Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[seeds]

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....

...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.

My goodness, BigMike, you certainly have a lot of gall for accusing Alexis of veering away from engaging with the substance of your arguments when, in fact, that is precisely what you have done with me.

If you are so confident in the theory of determinism, then why did you make no effort to defend it against the clear and specific issues I raised in this post:

viewtopic.php?p=746475#p746475

Instead, you avoided addressing them by using the lame excuse that I was making a "detour" from the topic of the thread.

To which I then pointed out to you that, no, I was simply responding to something that you, yourself, said in that thread.

And your response to that was.....silence.

Don't be a hypocrite, BigMike, for it not only makes you look small, but it reveals your lacking in self-awareness.
_______

[BigMike]

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,

When you ask me what I mean, I answer. You, on the other hand, dodge direct questions, deflect with rhetorical fluff, and refuse to engage substantively. It’s not a discussion when one side evades accountability for their claims.

You assert that my framework "destroys metaphysics" and reduces philosophy to meaninglessness, yet when pressed to explain how or why, you offer nothing but vague, dismissive platitudes. If you believe metaphysical ideas are "pre-original" and "eternal," then defend that claim. Explain it. Show your reasoning. Don't hide behind abstract notions or accusations of reductionism.

The irony here is glaring: you criticize my approach as reductive, yet your refusal to clearly articulate your position reduces this entire exchange to pointless theater. If you want to be taken seriously, stop posturing and start answering the questions directly. Otherwise, it’s hard to see your evasiveness as anything but an admission that you can’t.

[BigMike]

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.

No, Alexis, this isn’t about “differing truth-claims.” It’s about your refusal to engage honestly and directly with the arguments presented to you. Tertium non datur—there’s no middle ground here. Either you defend your position with clarity, or you admit you can’t.

Your attempts to shift this into some abstract discussion of "modernity" or "discordant phrasing" are nothing but evasions. If you truly believed in the principles of inquiry you claim to value, you’d address the points raised instead of hiding behind rhetoric.

Your deflections are tiresome and transparent. Either engage seriously or stop pretending you’re here for meaningful dialogue. This isn’t a performance—it’s supposed to be a conversation. Act like it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Pu-leeese, BigMike.

[Atla]

Imo the weird thing isn't that the religious can't make a good case for their claims. Instead it's that everyone already knew decades, centuries ago that they can't do it, yet they still act like they could. Why do they even bother with the act?

[BigMike]

Pu-leeese, BigMike.

Pu-leeese? That’s your response? It’s almost laughable how little effort you put into disguising your unwillingness—or inability—to address actual arguments. You hide behind these smug, dismissive quips, as though they substitute for substance. Spoiler alert: they don’t.

Yes, you’ve waxed poetic about the “soul” or “mind” instructing the brain, as if that somehow excuses you from engaging with the fact-based, deterministic framework I’ve presented. But it doesn’t. If your soul is doing the thinking, before engaging the brain, maybe it’s time to let your brain step in—because whatever is driving your responses, it’s not clarity, logic, or rigor.

So here’s the deal: if you have something meaningful to say, then say it. Address the arguments, defend your position, or offer a coherent alternative. Otherwise, cut the theatrics. Your shtick isn’t as clever as you seem to think, and it’s wearing thinner by the post.

[seeds]

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.

No, Alexis, this isn’t about “differing truth-claims.” It’s about your refusal to engage honestly and directly with the arguments presented to you. Tertium non datur—there’s no middle ground here. Either you defend your position with clarity, or you admit you can’t.

_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

Pu-leeese? That’s your response?

Simply because you are do repetitive.

[BigMike]

Pu-leeese? That’s your response?

Simply because you are do repetitive.

Alexis,

You say I’m repetitive? Of course I am—because you refuse to answer a straightforward question. You’ve claimed that your "soul" or whatever non-physical entity you believe does the thinking somehow passes its conclusions to your brain through this mystical "reception device." If you’re going to keep responding with nonsense like that, I will keep pushing you to explain it.

How, exactly, does this work? Does your soul have its own non-physical brain? Does it "think" in some magical realm and then relay those thoughts to your biological brain? What mechanism allows for this transmission? These are not unreasonable questions—they’re fundamental to the claim you’ve made. If you can’t answer, then stop throwing out this nonsense altogether.

I will continue to haunt you with this question until you either stop responding with incoherent drivel or provide a clear, comprehensible explanation. Your evasions are as transparent as they are tiresome. If you believe what you’re saying, then defend it. Otherwise, spare us the metaphysical fluff and baseless claims.

[Atla]

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....

...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.

My goodness, BigMike, you certainly have a lot of gall for accusing Alexis of veering away from engaging with the substance of your arguments when, in fact, that is precisely what you have done with me.

If you are so confident in the theory of determinism, then why did you make no effort to defend it against the clear and specific issues I raised in this post:

viewtopic.php?p=746475#p746475

Instead, you avoided addressing them by using the lame excuse that I was making a "detour" from the topic of the thread.

To which I then pointed out to you that, no, I was simply responding to something that you, yourself, said in that thread.

And your response to that was.....silence.

