Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Atla]

You are right to say Determinism comes in various forms. For example, there is a Materialist version, but also a theological version called "Calvinism." But your proposed equation "matter = consciousness" doesn't come close to working.

And it needs to. For according to the Materialist myth, consciousness has to have sprung from unconscious matter. But there is no explanation, no logical, scientific, or even metaphysical explanation, of how that's remotely possible. Hence, the invention of the word "emergence," meaning that we imagine that somehow, with no known mechanism, consciousness can just spring from unconscious matter. But it's not an explanation. It's a dodge.
There was nothing accidental about that. It should be patently obvious to anybody who thinks about it at all, of course. Nothing is answered if we say, "What is impossible for a little non-sentient stuff (magically, in no way we can explain) becomes possible for a lot of the same stuff."

Take that up with the materialists, I'm not one.

And that's fine. But if you're a Determinist, then you'll need a mechanism to explain what's going on. If it's not, like Mike, "physical forces," what is making things happen?

We don't need to believe in matter itself in order to subscribe to physical forces, nor believe in any Western duality. Physical stuff = phenomenal conscious stuff.

Again, this is outside Western philisophy and still not actually relevant to what I wrote about big numbers.

[Immanuel Can]

Take that up with the materialists, I'm not one.

And that's fine. But if you're a Determinist, then you'll need a mechanism to explain what's going on. If it's not, like Mike, "physical forces," what is making things happen?

We don't need to believe in matter itself in order to subscribe to physical forces, nor believe in any Western duality. Physical stuff = phenomenal conscious stuff.

That's the problem. Physical stuff isn't conscious. So how does consciousness get started from it?

[Atla]

And that's fine. But if you're a Determinist, then you'll need a mechanism to explain what's going on. If it's not, like Mike, "physical forces," what is making things happen?

We don't need to believe in matter itself in order to subscribe to physical forces, nor believe in any Western duality. Physical stuff = phenomenal conscious stuff.

That's the problem. Physical stuff isn't conscious. So how does consciousness get started from it?

The Western misunderstanding of consciousness is off topic here.

[Immanuel Can]

We don't need to believe in matter itself in order to subscribe to physical forces, nor believe in any Western duality. Physical stuff = phenomenal conscious stuff.

That's the problem. Physical stuff isn't conscious. So how does consciousness get started from it?

The Western misunderstanding of consciousness is off topic here.

Then give the "Eastern" answer...are you arguing for Pantheism? Are you suggesting that consciousness comes from some sort of god-force? And that this force, like Fate, is Deterministic?

Sincere question: I'm not trying to mock. I don't understand what position on Determinism you're advocating, and I want to be fair in responding. If I'm missing your point, through being too "Western," then I'd like to know that.

[Atla]

That's the problem. Physical stuff isn't conscious. So how does consciousness get started from it?

The Western misunderstanding of consciousness is off topic here.

Then give the "Eastern" answer...are you arguing for Pantheism? Are you suggesting that consciousness comes from some sort of god-force? And that this force, like Fate, is Deterministic?

Sincere question: I'm not trying to mock. I don't understand what position on Determinism you're advocating, and I want to be fair in responding. If I'm missing your point, through being too "Western," then I'd like to know that.

Still the determinism discovered by science, physics.

[Immanuel Can]

The Western misunderstanding of consciousness is off topic here.

Then give the "Eastern" answer...are you arguing for Pantheism? Are you suggesting that consciousness comes from some sort of god-force? And that this force, like Fate, is Deterministic?

Sincere question: I'm not trying to mock. I don't understand what position on Determinism you're advocating, and I want to be fair in responding. If I'm missing your point, through being too "Western," then I'd like to know that.

Still the determinism discovered by science, physics.

That's Western, and it's Materialism, by definition.

Let's explain the problem another way. Let's speak in terms of "physical forces."

At one time in history, we are told, all that existed were "physical forces." These "forces" we are told, had no consciousness in them. They were purely physical. And we're told this, specifically so we will not think there was any "gods" or "God" involved, no conscious entity that could have injected consciousness into the universe at the start of it.

So far, so good.

But now, the problem. Right now, obviously, there is a thing called "consciousness." You and I are using it right now, in fact. There's no reasonable denial of that, because reason itself, and science itself, absolutely depends on its existence. And you and I are both conscious of our consciouness, so it's really clear to us that it exists.

