Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, did you have a response to my post on different kinds of "Christian," or did you wish to speak to Atla instead?

Why is it that you always seem to believe you are justified in assuming control and direction of the conversation by demanding that priority be given to your questions?

[Immanuel Can]

Now, did you have a response to my post on different kinds of "Christian," or did you wish to speak to Atla instead?

Why is it that you always seem to believe you are justified in assuming control and direction of the conversation by demanding that priority be given to your questions?

Wow. Talk about the pot calling the kettle "black."

No, I'm not assuming control. All I did was post a question to be discussed. If you don't like it, and don't know anything about it, you can move along. I don't really care.

So much for "control."

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

You misunderstand: long ago I gave up on the possibility of communication with you (as have so many others BTW). So my purpose is not really to *engage* with you — you are committed to your established predicates and cannot ever budge — but only to *offer commentary*. The commentary has relevancy to topical issues of our day. I comment on you because in this sense you are relevant to our day.

It is a communication strategy that I am self-conscious of: I say that I am here for my own purposes.

You seem to want to have nothing but exercises in which you steer your interlocutors around and ignore their interests.

That is not quite it. But I have already explained my *strategies* numerous times.

[Immanuel Can]

…

You misunderstand: long ago I gave up on the possibility of communication with you

Well, it's very funny that you chose a post that was addressed to everybody (you'll note it did not tag you at all), and then assumed it must be connected with your conversation with Atla, and addressed to you. Did you think you're the only person on this thread? Or did you imagine, once again, that you are the only or most important person with whom anybody could wish to speak?

Ego. What an ego.

You must have a lot of very short conversations, in real life.

[BigMike]

Metaphysics, at its most useful, is a structured attempt to understand the fundamental nature of reality. It addresses questions about existence, causality, and the principles that govern the universe. When done properly—when tied to real, observable phenomena—it helps us refine our understanding of the world. In science, metaphysics aligns with physics in the sense that the conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—form the inviolable basis of all interactions in the universe. These are not mere abstractions; they are foundational realities, confirmed through rigorous observation and experimentation.

Wait, when you define *what is most useful* I say we are immediately in trouble. No one that I am aware of, and certainly not myself, has in any way attempted to undermine modern scientific discovery. To insinuate such a thing is inaccurate.

Therefore, a fuller definition of what *metaphysics* alludes to is what interests me. In my understanding it refers to to ideas and patterns of ideas that touch on, that speak to, that answer questions that involve higher understanding and genuine intellect in the sense that I always point out:

(Latin intelligere — inter and legere — to choose between, to discern; Greek nous; German Vernunft, Verstand; French intellect; Italian intelletto).

The faculty of thought. As understood in Catholic philosophical literature it signifies the higher, spiritual, cognitive power of the soul. It is in this view awakened to action by sense, but transcends the latter in range. Amongst its functions are attention, conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness. All these modes of activity exhibit a distinctly suprasensuous element, and reveal a cognitive faculty of a higher order than is required for mere sense-cognitions. In harmony, therefore, with Catholic usage, we reserve the terms intellect, intelligence, and intellectual to this higher power and its operations, although many modern psychologists are wont, with much resulting confusion, to extend the application of these terms so as to include sensuous forms of the cognitive process. By thus restricting the use of these terms, the inaccuracy of such phrases as "animal intelligence" is avoided. Before such language may be legitimately employed, it should be shown that the lower animals are endowed with genuinely rational faculties, fundamentally one in kind with those of man. Catholic philosophers, however they differ on minor points, as a general body have held that intellect is a spiritual faculty depending extrinsically, but not intrinsically, on the bodily organism. The importance of a right theory of intellect is twofold: on account of its bearing on epistemology, or the doctrine of knowledge; and because of its connexion with the question of the spirituality of the soul.

It is this entire realm, Mike, that has no existence nor any *reality* for you. You do not have the equipment (as radar is equipment) to *see* it nor to understand what happens when you encourage men to veer away from this level of understanding.

You do not have to keep posting cut’n’pastes! I get it. You don’t see any of this as real. And in response to that I say you do not know what is real.

