Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[Alexis Jacobi]

…but you refuse to define it in practical terms or explain how your metaphysical musings align with reality.

My impression of your shtick is that you honestly believe that if you repeat the same accusation enough times that it will stick and be regarded by your peers as an honest statement and a baseline in these exchanges.

In your system no *metaphysical idea* of any sort has any validity or realness whatever! Naturally, whatever I am alluding to — when for example I refer to the complex idea of an *eye* that *sees* — it simply flies over your head. It is literally inconsiderable.

The issue of how ideas, grounded in metaphysical concepts, “align with reality’ requires whole sets of prior definitions i.e. agreements about what *reality* is, or what its purpose is, and what our purposes are in this ‘mysterious cosmos’.

All of that, BigMike — ALL OF IT — is not material that appears on the tabletop of your considerations. It is another conversation entirely. The intense force of your ideological assertions sweeps all such thoughts & considerations off the table.

That is what zealotry tends to do!

What I say is that most people, and possibly all people, live in accord on one level or another, in one degree of depth or another, to a “metaphysical dream of the world”. Now, I certainly admit that dreams, in this sense, have become very confused. There are many competing dreams. But I do not think that *dream* should be taken as something implying falseness nor illusion (in a negative sense) or self-deception.

So the question of how metaphysics influences man’s psyche is in no sense a vain question. Are you really incapable of seeing this?! And frankly I am uncertain what to think of your introduction of the problematic term *practical*. You mean what can be or is practiced? Or do you mean what has practical application in industry and manufacture? Metaphysical ideas and ideas that flow out of metaphysical visions interface at all levels with how real and tangible people live their lives when value & meaning are understood to be vital human areas.

[Atla]

And that's why we don't "debate" the religious. They don't see a difference between what is true and what they want to be true.

The issue of what truth is, and then what is true — in lived life as distinct for example from mathematics — is what the Blake quote deals on or explores. What does “eye” mean and what is to “see”.

If you mean to include me in your category of religious, and propose that I cannot distinguish between “truths” of an order generally defined as metaphysical, or distinguish them from science facts or physics facts, you are mistaken. However, I do recognize that religious commitments are infused with the “wants” you describe, especially among zealots. But in my experience there are men who grasp material-science factual truths but who also understand — appreciate, value — those other truths which Blake refers to by referencing the quality of the person who sees.

I intuit that you share BM’s ultra-materialist, and essentially mathematically based approach to examining facts and elevating them to the level where you-plural will say “Only these are true”. My understanding is that, yes, that is certainly something that can be done, and also that it is done, but it results in a limiting and a skewing epistemology. It “distorts from pole to pole”.

Richard Weaver, an ultra-Platonist, wrote about the importance and relevance of one’s “metaphysical dream of the world”. When I propose “cutting to the chase” in regard to BigMike’s ultra-adamant propositions I wish to point out that 1) they will result in the destruction of a type of “eye” that has discerned value and valuable things in our world, but 2) that BigMike is also involved in a religious-like imposition of a radical interpretation of what his “facts” purport to mean. His mood about his project mirrors religious certainty and, certainly, he sees it as having social redemptive power.

That is why the idea of needing a “master metaphysician” to sort through our tendencies in the intellectual realm is to me an important one.

Yeah yeah. Not sure I should be called a materialist, when I don't even believe in 'matter' as such, although my worldview is almost materialism. I'm only committed to some version of Occam's razor, because as to my knowledge, no one has proposed a better tool yet for calculating the most likely truths.

“This life's dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.”

Looks like this was said by a man who wanted to believe in the heavens, and in his soul's heavenly nature. Like almost everyone does. But then we are confronted with the problem that there is no sign of the heavens, and no reason to believe that we have heavenly souls. So then most of the religious will go with what they want to be true, even though it's probably not true.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Looks like this was said by a man who wanted to believe in the heavens, and in his soul's heavenly nature. Like almost everyone does. But then we are confronted with the problem that there is no sign of the heavens, and no reason to believe that we have heavenly souls. So then most of the religious will go with what they want to be true, even though it's probably not true.

To understand the “worldview” of Blake one would have to have a grounding in its concepts.

It looks like you might not have much interest or perhaps use for (?) an understanding of the old system of visualizing “earth” and “world”?