How did it get here? If you believe the story we've been told, it has to have somehow appeared out of nothing more than impersonal, unconscious "physical forces." That would be deductively certain, if our first premise about there being nothing but "physical forces" were true. But what are these "forces"? How did they manage to generate something that is clearly conscious from that which we are adamantly told was certainly NOT conscious at one time in history? To say "it emerged" is to beg the whole question of HOW.

And to say, "physical forces did it" is merely to re-pose the problem, not to answer it at all. The next obvious question is, "How could something that is non-conscious have created consciousness?

Your first answer, which it seems was the equivalent of, "There were lots of rocks in the pile" just won't do. It's a category error, and not even prima facie plausible.

So again, the question: how do "physical forces" manage to produce consciousness? In the absence of any answer, you're asking us to believe in magic. But the whole attraction of the "physical forces" argument would be to try to eliminate any 'magical' appeals, would it not?

[Atla]

That's Western, and it's Materialism, by definition.

Science is neither Western nor has it any idea what "matter" actually is.

Let's explain the problem another way. Let's speak in terms of "physical forces."

At one time in history, we are told, all that existed were "physical forces." These "forces" we are told, had no consciousness in them. They were purely physical. And we're told this, specifically so we will not think there was any "gods" or "God" involved, no conscious entity that could have injected consciousness into the universe at the start of it.

So far, so good.

But now, the problem. Right now, obviously, there is a thing called "consciousness." You and I are using it right now, in fact. There's no reasonable denial of that, because reason itself, and science itself, absolutely depends on its existence. And you and I are both conscious of our consciouness, so it's really clear to us that it exists.

How did it get here? If you believe the story we've been told, it has to have somehow appeared out of nothing more than impersonal, unconscious "physical forces." That would be deductively certain, if our first premise about there being nothing but "physical forces" were true. But what are these "forces"? How did they manage to generate something that is clearly conscious from that which we are adamantly told was certainly NOT conscious at one time in history? To say "it emerged" is to beg the whole question of HOW.

And to say, "physical forces did it" is merely to re-pose the problem, not to answer it at all. The next obvious question is, "How could something that is non-conscious have created consciousness?

Your first answer, which it seems was the equivalent of, "There were lots of rocks in the pile" just won't do. It's a category error, and not even prima facie plausible.

So again, the question: how do "physical forces" manage to produce consciousness? In the absence of any answer, you're asking us to believe in magic. But the whole attraction of the "physical forces" argument would be to try to eliminate any 'magical' appeals, would it not?

The Western misunderstanding of consciousness is off topic here.

[Immanuel Can]

That's Western, and it's Materialism, by definition.

Science is neither Western nor has it any idea what "matter" actually is.

Let's explain the problem another way. Let's speak in terms of "physical forces."

At one time in history, we are told, all that existed were "physical forces." These "forces" we are told, had no consciousness in them. They were purely physical. And we're told this, specifically so we will not think there was any "gods" or "God" involved, no conscious entity that could have injected consciousness into the universe at the start of it.

So far, so good.

But now, the problem. Right now, obviously, there is a thing called "consciousness." You and I are using it right now, in fact. There's no reasonable denial of that, because reason itself, and science itself, absolutely depends on its existence. And you and I are both conscious of our consciouness, so it's really clear to us that it exists.

How did it get here? If you believe the story we've been told, it has to have somehow appeared out of nothing more than impersonal, unconscious "physical forces." That would be deductively certain, if our first premise about there being nothing but "physical forces" were true. But what are these "forces"? How did they manage to generate something that is clearly conscious from that which we are adamantly told was certainly NOT conscious at one time in history? To say "it emerged" is to beg the whole question of HOW.

And to say, "physical forces did it" is merely to re-pose the problem, not to answer it at all. The next obvious question is, "How could something that is non-conscious have created consciousness?

Your first answer, which it seems was the equivalent of, "There were lots of rocks in the pile" just won't do. It's a category error, and not even prima facie plausible.

So again, the question: how do "physical forces" manage to produce consciousness? In the absence of any answer, you're asking us to believe in magic. But the whole attraction of the "physical forces" argument would be to try to eliminate any 'magical' appeals, would it not?

The Western misunderstanding of consciousness is off topic here.

Then again, give me the non-Western option that you back. To say "physical forces" is only to repeat the "Western" answer.

[Atla]

That's Western, and it's Materialism, by definition.

Science is neither Western nor has it any idea what "matter" actually is.

Let's explain the problem another way. Let's speak in terms of "physical forces."