You claim that I lack the "equipment" to see your version of metaphysics, as if understanding reality requires some hidden, esoteric faculty rather than the ability to reason, observe, and test claims against evidence. This is the classic move of those who prefer to dwell in the realm of speculation rather than face the hard, cold, deterministic structure of the universe.

Let’s get one thing straight: metaphysics, when done properly, is an extension of our best knowledge of reality, not a rejection of it. You can talk all day about "higher understanding" and "spiritual faculties," but unless these things can be demonstrated, measured, or logically defended without resorting to circular reasoning or theological fiat, they remain intellectual fog—concepts with no purchase in the real world.

You cite Catholic philosophy's definition of "intellect" as something "spiritual" and "suprasensuous," as if asserting this definition makes it true. But where is the evidence that intellect is anything other than a function of the brain—a complex interplay of electrochemical processes in neural networks that evolved over millions of years? Neuroscience continues to map cognition to physical processes, yet your response is to wave this away as a failure to recognize "higher understanding." This is not an argument; it’s a retreat into unfalsifiable metaphysical nostalgia.

And let’s address this bizarre claim:

"It is this entire realm, Mike, that has no existence nor any reality for you."

You say this as if declaring something beyond my recognition magically makes it real. But reality does not work that way. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence of this "realm" of higher metaphysics beyond the mental constructs and linguistic flourishes that sustain it. Simply asserting that I lack the ability to see it is a cop-out, not an argument. I could just as easily say that you lack the ability to see the deterministic structure that governs every event in the universe—except unlike you, I can point to the laws of physics, conservation principles, and empirical evidence to substantiate my claim.

Your entire position boils down to this: you want metaphysics to be about mysticism and tradition, while I insist it be about reality and knowledge. Your version of metaphysics is an endless parade of unverifiable assertions, dressed up in lofty rhetoric about "higher faculties." Mine is a framework that aligns with the tested, repeatable, and observable principles that actually govern existence.

So, Alexis, you can keep playing this game of pretending that anyone who demands evidence just doesn’t "get it," but that doesn’t make your arguments any more compelling. If your version of metaphysics has any merit, demonstrate it. Otherwise, all you’ve done is write an elaborate defense of believing in things because they feel profound rather than because they are demonstrably true.

[Alexiev]

Mine is a framework that aligns with the tested, repeatable, and observable principles that actually govern existence.

This is a metaphysical claim for which there is little or no support. The principles don't "govern existence". Existence governs the principles.

In making this error you are wading into the same pool of unobservable, metaphysical fancy in which you accuse others of swimming. Indeed, belief that the principles "govern" (instead of "describe") is a non- scientific, quasi-religious world view. It suggests that the Law precedes the universe. How could you, or anyone, know that?

[BigMike]

Mine is a framework that aligns with the tested, repeatable, and observable principles that actually govern existence.

This is a metaphysical claim for which there is little or no support. The principles don't "govern existence". Existence governs the principles.

In making this error you are wading into the same pool of unobservable, metaphysical fancy in which you accuse others of swimming. Indeed, belief that the principles "govern" (instead of "describe") is a non- scientific, quasi-religious world view. It suggests that the Law precedes the universe. How could you, or anyone, know that?

Alexiev, this is where your argument completely collapses under the weight of its own misunderstanding. Your claim that "existence governs the principles" is an empty abstraction that doesn’t actually mean anything. It’s just wordplay meant to make a simple concept seem more profound than it is. Let’s strip away the rhetorical nonsense and get to the core of the issue.

Scientific principles don’t just "describe" reality as if they are arbitrary human inventions; they are derived from consistent, repeatable observations of how the universe actually works. The conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions—gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force—aren’t just convenient descriptors; they are the framework within which everything happens. They are not external "laws" imposed on the universe; they are the fundamental constraints that shape what is physically possible.

Now, let’s address your ridiculous mischaracterization of my position as "quasi-religious." You’re implying that accepting the fundamental structure of the universe as governing reality is akin to saying "the law precedes the universe." But I never said the laws predate existence itself—only that they define the structure within which all existence operates. That’s a massive difference, and one you’re either unwilling or incapable of understanding.