The notion of “heaven” and “the heavenly” can be taken in different ways.

If you are asking me to offer you an attempt for a validation of Blake’s meaning — I think I could pull that off. But if you asked me if I “believe in” a celestial realm overarching the earth, I would of course say no, I don’t.

What I would point out to you is that the notion of “soul” can in my view also be validated and explained. But if you asked me to produce a soul for your examination, I could not.

You seem to be involved in ultra-realism except that when you say “Not sure I should be called a materialist, when I don't even believe in 'matter' as such” you (seem to) leave open a back door, or a trap door, to other types of concept.

It is unfortunate for your interpretive project that you have taken Blake’s notions in too-literal terms. That is likely due to training, to background, and predilection.

Since I am the one defending “meaning” that I distinguish from “fact”, I can offer all sorts of ways to appreciate, understand and also to practically apply what (I believe) Blake is getting at, and it is in those areas that the ultra-realists take issue with those, like myself, who work to defend those meanings.

[Atla]

Looks like this was said by a man who wanted to believe in the heavens, and in his soul's heavenly nature. Like almost everyone does. But then we are confronted with the problem that there is no sign of the heavens, and no reason to believe that we have heavenly souls. So then most of the religious will go with what they want to be true, even though it's probably not true.

To understand the “worldview” of Blake one would have to have a grounding in its concepts.

It looks like you might not have much interest or perhaps use for (?) an understanding of the old system of visualizing “earth” and “world”?

The notion of “heaven” and “the heavenly” can be taken in different ways.

If you are asking me to offer you an attempt for a validation of Blake’s meaning — I think I could pull that off. But if you asked me if I “believe in” a celestial realm overarching the earth, I would of course say no, I don’t.

What I would point out to you is that the notion of “soul” can in my view also be validated and explained. But if you asked me to produce a soul for your examination, I could not.

You seem to be involved in ultra-realism except that when you say “Not sure I should be called a materialist, when I don't even believe in 'matter' as such” you (seem to) leave open a back door, or a trap door, to other types of concept.

It is unfortunate for your interpretive project that you have taken Blake’s notions in too-literal terms. That is likely due to training, to background, and predilection.

Since I am the one defending “meaning” that I distinguish from “fact”, I can offer all sorts of ways to appreciate, understand and also to practically apply what (I believe) Blake is getting at, and it is in those areas that the ultra-realists take issue with those, like myself, who work to defend those meanings.

Imo it's not too difficult to show that ultra-realism includes the (partial) refutation of materialist philosophy. A hardcore materialist can't be an ultra-realist. Not sure what you're getting at.

One can distinguish meaning from fact, umm isn't the question more like, are those meanings viable?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Tell me, Atla, what you discern to really be true and then, or also, what you want to be true? Does “wanting” enter in?

I get the impression often that there is a you-plural in the world of philosophy (that is, if you are not either a religious nutter or a schizophrenic, huar huar!) that does actually have many levels of “wants” when your interpretive projects are examined closely.

Personally, I seek BigMike as really really wanting many things to be “true” and that his project involves the necessary, and even quite violent, denial of truths that operate on other planes.

(The only way that I have to categorize those realms or planes is by introducing the word metaphysical and saying that, though non-tangible they are real indeed.)

[Alexis Jacobi]

One can distinguish meaning from fact, umm isn't the question more like, are those meanings viable?

I suppose I would say You tell me …

[Alexis Jacobi]

Imo it's not too difficult to show that ultra-realism includes the (partial) refutation of materialist philosophy.

Could you offer a neatly woven paragraph or two that explains and defends that statement?

[Atla]

Tell me, Atla, what you discern to really be true and then, or also, what you want to be true? Does “wanting” enter in?

I get the impression often that there is a you-plural in the world of philosophy (that is, if you are not either a religious nutter or a schizophrenic, huar huar!) that does actually have many levels of “wants” when your interpretive projects are examined closely.

Personally, I seek BigMike as really really wanting many things to be “true” and that his project involves the necessary, and even quite violent, denial of truths that operate on other planes.

(The only way that I have to categorize those realms or planes is by introducing the word metaphysical and saying that, though non-tangible they are real indeed.)

What I want is irrelevant here. To me, "philosophy" is just about coming up with the most likely truths, even if I hate what I find (which happens often).