At one time in history, we are told, all that existed were "physical forces." These "forces" we are told, had no consciousness in them. They were purely physical. And we're told this, specifically so we will not think there was any "gods" or "God" involved, no conscious entity that could have injected consciousness into the universe at the start of it.

So far, so good.

But now, the problem. Right now, obviously, there is a thing called "consciousness." You and I are using it right now, in fact. There's no reasonable denial of that, because reason itself, and science itself, absolutely depends on its existence. And you and I are both conscious of our consciouness, so it's really clear to us that it exists.

How did it get here? If you believe the story we've been told, it has to have somehow appeared out of nothing more than impersonal, unconscious "physical forces." That would be deductively certain, if our first premise about there being nothing but "physical forces" were true. But what are these "forces"? How did they manage to generate something that is clearly conscious from that which we are adamantly told was certainly NOT conscious at one time in history? To say "it emerged" is to beg the whole question of HOW.

And to say, "physical forces did it" is merely to re-pose the problem, not to answer it at all. The next obvious question is, "How could something that is non-conscious have created consciousness?

Your first answer, which it seems was the equivalent of, "There were lots of rocks in the pile" just won't do. It's a category error, and not even prima facie plausible.

So again, the question: how do "physical forces" manage to produce consciousness? In the absence of any answer, you're asking us to believe in magic. But the whole attraction of the "physical forces" argument would be to try to eliminate any 'magical' appeals, would it not?

The Western misunderstanding of consciousness is off topic here.

Then again, give me the non-Western option that you back. To say "physical forces" is only to repeat the "Western" answer.

Not interested

My point about big numbers falls into Chalmers's "Easy problems", so the above is off topic anyway.

[Immanuel Can]

Science is neither Western nor has it any idea what "matter" actually is.


The Western misunderstanding of consciousness is off topic here.

Then again, give me the non-Western option that you back. To say "physical forces" is only to repeat the "Western" answer.

Not interested

I understand why. There's no possible answer, it seems. At least, I've never seen anybody able to answer that one.

But it's got to leave us wondering: how can we expected to believe a story about our origins that has such a planet-sized hole in it? And, of course, that's far from the only such hole in that story; but it's a really, really hard one to fill.

[Atla]

Then again, give me the non-Western option that you back. To say "physical forces" is only to repeat the "Western" answer.

Not interested

I understand why. There's no possible answer, it seems. At least, I've never seen anybody able to answer that one.

But it's got to leave us wondering: how can we expected to believe a story about our origins that has such a planet-sized hole in it? And, of course, that's far from the only such hole in that story; but it's a really, really hard one to fill.

The Western misunderstanding of consciousness is off topic here.

[Immanuel Can]

Not interested

I understand why. There's no possible answer, it seems. At least, I've never seen anybody able to answer that one.

But it's got to leave us wondering: how can we expected to believe a story about our origins that has such a planet-sized hole in it? And, of course, that's far from the only such hole in that story; but it's a really, really hard one to fill.

The Western misunderstanding of consciousness is off topic here.

I see. When there's no answer, just go in a circle?

Okay, that's fine.

[Atla]

I understand why. There's no possible answer, it seems. At least, I've never seen anybody able to answer that one.

But it's got to leave us wondering: how can we expected to believe a story about our origins that has such a planet-sized hole in it? And, of course, that's far from the only such hole in that story; but it's a really, really hard one to fill.

The Western misunderstanding of consciousness is off topic here.

I see. When there's no answer, just go in a circle?

Okay, that's fine.

The answer is known by at least hundreds of millions

[Immanuel Can]

The Western misunderstanding of consciousness is off topic here.

I see. When there's no answer, just go in a circle?

Okay, that's fine.

The answer is known by at least hundreds of millions

It's actually not, of course. It's certainly not known by you, or you'd just have given it. It would be the easiest way to make your point.

But we can leave it at that. I'm not going to poke about in a mountain of rocks, trying to find a ruby (as Meatloaf so poignantly suggested)...or a consciousness in a pile of non-sentient "matter" or "physical forces."

[Atla]

I see. When there's no answer, just go in a circle?

Okay, that's fine.

The answer is known by at least hundreds of millions

It's actually not, of course. It's certainly not known by you, or you'd just have given it. It would be the easiest way to make your point.

But we can leave it at that. I'm not going to poke about in a mountain of rocks, trying to find a ruby (as Meatloaf so poignantly suggested)...or a consciousness in a pile of non-sentient "matter" or "physical forces."

True nondualism can take weeks or months for even an intelligent and intellectually honest person to really grasp, it can't be told in a few comments. You are neither of those.