Don't be a hypocrite, BigMike, for it not only makes you look small, but it reveals your lacking in self-awareness.
_______

Well don't automatically presume that the Big Bang (if there even was one) started out in a state of complete and total chaos. Another idea is that the Big Bang already had structure (like infinitesimal variations in the "spatial" distribution of the stuff within the singularity). Another idea is that it had little to no structure, but it was embedded in a wider universe where quantum fluctuations aren't ultimately random, so the needed structure was in the rest of the universe, and "seeped into" the part coming from the Big Bang over time.

And even if the Big bang was random and quantum fluctuations are also truly random, there is still the possibility that the total universe in infinite. So out of sheer randomness, our observable world will occur infinitely many times. Or our world isn't as improbable as it looks due to some necessary mechanic. Or it's just improbable and that's it. What matters for us humans is that the observable part is deterministic enough, so determinism is true for all our practical purposes.

[Age]

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....

...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.

My goodness, BigMike, you certainly have a lot of gall for accusing Alexis of veering away from engaging with the substance of your arguments when, in fact, that is precisely what you have done with me.

If you are so confident in the theory of determinism, then why did you make no effort to defend it against the clear and specific issues I raised in this post:

viewtopic.php?p=746475#p746475

Instead, you avoided addressing them by using the lame excuse that I was making a "detour" from the topic of the thread.

To which I then pointed out to you that, no, I was simply responding to something that you, yourself, said in that thread.

And your response to that was.....silence.

Don't be a hypocrite, BigMike, for it not only makes you look small, but it reveals your lacking in self-awareness.
_______

Well don't automatically presume that the Big Bang (if there even was one) started out in a state of complete and total chaos. Another idea is that the Big Bang already had structure (like infinitesimal variations in the "spatial" distribution of the stuff within the singularity). Another idea is that it had little to no structure, but it was embedded in a wider universe where quantum fluctuations aren't ultimately random, so the needed structure was in the rest of the universe, and "seeped into" the part coming from the Big Bang over time.

And even if the Big bang was random and quantum fluctuations are also truly random, there is still the possibility that the total universe in infinite. So out of sheer randomness, our observable world will occur infinitely many times. Or our world isn't as improbable as it looks due to some necessary mechanic. Or it's just improbable and that's it. What matters for us humans is that the observable part is deterministic enough, so determinism is true for all our practical purposes.

Why does this supposedly matter for you human beings?

[BigMike]

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....

...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.

My goodness, BigMike, you certainly have a lot of gall for accusing Alexis of veering away from engaging with the substance of your arguments when, in fact, that is precisely what you have done with me.

If you are so confident in the theory of determinism, then why did you make no effort to defend it against the clear and specific issues I raised in this post:

viewtopic.php?p=746475#p746475

Instead, you avoided addressing them by using the lame excuse that I was making a "detour" from the topic of the thread.

To which I then pointed out to you that, no, I was simply responding to something that you, yourself, said in that thread.

And your response to that was.....silence.

Don't be a hypocrite, BigMike, for it not only makes you look small, but it reveals your lacking in self-awareness.
_______

Seeds, your 'detailed critiques' are nothing more than metaphysical musings that don't address or challenge the fundamental principles of determinism, conservation laws, or the four fundamental forces. Raising unanswered questions about the origins of the universe or dark matter is not the same as disproving causality or determinism. If you want to refute my arguments, bring evidence or logic that contradicts these physical principles—anything less is just hand-waving.

[BigMike]

Why does this supposedly matter for you human beings?

Age, what exactly is this 'you human beings' shtick you keep throwing around? Are you implying you're not part of the same species? An omniscient observer from the sidelines, perhaps? Or just trying to sound mysterious? Either way, it comes across as posturing and absurd. If you have something meaningful to contribute, drop the theatrical distance and speak plainly. Otherwise, spare us the melodrama.

[Age]

Why does this supposedly matter for you human beings?

Age, what exactly is this 'you human beings' shtick you keep throwing around? Are you implying you're not part of the same species?

When 'you' also learn what the words 'you' and 'I' mean and are referring to, EXACTLY, then 'you' will ALREADY KNOW, and UNDERSTAND, the ANSWER to your question, here.

An omniscient observer from the sidelines, perhaps? Or just trying to sound mysterious? Either way, it comes across as posturing and absurd.

1. Notice how the older human beings, in the days when this was being written, would not just ask clarifying questions, well obviously one's from a Truly OPEN perspective.

2. What 'comes across', or 'appears', to 'you', is NOT necessarily what is ACTUALLY True and Right.

If you have something meaningful to contribute, drop the theatrical distance and speak plainly. Otherwise, spare us the melodrama.

I have ALREADY INFORMED you readers, here, of WHERE and WHEN what you say and claim is True and Right, and, False and Wrong. That you were NOT ABLE TO FOCUS, CONCENTRATE, and ACKNOWLEDGE that IRREFUTABLE Fact is of NO concern AT ALL, to me.

Now, "atla" made the CLAIM that, 'What matters for us humans is ...'. To which I just asked "atla" WHY does 'that', supposedly matter for you human beings. Or, if you like, 'Why does 'that', supposedly matter for 'us', human beings?' (That is; if you are just SO CLOSED or NARROWED that you can ONLY SEE from just A SLITHER of a perspective, here.)

ONCE MORE for the VERY SLOW, here, I PICK and CHOOSE MY WORDS VERY SPECIFICALLY. Which, for those USING True INTELLIGENCE will COME-TO-SEE, and UNDERSTAND, WHY.

[Atla]

Age is GOD in disguise. Go away GOD, no one likes you.