Imo the best way to come up with the most likely truths is to look at the world in its totality (including all scientific knowledge that can be stated beyond reasonable doubt), and then come up with the simplest (Occam's razor) descriptions of the total known world, descriptions that are 100% internally consistent, coherent, account for everything. So that would be what is most likely really true.

I call the above 4D philosophy, I finished it some 10-15 years ago and then moved beyond it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I call the above 4D philosophy, I finished it some 10-15 years ago and then moved beyond it.

On to 5D I presume?! Or back to 2D?!

[Atla]

Imo it's not too difficult to show that ultra-realism includes the (partial) refutation of materialist philosophy.

Could you offer a neatly woven paragraph or two that explains and defends that statement?

Ok, I'll try to be as short as I can. Well I assume that by ultra-realism you mean being maximally realistic, rational. That means throwing out the entire dualistic Western school of thought since Plato.

Materialism and idealism were later manifestations of the dualistic insanity. We split reality into the mental and the material, thereby adopting a "double vision" of reality. Materialism is the view that reality is material and not mental, idealism is the view that reality is mental and not material.

Every profoundly incompetent Western philosopher of the last few centuries will tell you that materialism and idealism are monisms, but the ultra-realist truth is that they are still lowkey dualisms. Materialism is actually the view that reality is material and not mental, and this view has actually retained the original mental-material split (duality), embedded it in our thinking so deeply that we no longer even notice it.

As an ultra-realist I reject this split, there is literally zero evidence for it. I'm a non-Western nondualist.

But of course Western philosophers and scientists didn't realize this, and for a long, long time they tried to solve the question: "what is matter"? Finally they gave up. No one has ever seen matter. Matter is just a concept. Mentality is also just a concept. We use the concept of matter to describe the one reality which isn't inherently material.

Then we have those freak eliminative materialists (like Dennett probably) who double down on materialism and do away with the "mental" part altogether. It's nuts.

[Atla]

I call the above 4D philosophy, I finished it some 10-15 years ago and then moved beyond it.

On to 5D I presume?! Or back to 2D?!

5-7 dimensions. That's the interesting speculative part of philosophy.

[BigMike]

Dubious,

Your response is thoughtful, and I appreciate that you ground even metaphysical pondering within the framework of deterministic causation. The brain's ability to process inputs, generate resolutions, and stretch itself into realms of philosophical or theistic speculation—all while being fundamentally rooted in its physical structure—is a fascinating testament to the complexity of deterministic processes.

You’re absolutely right that metaphysical thought, as absurd or profound as it may seem, is itself a deterministic output of the brain’s workings. It doesn’t escape causality; it exemplifies it. The very fact that we can ponder beyond our understanding is, ironically, one of the most remarkable deterministic outcomes of the evolutionary processes that shaped us.

In this light, metaphysics isn’t a contradiction to determinism—it’s one of its more intriguing manifestations. Thank you for phrasing it so succinctly.

Unless I am getting something very wrong, the ramification of the philosophy of BigMike — which is really a physiology (?) — is that it can do nothing but reduce that which is pondered metaphysically, and that which is understood to be metaphysical, into meaninglessness. That is to say that in this ultra-virulent physiology it desires to bring about the destruction of metaphysics. And that is to say all those categories of

understanding and value

that are grounded in metaphysical notions and concepts.

According to Dubious — again if I understand his views — this *brain* concocts metaphysical phantasies but that these are essentially unreal. So, this “stretch(ing) itself into realms of philosophical or theistic speculation” has no real grounding in what can be considered *true*. In any case, whatever truths are thought to exist these are insubstantial truths, evanescent passing impositions, and they cannot compete with physiological truths: i.e. the brain’s confused and disordered processes and concoctions. Dubious has a super-pessimistic view of both man and life, I should add. And again I tend to think that we must take into consideration a man’s psychology when we grapple with his ideas.

The very fact that we can ponder beyond our understanding is, ironically, one of the most remarkable deterministic outcomes of the evolutionary processes that shaped us.

What, I ask, is a good example of *pondering beyond our understanding* when, in truth, all that is going on in that brain is necessarily understood to be unreal. What does the really truthfully grounded brain (who grasps BigMike’s philosophy and ideology) really think about? A whole world of ideas is brutally dismissed and *proper thought* flows into extremely limited, and limiting, channels. Think this through!

