Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[henry quirk]

I do not regard you as a “child molester”.

He's a flasher, not a molester.

He shouldn't have been jailed.

Instead, folks at the scene shoulda beat his ass up one side and down the other.

That woulda been the appropriate amount of FAFO.

[henry quirk]

I do fear a world full of men who do not understand how much man is a metaphysical creature.

Any sensible person should share that fear. Mike's philosophy, taken seriously, can only lead to, as I say, atrocity.

[Age]

"I just thought maybe you lived in severe deprivation of friendship and companionship."

Well, i think that's a fine question, and I'd be obliged to answer it quite frankly.

I have no real-time friends and haven't since about 2006ish. The last 'relationship' i was in ended around 2009ish. My interaction with people is limited to my customers, a sickening cat lady and clerks at gas stations. The old man dropped me from his will and i haven't talked to em in over fifteen years. Still waiting on the old lady to die. I tried some meetup groups a couple years ago and was unimpressed, so stopped going. That, and i have this almost shizoparanoia that somehow everybody around me thinks I'm a child molester.... so I'm very reserved around people, suspiciously so. I'm the 'what's up with that guy' guy. It's a kind of psychosis that's developed from being a SO. I feel like if i start getting to know someone beyond a superficial level, I'll have to explain everything, and they won't believe me. The thought of that infurtiates me, so i don't even make it possible.

Yup, 'bout seventeen years now of solitude, i reckon. Why do you think i hang out at philosophy forums? So i can find some clown to fuck with. Duh.

Well if you accepted and took actual responsibility for what you have done, then the psychosis and the so-called schizoparanoia WILL diminish somewhat. But, EVERY time you 'try to' BLAME 'them', for what you DID, then 'others' WILL see 'you' as the, what you call, 'what is up with that guy', guy.

What is the 'everything', which you BELIEVE that you will HAVE TO explain? And, why do you BELIEVE that they will NOT believe you?

What, exactly, could you a human being possibly say and/or explain that would, supposedly, NOT just be believed?

[Age]

Wait, that's not entirely right. Out of these years, approx 6 were spent in the company of prison inmates. You can count that as 'socializing', but i don't. The ones that didn't repulse me i was indifferent toward.

Notice HOW 'others' REPULSE 'you'?

Well BECAUSE 'you' have this HATRED and/or REPULSION OF 'others', then, OF COURSE, you WILL HAVE this FEAR OF, and/or BELIEF, that 'others' WILL BE REPULSED BY 'you', as well.

But, OBVIOUSLY, you human beings are NOT ALL 'the same'. So, when you are FAR MORE OPEN and Honest, here, then you may well FIND that what you are FEARING and/or BELIEVING, here, will NOT come to fruition.

[Age]

I'm tellin' ya, haus, one of the hardest things to do is put yourself into a position where someone's good manner toward you does not generate from a genuine interest and admiration of you but from a sense of pity toward you.

My pride has never experienced an assault greater than this, and insult greater than this; that someone might only bother with me because they believe i am a pedophile and sexual deviant who deserves at least some pity for being so sick.

Now you know how much i love irony, but this one is just extraordinary. That someone very likely not worth the sweat on my balls is made able to believe themselves better than me and in doing so, the actual matter of fact is unequivocally reversed. But worse, they can't know this. The feeling of pity and revulsion is real, see. These little insignificant nobodies any day on the street actually feel superior in my presence.

With 'these views' there is NO wonder why 'you' are 'the way' you ARE.

It's absolutely insane. They look down their noses at me. Me. I'm like five of this guy in every way and he doesn't even know this.

Who is 'this guy', which you speak OF and talk ABOUT, here?

Of course this, too, is the fault of the state for making and/or letting him think I'm a perv.

What, EXACTLY, do you WANT people to think of ADULT MEN who masturbate in front of CHILDREN?

Here's a guy I could really help stop being a nobody who now doesn't have that opportunity because he's been artificially made to fear and loathe me. This is not fair to him.

LOL HOW, EXACTLY, could you have, allegedly and supposedly, 'REALLY HELPED' a so-called 'nobody'?

LOL WHY would you even, REALLY, WANT TO HELP a so-called 'nobody', in the beginning?