If you want to challenge this, do what no one arguing your side ever seems able to do: point to a single verifiable, reproducible example of something occurring outside of these fundamental principles. If you can’t, then all you’re doing is throwing up vague, pseudo-philosophical nonsense to avoid confronting the reality that everything—everything—obeys the deterministic structure of nature.

So, let’s be clear: either these principles govern existence, meaning nothing happens outside their domain, or you provide actual evidence of something that does. If you can’t, then what you’re really doing is engaging in intellectual smoke and mirrors—pretending that poetic abstractions are an argument when they are, in fact, nothing but empty noise.

[Immanuel Can]

...do what no one arguing your side ever seems able to do: point to a single verifiable, reproducible example of something occurring outside of these fundamental principles.

The only reason they cannot is that you cannot set a test for "outside fundamental principles." So you can't reassure yourself, and they can't reassure you, whether or not any event is "outside these fundamental principles."

I gave you some that surely qualified, and one in particular: the Resurrection. But your objection will be that you have no access to test it. And even if you did, you'd have no means to verify whether or not it was "ouside fundamental principles," because like the skeptical Sanhedrin of the day, you could just pretend it was faked...even though that makes no sense of the evidence.

So the reason your objectors have failed is only that you are failing yourself. By setting no standard that even you, yourself can meet, you've defeated your own objection. You're asking for something that you cannot even deliver to yourself: verification of "outside fundamental principles."

[henry quirk]

Lectures about synapses in no way explains imagination or creativity; declarations about conservation laws can't explain dignity or humility.

If all he admits is the material, the only evidences and explanations he'll accept are material, even when those evidences and explanations fail -- as they always do -- to explain anything and, ultimately, are evidences for nuthin' at all.

[Immanuel Can]

Lectures about synapses in no way explains imagination or creativity; declarations about conservation laws can't explain dignity or humility.

If all he admits is the material, the only evidences and explanations he'll accept are material, even when those evidences and explanations fail -- as they always do -- to explain anything and, ultimately, are evidences for nuthin' at all.

Yep. His problem is that he thinks that if there's such a thing as a "miracle" or something "outside the basic principles," then the universe has to offer him some kind of guarantee he can be present for it. So all historical miracles, or miracles in other places, or miracles witnessed by others, are out automatically. He'll only take one that lands on his shoetops.

And even if he were there to see the miracle, he has no way of verifying whether it was "outside" all principles, or simply "outside" the set he presently knows, or not "outside" at all. He's got no test.

So he has no justification to expect his evidence, and no way to test it if he had it.

As for dignity and humility, as you point out, they're simply irrelevancies in "meat world." Survival rules, baby. Nothing is right or wrong. And all of it is fated anyway.

[Alexiev]

Alexiev, this is where your argument completely collapses under the weight of its own misunderstanding. Your claim that "existence governs the principles" is an empty abstraction that doesn’t actually mean anything. It’s just wordplay meant to make a simple concept seem more profound than it is. Let’s strip away the rhetorical nonsense and get to the core of the issue.

Scientific principles don’t just "describe" reality as if they are arbitrary human inventions; they are derived from consistent, repeatable observations of how the universe actually works. The conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions—gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force—aren’t just convenient descriptors; they are the framework within which everything happens. They are not external "laws" imposed on the universe; they are the fundamental constraints that shape what is physically possible.

Now, let’s address your ridiculous mischaracterization of my position as "quasi-religious." You’re implying that accepting the fundamental structure of the universe as governing reality is akin to saying "the law precedes the universe." But I never said the laws predate existence itself—only that they define the structure within which all existence operates. That’s a massive difference, and one you’re either unwilling or incapable of understanding.

If you want to challenge this, do what no one arguing your side ever seems able to do: point to a single verifiable, reproducible example of something occurring outside of these fundamental principles. If you can’t, then all you’re doing is throwing up vague, pseudo-philosophical nonsense to avoid confronting the reality that everything—everything—obeys the deterministic structure of nature.

So, let’s be clear: either these principles govern existence, meaning nothing happens outside their domain, or you provide actual evidence of something that does. If you can’t, then what you’re really doing is engaging in intellectual smoke and mirrors—pretending that poetic abstractions are an argument when they are, in fact, nothing but empty noise.

