Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Gary Childress]

Hold on. Have I said anything unwittingly offensive?!? If yes, what?

No. You have not called me anything unwittingly offensive. Have I called you anything unwittingly offensive?

[Gary Childress]

So how are you today, AJ?

[Belinda]

[
It's true as Mike says that blame + retribution don't work and are based ,not upon reason , but upon medieval religious dogma.

Do you have any evidence supporting that statement? I don't know either, but it seems to me that people prefer being praised to being blamed. Aren't they likely to occasionally behave so as to avoid blame and garner praise? If so blame does "work".

Dogs can be trained that way because domestic dog breeds are mostly bred to please the human companion who cares for them. It's usually bad to rear children to be well behaved merely so they may avoid blame. It's true that many humans' moral sense never advances beyond that stage.

[Belinda]

Alexiev, the evidence is already there—rehabilitative justice models, restorative practices, and psychological research all show that understanding causes leads to better outcomes than punitive retribution. Norway’s prison system, for example, focuses on rehabilitation over punishment and has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. Compare that to the U.S., where punitive justice fuels cycles of crime.

I’m not "eliminating morality"—I’m saying morality should be causal and pragmatic, not retributive. The goal isn’t to erase accountability but to make it effective by treating causes, not symptoms.

As for suffering, glorifying it as necessary for nobility is just romantic fatalism. Yes, perspective matters, but so do real conditions. Pretending suffering gives life meaning doesn’t help anyone actually suffering. Fixing the world where we can is better than philosophizing about why we shouldn’t.

I agree with BigMike that criminal justice is more effective when based upon rehabilitation of criminals. Finding the causes of crimes and thereby eliminating crime as far as possible is also a more effective strategy than retribution. Both of the above strategies are based upon practical reasoning , and not wasting time and effort on short term and ineffectual retribution.

However to try to stop recidivism ,it should be made known to criminals ,their associates, and the general public that, not only the judge, but also the society condemns criminal activities. In practice it's hard to separate general disapproval from retributive punishment, and will only affect criminals who are not already members of the criminal underclass. These people well know that they are a class apart from the mainstream, and this will of course be taken into account during rehabilitation. The judiciary have a duty to represent the law abiding mainstream and not appear to be weak or sentimental.

All my claims are based upon causes and effects .Deterrence should not be conflated with the simplistic aim of retribution which as Mike says is ineffectual.
Retribution is ineffectual largely because most serious crime is committed by members of criminal subcultures with their own loyalty structures. At this juncture I regret that I lack a diagram of intersecting circles

It's true as Mike says that blame + retribution don't work and are based ,not upon reason , but upon medieval religious dogma.

Belinda, I completely agree with your reasoning. Rehabilitation and deterrence must go hand in hand, and it’s true that society must clearly condemn criminal actions to maintain order. The challenge, as you pointed out, is making deterrence effective without falling into the trap of retributive thinking. Criminal subcultures thrive on cycles of violence, mistrust, and alienation from mainstream society, making it difficult to reach individuals once they’ve entered that world.

Unfortunately, there seems to be an unwillingness in society to address those destructive causes—poverty, poor education, bad neighborhoods, mental health issues, and unstable family environments—before children reach the age of rage and desperation that leads them down a criminal path. By the time they are labeled as “criminals,” they have already been shaped by circumstances beyond their control. If we truly want to reduce crime, the real work starts long before someone ever sets foot in a courtroom.

The problem isn’t that people don’t understand this—it’s that the systems in place prioritize punishment over prevention. A society that genuinely cared about lowering crime rates would invest heavily in early childhood education, mental health support, economic opportunities, and community-building initiatives. Instead, we pour billions into prisons that do little more than warehouse the consequences of our failure to act earlier.

So while deterrence has its place, the most effective deterrent is creating conditions where crime isn’t the most viable option in the first place.

Yes, the causes of crime are mostly set deep within the prevailing culture of society. At one time religious faith and observance within small rural communities was the centre of social control. The feudal system in Europe is a case in point where church and overlord are practically the same.

Urbanisation partly disempowered traditional landowners who decided for themselves who was to be the parson in their churches which stood within the landowners' demesnes. Around the same time scientific knowledge made the religious myths redundant for many of the new educated urban middle class.