They think I'm a perv.

If 'you' are NOT, then what are 'you', EXACTLY?

I think they're the pervs...

Okay, but is 'this thought' REALLY HELPING 'you', here?

in far deeper ways that extend in many philosophical directions, inexplicable to them precisely because of their perversion and complete misunderstanding of damn near everything... including and certainly human sexuality.

Okay. So, what IS the Correct Truth, here, EXACTLY?

[BigMike]

Let’s be clear: you don’t have a more complete perspective—you have no perspective at all. You mistake willful ignorance for "higher understanding" and call science "skewed" because it doesn’t leave room for your detached, mystical rambling. In reality, you fear the truth—because it doesn’t care about your illusions.

No, I “strongly suggest” that you are skewed. Science is science.

You are right though: I do fear a world full of men who do not understand how much man is a metaphysical creature.

This conversation (over the months) has been very helpful for me personally in so many ways.

It has augmented my own certainties not diminished them.

Science is science. Are you calling me “skewed” just because I trust it? That’s rich. If you think man is “a metaphysical creature,” then spell it out—how much so? Are we talking spirits drifting above the laws of physics, or just poetic language for the fact we have thoughts and emotions? Because unless you can show us where humans literally defy causality, all this “metaphysical creature” talk is just grandiose hand-waving.

[Skepdick]

Science is science. Are you calling me “skewed” just because I trust it?

You could certainly be called "skewed" for claiming to trust science; when you actually don't.

You didn't even trust the science (Norton's dome) falsifying the 1st law of motion - a clear demonstration of the falsity of determinism.

But I guess "rigid"; or "stupid" would be a much fairer characterization than "skewed".

[BigMike]

Science is science. Are you calling me “skewed” just because I trust it?

You could certainly be called "skewed" for claiming to trust science; when you actually don't.

You didn't even trust the science (Norton's dome) falsifying the 1st law of motion - a clear demonstration of the falsity of determinism.

But I guess "rigid"; or "stupid" would be a much fairer characterization than "skewed".

Skepdick, your bad-faith nonsense is exhausting. You keep throwing around words like “falsified” without understanding what they mean. Norton’s Dome isn’t a violation of determinism—it’s a mathematical curiosity within an idealized Newtonian framework, not an actual physical experiment showing causality breaking down. You might as well argue that Zeno’s paradox proves motion is impossible.

You’re so desperate to poke holes in determinism that you latch onto abstract thought experiments while ignoring the entire body of empirical physics that keeps proving you wrong. Meanwhile, in the real world, every testable, reproducible experiment reaffirms conservation laws and causal relationships. But sure, keep pretending you’ve single-handedly disproven physics—maybe the Nobel committee will call you any day now.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, your bad-faith nonsense is exhausting. You keep throwing around words like “falsified” without understanding what they mean.

10 points for irony. The above paragraph is your self-assessment, isn't it?

Norton’s Dome isn’t a violation of determinism—it’s a mathematical curiosity within an idealized Newtonian framework

ALL physical laws are idealized mathematical curiosities, dumbass.

When a single equation (capturing a physical law) has multiple sollutions that is exactly and precisely what scientists mean by "non-determinism".

not an actual physical experiment showing causality breaking down.

You onto causality now? Did you forget about determinism?

Are you just going to keep throwing buzzwords to mask your ingnorance?

You might as well argue that Zeno’s paradox proves motion is impossible.

No, but I am certainly going to argue that Zeno's paradox proves that Newton's 1st law of motion is incoherent.

There's no such thing as "at rest" in a differential equation - everything is described through continuous changes and rates of change.

You’re so desperate to poke holes in determinism that you latch onto abstract thought experiments while ignoring the entire body of empirical physics

You are so desperate to defend your dogma that you are willing to ignore the fact that the entire body of physics is thought experiments that keeps proving you wrong.

Meanwhile, in the real world, every testable, reproducible experiment reaffirms conservation laws and causal relationships.

So now you are defending conservation laws again? But you accept that determinism is false?

You can't really decide what your position is. Can you? Why don't you start by telling us whether your "conservation laws" are prior or posterior to F=ma ?