That is, if that brain and that vat of interacting chemicals and electrical currents arrives at a *concept* which is, necessarily, a metaphysical notion, how could such a fabulous idea be validated?

Something substantial has been removed from the human equation if these limiting ideas, these reductive ideas, that limit man and consciousness to mere brain function, are given such precedence. There is no way to recover it that I can see once one *believes in* such reductive doctrines.

I do not deny that we have *roots* in physiological structures. But I certainly am not willing to give assent to the implications and ramifications of a quite literally psuedo-philosophy that is based in isolated facts about brain mechanics. It must necessarily destroy philosophy and then transform philosophy into some other sort of discipline altogether.

In this light, metaphysics isn’t a contradiction to determinism—it’s one of its more intriguing manifestations.

This is an absurd statement. I sense that this is one of those (many) points in your discourse where after having snatched away with your left hand what is required to allow philosophy and higher-realm speculation to *exist*, that you clumsily reintroduce it because you cannot, and we cannot, do without it.

Your response is a tangled web of assumptions and mischaracterizations, veering away from engagement with the substance of what I’ve said into yet another exercise in rhetorical evasion. You claim my perspective "reduces metaphysics into meaninglessness" and "destroys philosophy," but these accusations are not arguments—they’re melodramatic reactions to a framework you clearly don’t understand or won’t engage with honestly.

Let’s get to the core of this: metaphysics is not “destroyed” by determinism. Metaphysical thought—the very act of pondering beyond immediate understanding—is itself a deterministic output of the brain’s workings. It arises from the same physical processes that produce every other kind of thought or speculation. A deterministic explanation doesn’t make it meaningless; it situates it in reality. If you think acknowledging the deterministic origins of metaphysical concepts makes them invalid, then explain why. Don’t just wave it away with vague assertions about "destroying philosophy."

Your repeated claim that I’m advocating some kind of "reductive doctrine" that renders metaphysics meaningless is absurd. A deterministic framework doesn’t deny the existence or utility of metaphysical concepts—it explains their emergence. The fact that humans construct these frameworks, that we can engage in profound speculation, is itself a testament to the complexity of deterministic processes. To dismiss this as "pseudo-philosophy" is lazy and avoids grappling with the implications of a materialist understanding of the mind.

And as for your accusation that I "snatch away" philosophy with one hand and "clumsily reintroduce it" with the other—what nonsense. Philosophy, like any other human endeavor, emerges from the deterministic interplay of biology, experience, and environment. Acknowledging this doesn’t invalidate it; it grounds it. What you seem unable or unwilling to accept is that something doesn’t need to exist outside the material world to be meaningful or valuable. Philosophy exists because our deterministic brains create it, and that’s more than enough.

What’s truly absurd is your continued refusal to address key points—like how your notion of "receiving consciousness" works, what evidence supports it, or why deterministic explanations are inherently invalid. You call my statement that metaphysics is a manifestation of determinism "absurd" without offering a shred of reasoning to back that up. That’s not an argument; it’s posturing.

If you want to criticize my ideas, do so with specificity and clarity. Otherwise, your objections are just hollow complaints, more concerned with preserving your own worldview than engaging with the actual arguments on the table. It’s tiresome, and it’s intellectually dishonest. If you can’t defend your position without resorting to these tactics, then perhaps it’s your ideas—not mine—that are in need of reevaluation.

[Immanuel Can]

Unless I am getting something very wrong, the ramification of the philosophy of BigMike — which is really a physiology (?) — is that it can do nothing but reduce that which is pondered metaphysically, and that which is understood to be metaphysical, into meaninglessness...

Do you ever notice that Mikey's replies always follow the same kinds of patterns? They always begin with:

Your response is a...[followed by various insults]

Then he pretends to "cut through" to the meat:

Let’s get to the core of this: ...

This will be followed by,

Your repeated claim...[with summary insistence that you've got everything wrong, and thus have insulted his honour]

Then there's the self-righteous ire:

And as for your accusation...—what nonsense.

Then maybe a ratcheting up of just how ridiculous everything his opponent says is:

What’s truly absurd...

And you'll be accused of mere sophistry:

It’s tiresome, and it’s intellectually dishonest. If you can’t defend your position without resorting to these tactics, then perhaps it’s your ideas—not mine—that are in need of reevaluation.