I am not good at political theory and as far as I can make out what social control there be is still dragging its feet along the old pre- scientific - enlightenment pathway . The future looks bleak too. What with Trump and Co, right wing threats in Europe and Israel, and Islamist tyranny elsewhere , people are taking refuge among the reactionary faction. One good thing is that apathy is self --defeating, and some version of philosopher kings ---- scientists and technologists perhaps----- may arrive that fits with democracy.

[Gary Childress]

Hold on. Have I said anything unwittingly offensive?!? If yes, what?

Well, it's not so much what you've said, it's more what you haven't said. You've been ignoring me and that kind of creates deep wounds. I feel like I am irrelevant and of no importance whatsoever--not even important enough to talk to.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your attempt to paint determinism as an “appeal to weakness” is just another version of the same tired Nietzschean machismo—as if seeing reality clearly and rationally is some kind of moral failing. But tell me, what exactly is strong about clinging to metaphysical crutches, mystical justifications, and poetic fatalism? What’s empowering about throwing up your hands and declaring suffering noble rather than asking what causes it and how to prevent it?

Not quite. I regard your philosophy, your philosophical shtick, as partially-deranged. And what powers it is something psychological. The “psychological” must be considered when any one of us analyzes our positions. Psychology determines outlooks to a large degree.

Your philosophy certainly appeals to one man who defines himself as weak. And I refer to that man as “emblematic of our age”. True, that’s painting things with a broad brush. But the point has some validity.

Manly attitude, manly decisiveness, a manly resoluteness in the face of difficulty and trial: yes indeed, I advocate for that. And I advocate for swift and decisive punishment for wrong-doing. Justice at times must overstep leniency.

seeing reality clearly and rationally

Ah ha! But you do not see either clearly nor sufficiently rationally. Pieces are missing. And your philosophy is “skewed”.

about clinging to metaphysical crutches, mystical justifications, and poetic fatalism?

You misunderstand why I hold to metaphysics. It is a much needed counter to pure physicalism. But both are a pair, if you catch my drift.

You throw around words like “scientistic Ponzi Scheme” and “virulent rhetoric” as if explaining how reality actually works is some sort of manipulative power play rather than an attempt to understand and improve the human condition. And in classic fashion, when faced with a view that challenges yours, you don’t engage with the argument—you psychoanalyze the person making it.

What you are saying is “I know how reality works!” but I say you have a partial view.

It is ridiculous to project onto me the false idea that I do not want to improve conditions. But: you are arguing against Windmills (again if you catch my drift).

The real irony? You claim to champion “strength” and “rigor,” yet your entire approach is built on retreating into mysticism the moment the physical world doesn’t conform to your grand vision. You prefer poetic fatalism over actual solutions. That’s not strength—it’s resignation dressed up as wisdom.

No. The mysticism I describe is a way to understand Reality in a more holistic and therefore genuinely realistic way.

In my view your entire philosophy is non-realistic. (Or largely so).

[Gary Childress]

Manly attitude, manly decisiveness, a manly resoluteness in the face of difficulty and trial: yes indeed, I advocate for that. And I advocate for swift and decisive punishment for wrong-doing. Justice at times must overstep leniency.

The ignorant are cock sure and the intelligent full of doubt. However, perhaps he who hesitates has lost.

[Gary Childress]

"Metaphysics" sounds a bit like what Don Quixote must have believed in.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This AI shit is weird. Kind of freaky really. I asked “it” the following:

Here's an essay exploring the idea of salt in wounds as a metaphor for adversity and resilience:

The notion that "salt in wounds" can awaken a manly strength is rooted in the idea that adversity can be a catalyst for personal growth and resilience. This concept has been explored in various philosophical and literary traditions, where suffering and hardship are seen as transformative experiences that can awaken inner strength and character.

In a literal sense, salt in wounds can be a painful and debilitating experience. However, when used metaphorically, it can represent the challenges and hardships that we face in life. Just as salt can cleanse and disinfect wounds, adversity can strip away our illusions and weaknesses, revealing a deeper reservoir of strength and resilience within us.

This idea is echoed in the concept of "antifragility," coined by philosopher Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Antifragility refers to the ability of systems or individuals to not only withstand shocks and stresses but to actually benefit from them. In this sense, the "salt in wounds" can be seen as a catalyst for antifragility, forcing us to adapt and grow in response to adversity.