[promethean75]

Sorry for interrupting the determinism stuff, Mike. Just pretend like I'm not here.

"Instead (of jail), folks at the scene shoulda beat his ass up one side and down the other."

This is an excellent idea, Henry, but the only people present were privy to it (except for the ugly fat one with braces).

We'd first need the 'victim' of the indecent exposure to suffer some kind of harm from the vision of the penii before we could be sure he should be accosted by the mob, though.

Sexy little beast: mom, he didn't do anything to us omg! He was kinda cute too (giggles).

Mom: he exposed his penis to you, Alissa! What is wrong with you! Get in this car immediately, young lady, we're going home. Wait until i tell your father.

[BigMike]

Skepdick, your bad-faith nonsense is exhausting. You keep throwing around words like “falsified” without understanding what they mean.

10 points for irony. The above paragraph is your self-assessment, isn't it?

Norton’s Dome isn’t a violation of determinism—it’s a mathematical curiosity within an idealized Newtonian framework

ALL physical laws are idealized mathematical curiosities, dumbass.

The mathematical curiosity of having a single equation/law have TWO solutions is a violation of determinism.

not an actual physical experiment showing causality breaking down.

You onto causality now? Did you forget about determinism?

Are you just going to keep throwing buzzwords to mask your ingnorance?

You might as well argue that Zeno’s paradox proves motion is impossible.

No, but I am certainly going to argue that Zeno's paradox proves that Newton's 1st law of motion is incoherent.

There's no such thing as "at rest" in a differential equation - everything is described through continuous changes and rates of change.

You’re so desperate to poke holes in determinism that you latch onto abstract thought experiments while ignoring the entire body of empirical physics

You are so desperate to defend your dogma that you are willing to ignore the fact that the entire body of physics is thought experiments that keeps proving you wrong.

Meanwhile, in the real world, every testable, reproducible experiment reaffirms conservation laws and causal relationships.

So now you are defending conservation laws again? But you accept that determinism is false?

You can't really decide what your position is. Can you? Why don't you start by telling us whether your "conservation laws" are prior or posterior to F=ma ?

No conservation laws have been violated. If you claim otherwise, which one?

Norton’s Dome is an idealized, non-physical case of a frictionless surface that lacks Lipschitz continuity at the crest—mathematician-speak for a scenario with an undefined force at a singular point. It’s like balancing a pencil on its tip—in theory, infinitesimal forces could make it fall unpredictably, but in reality, no physical system behaves this way because all real-world surfaces and forces have physical constraints.

And no, physics isn’t just “thought experiments”—it’s empirically tested models that describe reality. You’re latching onto a mathematical edge case that doesn’t exist in nature and pretending it invalidates determinism, causality, or conservation laws.

So, which conservation law has been violated? Name it. Or admit you’re just tossing out misinterpretations to avoid facing actual physics.

[Skepdick]

e]
No conservation laws have been violated. If you claim otherwise, which one?

No conservation laws have been preserved. If you claim otherwise, which one?

e]
Norton’s Dome is an idealized, non-physical case of a frictionless surface that lacks Lipschitz continuity at the crest—mathematician-speak for a scenario with an undefined force at a singular point. It’s like balancing a pencil on its tip—in theory, infinitesimal forces could make it fall unpredictably, but in reality, no physical system behaves this way because all real-world surfaces and forces have physical constraints.

But in reality there are no such things as physical laws; or physical constraints.

All of those are idealizations. And you just argued against idealizations.
F=ma itself doesn't know anything about these "physical constraints" - it's a mathematical idealization
If you need to add extra constraints to prevent non-deterministic solutions, you're admitting that F=ma is non-deterministic!

Make up your mind.

e]
And no, physics isn’t just “thought experiments”—it’s empirically tested models that describe reality.

Contradiction. A model models - it doesn't describe. A model is a useful over-simplification.

e]
You’re latching onto a mathematical edge case that doesn’t exist in nature and pretending it invalidates determinism, causality, or conservation laws.

Mathematics doesn't exist in nature. So which laws are you talking about?

e]
So, which conservation law has been violated? Name it. Or admit you’re just tossing out misinterpretations to avoid facing actual physics.