He's really got nothing. He's just going to keep circling with his Determinism, and denying that any of the very reasonable criticisms of that position are just "absurd," or "misrepresentations," or "dishonest," or whatever. He's put his brain in the Deterministic jar, and is keeping it beside his bed...lest it should become overused, and thus wear out. What he has left is simply ranting, accusing, denying, and then hoping to shame you into silence by having heaped enough terms of opprobrium on your head.

It's fun to watch, but it's a total waste of energy. Mikey's not listening. Perhaps he's just "predetermined" not to.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Thanks for your last cut’n’paste of your standard critical boilerplate, Mike! The following parts interest me:

You claim my perspective "reduces metaphysics into meaninglessness" and "destroys philosophy," but these accusations are not arguments

I regret to inform you of what you cannot seem to see: your pseudo-philosophy, a skewed philosopho-physiology, does indeed do just that. It couldn’t do anything else.

And I cannot discern the value or necessity of philosophy, traditionally understood, in your bizarre child’s idea-construct that could support a philosophical approach to living life or dealing with existential problems.

I could not deny that this philosophy would likely result in policy (you have spoken of this in other threads but seem to have dropped the social-engineering rehearsals) but I struggle to understand how it could be constructive since it has or seems to have, like you, an authoritarian tendency, snd so bluntly negates other (epistemological) categories.

Let’s get to the core of this: metaphysics is not “destroyed” by determinism. Metaphysical thought—the very act of pondering beyond immediate understanding—is itself a deterministic output of the brain’s workings.

“Pondering beyond immediate understanding” (or situation) is done by birds and other animals. I am not sure if I would place that type of thought in the category of metaphysics. And though I have no doubt that I understand that you see our thought, at whatever level, on whatever topic, as nothing but a complexity of neural combinations, I cannot share the basic ground of your belief for a group of reasons. Not the least being that I resist the zealousness of religiously-inclined minds () As you know I notice those tendencies in you.

If you think acknowledging the deterministic origins of metaphysical concepts makes them invalid, then explain why.

Invalid? Did I use that word? I would focus on your pseudo-philosophy and critique it by examining how you empower it through utilitarian hopes. That is, the reconditioning of man and man’s perceptual order. I see your philosophy as highly useful for example in social-engineering projects because reductive ideas are easily communicable. And given your expressive power, and your abilities in wielding rhetoric and your sophistries (forgive me!) I could see your philosophy gaining purchase in the world of ideas.

I told you already that I view the realm of metaphysical ideas as pre-original to the manifested world, and “eternal” if you wish. Thus metaphysics is much more than what you (seem to) allude to. You see them as neuronal arrangements with no real existence.

A deterministic framework doesn’t deny the existence or utility of metaphysical concepts—it explains their emergence.

Explanations by way or reductionism.

Philosophy, like any other human endeavor, emerges from the deterministic interplay of biology, experience, and environment.

The bird who follows the advance of army ants in the jungle because so many good things to eat flutter up does so on that basis of “biology, experience and environment” and man does many things on that basis, I agree.

But man does many— can do — much more. Unlike you I am not comfortable with your bold reductions. However today is Saturday. Let’s see what I think when Wednesday rolls around.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So, let’s stop pretending this is about "different types of truth." It’s about accountability. If you won’t defend your position with clarity and rigor, then don’t expect it to be treated with anything other than the contempt it deserves. Refusing to engage seriously isn’t just an intellectual failure—it’s a betrayal of the very principles of dialogue and inquiry you claim to value.

But it really is about differing truth-claims, Mike.

You act like the stereotype of a stern matron-teacher demanding accountability. In my life, to have become “accountable”, apparently means something different. Trust me, I am being honest with you. And I think I am dealing in honest terms.

I think that you operate from an established base of “contempt”. It is pre-established. It is a fundamental part of your shtick!

But please, treat my ideas as you feel they should be treated.

Here’s the deal: the fact is that I have been engaging for many days now with “you” (the issue and problem you present) but not according to your outline.

“You” are a discordant phrasing I am called to resolve ). You are “a problem in our modernity”; you are an “outcome”; you are something that has come about in the evolution of thought and ideas. You are quite powerful in our present.

Trust me, all this is very relevant to me.