If anyone could find exceptions to your four rules it would not discredit determinism; it would merely mean we would have to discover new rules (principles?). Of course this has happened repeatedly. People used to think "time is a constant" was a basic inviolable scientific principle. Nobody, however, thought that when this was proven false we had to abandon science and return to examining the entrails of chickens to predict the future. Instead, we altered the "principle".

The challenge is ridiculous. Of course the scientific orthodoxy admits of no exceptions. If it did, it wouldn't be the scientific orthodoxy. That doesn't prove it's right. Why would it?

There's more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt in your philosophy. Until we discover them all, we are guessing about the rules. That's the nature of an inductive enterprise like science. Our guesses may be quite accurate; they may be useful; they remain guesses.

[henry quirk]

His problem is that he thinks that if there's such a thing as a "miracle" or something "outside the basic principles," then the universe has to offer him some kind of guarantee he can be present for it.

As I say: he is a miracle. Nuthin' in his religion explains him. If he can't even accept himself as sumthin' more, then he's a lost cause (or a *bad egg).

As for dignity and humility, as you point out, they're simply irrelevancies in "meat world." Survival rules, baby. Nothing is right or wrong. And all of it is fated anyway.

But he keeps tryin' to sneak in all manner of things his religion denies: morality, justice, fair play, a better world, etc.

*As I say: I don't believe for a second he actually believes he's just meat.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You claim that I lack the "equipment" to see your version of metaphysics, as if understanding reality requires some hidden, esoteric faculty rather than the ability to reason, observe, and test claims against evidence. This is the classic move of those who prefer to dwell in the realm of speculation rather than face the hard, cold, deterministic structure of the universe.

Let’s get one thing straight: metaphysics, when done properly, is an extension of our best knowledge of reality, not a rejection of it. You can talk all day about "higher understanding" and "spiritual faculties," but unless these things can be demonstrated, measured, or logically defended without resorting to circular reasoning or theological fiat, they remain intellectual fog—concepts with no purchase in the real world.

You don’t possess the ultimate definition of metaphysics.

Two, the “evidence” of the effects of registering those higher regions of meaning and value, determine so much of human social life and concerns of other types. Anyone with literary, philosophical, cultural and art background knows this.

Your mathematically-driven physicalism will tend to break or sever the “connection” I refer to.

And then there is all that is connected with “spiritual life” (man’s inner life). Realms of perception that do not appear on your radar.

Your physicalism is a totalizing philosophy and, as you know, I think it is skewed. Not wholly inaccurate, but incomplete.

I actually do believe that “understanding reality requires some hidden, esoteric faculty”. It requires the cultivation of other perception faculties that require cultivation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

I said: You misunderstand: long ago I gave up on the possibility of communication with you (as have so many others BTW). So my purpose is not really to *engage* with you — you are committed to your established predicates and cannot ever budge — but only to *offer commentary*. The commentary has relevancy to topical issues of our day. I comment on you because in this sense you are relevant to our day.

[iambiguous]

His problem is that he thinks that if there's such a thing as a "miracle" or something "outside the basic principles," then the universe has to offer him some kind of guarantee he can be present for it.

As I say: he is a miracle. Nuthin' in his religion explains him. If he can't even accept himself as sumthin' more, then he's a lost cause (or a *bad egg).

As for dignity and humility, as you point out, they're simply irrelevancies in "meat world." Survival rules, baby. Nothing is right or wrong. And all of it is fated anyway.

But he keeps tryin' to sneak in all manner of things his religion denies: morality, justice, fair play, a better world, etc.

*As I say: I don't believe for a second he actually believes he's just meat.

Okay, it's clear they both share generally conservative political convictions.

But what also seems clear is that they both avoid what is by far, in my view, the most crucial reality of all here between them. The fact that until and unless henry does accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior, he will burn in Hell for all of eternity.

Now, IC must recognize that the gap between the 70 odd years mere mortals have down here and eternity itself is so staggering that nothing would seem more important than bringing henry over to what he insists is solid historical and scientific evidence that Deism is the wrong spiritual path because Christianity is the only right spiritual path.

Note to henry:

Seriously, leaving our own disagreements out of it, why on Earth would you not be willing to invest the time in what, if IC is correct, could result in you yourself being born again.