to ethicists. Absent any objective moral realities, there are no grounds that can identify anything as worthy of either approval or of criticism. You're just in a moral vacuum, then, like you're floating in empty space, with no sense of "up" or "down."

That being so, you should stop complaining, right? Except that, just like the Atheists, nobody lives as an agnostic either. We all try to praise and blame all kinds of things -- even those who claim there are no moral truths.

Finally, if you're all in knots over the "environmental crisis," was it God or man that created that?

I'm a human being as you are. I have every right to complain or however I want to react to this shitshow of a world. Don't tell me what I can and can't do.

[Gary Childress]

"Finally, if you're all in knots over the "environmental crisis," was it God or man that created that?"

Please show me in the bible where it says, "thou shalt not build factories or drive wheeled gasoline powered contraptions"

Give up. IC"s the type of person who thinks it's "God's will" when the rest of us are suffering. He doesn't give a shit about anyone else. That's clear. He's got his God. He can hole up in a shack in the mountains somewhere and do yoga or something for all I care.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm agnostic and I see no reason to believe that any God will ever establish justice, given his track record in this universe full of dangers and natural disasters.

Well, seeing you're an agnostic, there's no logical reason you should "admire" anybody, and no reason you should criticize any "track record" either. By your own admission, you don't know of any objective criteria by which anything should be "admired" or "criticized." Like the Atheists, you're simply in no position to complain or object, and no position to applaud or admire, either.

That's the old "praise and blame" problem that is so familiar to ethicists. Absent any objective moral realities, there are no grounds that can identify anything as worthy of either approval or of criticism. You're just in a moral vacuum, then, like you're floating in empty space, with no sense of "up" or "down."

That being so, you should stop complaining, right? Except that, just like the Atheists, nobody lives as an agnostic either. We all try to praise and blame all kinds of things -- even those who claim there are no moral truths.

Finally, if you're all in knots over the "environmental crisis," was it God or man that created that?

I have every right to complain or whatever I want to do in this world. Don't tell me what I can and can't do.

Sorry, Gary: there are no such things as human rights in an Atheist world, and no knowledge of anything that could ground any in an agnostic one. So no, you actually have neither the right nor the criteria to do so...assuming you're an agnostic, as you say.