Moreover, the idea that salt in wounds can awaken a manly strength taps into traditional notions of masculinity, where courage, resilience, and perseverance are seen as essential virtues. In this context, the ability to endure hardship and emerge stronger is seen as a hallmark of manly strength.

However, it's essential to note that this idea should not be taken literally or used to romanticize suffering. Adversity can have devastating effects on individuals and communities, and it's crucial to acknowledge the need for support, care, and compassion in the face of hardship.

In conclusion, the notion that salt in wounds can awaken a manly strength serves as a powerful metaphor for the human capacity for resilience and growth in the face of adversity. While it's essential to approach this idea with nuance and sensitivity, it remains a compelling reminder of the transformative power of hardship and the importance of cultivating inner strength and character.

Kind of fagged-out in a couple of paragraphs, but in The Penal Colony the general’s ladies had his ear, didn’t they?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now here AI got it very wrong!

Here's a summation of Kafka's "In the Penal Colony":

"In the Penal Colony" is a novella by Franz Kafka, written in 1914 and published posthumously in 1920. The story takes place on a remote island, where a mysterious penal colony operates under the authority of a distant and unseen Commandant.

The narrative centers around an Officer, who is responsible for operating a gruesome torture device known as "the Apparatus." This machine is designed to inscribe the sentence of the condemned prisoner on their skin, over a period of 12 hours, leading to a slow and agonizing death.

The story begins with the arrival of a Traveler, who is invited to witness the execution of a prisoner. The Officer, who is deeply devoted to the Apparatus and the penal colony's system, attempts to persuade the Traveler of the justice and efficacy of their methods.

As the story unfolds, it becomes clear that the penal colony is a symbol of a rigid, bureaucratic, and dehumanizing system, where individuals are stripped of their autonomy and dignity. The Apparatus, with its intricate and sadistic design, serves as a powerful metaphor for the ways in which institutions can exert control over individuals.

Through the character of the Officer, Kafka explores the themes of obsession, fanaticism, and the dangers of unchecked power. The Traveler, who remains largely detached and uncomprehending, serves as a foil to the Officer's zealotry, highlighting the absurdity and horror of the penal colony's practices.

Ultimately, "In the Penal Colony" is a haunting and thought-provoking critique of the darker aspects of human nature and the dangers of totalitarianism.

[Gary Childress]

Now here AI got it very wrong!

Here's a summation of Kafka's "In the Penal Colony":

"In the Penal Colony" is a novella by Franz Kafka, written in 1914 and published posthumously in 1920. The story takes place on a remote island, where a mysterious penal colony operates under the authority of a distant and unseen Commandant.

The narrative centers around an Officer, who is responsible for operating a gruesome torture device known as "the Apparatus." This machine is designed to inscribe the sentence of the condemned prisoner on their skin, over a period of 12 hours, leading to a slow and agonizing death.

The story begins with the arrival of a Traveler, who is invited to witness the execution of a prisoner. The Officer, who is deeply devoted to the Apparatus and the penal colony's system, attempts to persuade the Traveler of the justice and efficacy of their methods.

As the story unfolds, it becomes clear that the penal colony is a symbol of a rigid, bureaucratic, and dehumanizing system, where individuals are stripped of their autonomy and dignity. The Apparatus, with its intricate and sadistic design, serves as a powerful metaphor for the ways in which institutions can exert control over individuals.

Through the character of the Officer, Kafka explores the themes of obsession, fanaticism, and the dangers of unchecked power. The Traveler, who remains largely detached and uncomprehending, serves as a foil to the Officer's zealotry, highlighting the absurdity and horror of the penal colony's practices.

Ultimately, "In the Penal Colony" is a haunting and thought-provoking critique of the darker aspects of human nature and the dangers of totalitarianism.

Is Kafka's work based on evidence or fiction?

[Gary Childress]

In the fictional land of Jacobi the weak rule and the strong must overthrow them. Just like all undocumented immigrants are criminals. Metaphysics devoid of science is like chasing windmills, unless one happens to be the President of the most powerful country on Earth, then it's more like a bull in a China shop.

[Gary Childress]

Qanon has discovered endocrine. The secret government laboratory manufacturing it is in Canada. This is an all points bulletin that only Alexis Jacobi can decipher.

[Gary Childress]

Hey, AJ. How are the cocktail parties?

[Gary Childress]

Where do I make my payment for your first class? Can I mail you a check? And if so, what is your address?