Which conversation laws have not been violated? Show them to us.

Physically.

No, not their Mathematical idealizations. The non-idealized conservation laws you are harping on about.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis, your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance. You dismiss science as "partially deranged" while clinging to vague metaphysical rambling that doesn’t amount to anything more than self-indulgent poetry. You claim to counter "pure physicalism" with mysticism, as if reality cares about your philosophical insecurities.

Recently weird things have been happening with me. Proof of just one more startling advance toward the very frontiers of the inconceivable.

I have begun to bi-locate!

So, last night while sitting down to dinner with my lovely wife here in Colombia, I spontaneously bi-located to an old friend’s apartment in Buenos Aires. Now check this out: I then called my wife while she sat at table facing me! She went pale as a ghost!

She knows I can “wave my hands” and mysterious, unfathomable things just happen, but this one was too much! She moved temporarily back in with her mother and won’t answer her phone.

Oh, she’ll get over it. It’s the price she pays for living with the Sat-Guru of This Age.

Ok so perhaps my arrogance tops my ignorance. If you say so! But I am a mystic with a practical bent. I work the magic as I tweak the boundaries of the possible and turn classical physics on its head!

[Belinda]

e]
No conservation laws have been violated. If you claim otherwise, which one?

No conservation laws have been preserved. If you claim otherwise, which one?

e]
Norton’s Dome is an idealized, non-physical case of a frictionless surface that lacks Lipschitz continuity at the crest—mathematician-speak for a scenario with an undefined force at a singular point. It’s like balancing a pencil on its tip—in theory, infinitesimal forces could make it fall unpredictably, but in reality, no physical system behaves this way because all real-world surfaces and forces have physical constraints.

But in reality there are no such things as physical laws; or physical constraints.

All of those are idealizations. And you just argued against idealizations.
F=ma itself doesn't know anything about these "physical constraints" - it's a mathematical idealization
If you need to add extra constraints to prevent non-deterministic solutions, you're admitting that F=ma is non-deterministic!

Make up your mind.

e]
And no, physics isn’t just “thought experiments”—it’s empirically tested models that describe reality.

Contradiction. A model models - it doesn't describe. A model is a useful over-simplification.

e]
You’re latching onto a mathematical edge case that doesn’t exist in nature and pretending it invalidates determinism, causality, or conservation laws.

Mathematics doesn't exist in nature. So which laws are you talking about?

e]
So, which conservation law has been violated? Name it. Or admit you’re just tossing out misinterpretations to avoid facing actual physics.

Which conversation laws have not been violated? Show them to us.

Physically.

No, not their Mathematical idealizations. The non-idealized conservation laws you are harping on about.

Concerning Skepdick's "there are no physical laws-------", in the context of what metaphysical substances exist, physical laws is a synonym for laws of nature. And nature is a system: and systems are defined as sets of coherent laws.

Therefore I regard your stance as overly postmodern for practical purposes. It's okay to begin from a postmodern stance, but in the everyday political world we must choose as moderns.

[Skepdick]

Concerning Skepdick's "there are no physical laws-------", in the context of what metaphysical substances exist, physical laws is a synonym for laws of nature. And nature is a system: and systems are defined as sets of coherent laws.

Therefore I regard your stance as overly postmodern for practical purposes. It's okay to begin from a postmodern stance, but in the everyday political world we must choose as moderns.

Giving it a label is beyond the point. So is the synonimy.

The whole thing is about the conceptual mish-mash entailed by the symbol grounding problem. How the way we speak and think about reality connects to reality. And how the paradigms we choose to adopt as "ontological" have direct consequences on our psychology and decision-making.

Physics rests on the ontological claim that energy exists.
But that's not the teritory - that's the map.

The language/concepts of "energy" is a way of modeling nature, it's not nature.

In everiday politicking we must absolutely reject zero-sum thinking. Such as the conservation laws of physics.

Human systems can generate genuine increases in capability, knowledge, or value that don't have to be balanced by corresponding decreases to human benefactors elsewhere.

This is the point Big Mike can't seem to grasp. If I eat an apple - you can't have it, but if you share your knowledge with me - both of us can have it. Knowledge-sharing doesn't obey conservation laws.