Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

My operative description in that really determining, inner and intuited sense, is my awareness (belief, feeling, understanding) that I have come into a world (world: a sphere of existence among what I sense are innumerable worlds of varying sorts with different qualities and destinies) through a sort of descension. I.e. from an existence on a non-material plane to one in this particular flesh-and-blood world where all of us reside.

I could of course say more but that is the basic outline.

In an “ultimate” sense that is my determining understanding that I “practically lay to heart”.

And that view (which is a dawning view, not fully understood and sometimes not believed (consciously) does seem to influence my “vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and (my) duty and destiny” here.

Ah yes, the classic I have descended from a higher, non-material plane routine. Truly, Alexis, your dawning view of the universe is breathtakingly original—never before has a human being entertained the idea that they’re a mystical traveler from a realm beyond flesh and blood.

It’s especially delightful how you hedge your cosmic autobiography with “not fully understood and sometimes not believed (consciously),” a poetic way of saying I kind of make this up as I go along, but it sounds profound, so let’s roll with it.

Tell me, do you recall your departure from this non-material plane, or was it more of a whoops, I slipped into a mortal coil situation? And what duty and destiny do you have here, beyond dazzling us with florid metaphysical musings? Do share. I, for one, am dying to know the details of your interdimensional itinerary.

[FlashDangerpants]

Has VA finally found a human being that is stupid enough to buy into this FSK theory it makes actual sense to say that science is 90% credible and history is 12% credible, so science is better than history?

Or is Mike just so weak that he will butter up the worst idiots the internet throws at him for the sake of an alliance?

Flash, you’re reaching here. Engaging in a discussion about epistemic frameworks isn’t the same as blindly endorsing every detail of someone else’s system. VA’s continuum approach, while imperfect, at least attempts to quantify the relative credibility of different knowledge systems—something worth examining critically, not just dismissing out of hand.

And let’s be clear: challenging an argument doesn’t mean resorting to cheap insults. If you think VA’s framework is flawed, then argue against it with substance. Otherwise, you’re just throwing stones from the sidelines, hoping no one notices you’re not actually saying anything.

That's concerning, his attempts to quantify the relative credibility of different knowledge systems are exactly why he is a hopeless buffoon. I and many others have argued with VA about his crazy FSK thing for years already. Recently he has been relying on AI to agree with him because he has persuaded precisely zero humans with his specious bullshit about being able to make up numbers out of the blue about how good science is and call that a measurement with a +/- 5% margin of error.

So I have made much of the fact that he uses an obsequious computer that exists only to agree with him as his source of credibility (which operates on a bandwagon basis in his monumentally stupid theory). In advance of him using you as his counter to that, I am setting up the dismissal of that case.

Whether I end up doing that by ruining his efforts to bring you into his FSK fold or by absolutely mocking the fuck out of you if he succeeds is unimportant to me because I think you are an oaf so it doesn't much.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ah yes, the classic I have descended from a higher, non-material plane routine. Truly, Alexis, your dawning view of the universe is breathtakingly original—never before has a human being entertained the idea that they’re a mystical traveler from a realm beyond flesh and blood.

No, that is not quite what I meant. My view is that all people who come into this world actually, or more really, exist on an eternal plane. The issue (in my view) has to do with whether their choices bind them into increased entanglement in materialism or perhaps material life or about a life lived in a context of bringing more of what is non-materially known into this plane. (Hence all my references to metaphysical realness).

The life we have here is in this sense less real than the permanent life in an ultimate sense. Such a view does create a tension though. I am uncertain as to how best to deal with it.

It’s really not a question of “originality” but rather about what sort of paradigmatic conceptual structures a person (in that ultimate Carlylean sense) lives through and in relation to.

It does not bother me at all that you would mock the “myth” of being a traveler in this world, since I mock your closed-loop conceptual structure based in scientism (hopped up by a driven mathematical personality).

The actual point goes beyond personalities and personalized ideological conflicts. It really has to do with one’s “metaphysical dream of the world”. What I think you fail to grasp is the degree to which you operate out of a metaphysics but see it as irreducible realism.

Tell me, do you recall your departure from this non-material plane, or was it more of a whoops, I slipped into a mortal coil situation? And what duty and destiny do you have here, beyond dazzling us with florid metaphysical musings? Do share. I, for one, am dying to know the details of your interdimensional itinerary.

That is actually a true lie. You have no interest at all in whatever it is I refer to. In fact it — this sort of conceptualization — is utterly contemptible to you.

And your motives in that are quite complex.

[Gary Childress]

My "operative description" according to AJ is probably to be culled from the herd so as to promote healthier and more manly breeding stock among the males.

Why am I in this world? How did I end up here? I don't want to live anymore.

No, Gary, that is really what your own view, which is ultimately a very powerful mood that overtakes you, determines for you.

The larger part of that — according to what you yourself reveal — is due to mental health.

What I recommend for a man in your position is unusual: serve those who are “whole” and who can progress in this life as you have indicated you cannot.

I've given to charitable organizations and people who needed help. I've also served the mentally ill. Did I serve the wrong people?

[seeds]

That's exactly right.

Question is: is that what AJ is talkin' about as an operative description?

Here's BigMike's actual and complete response to henry without the aid of AI...

I don't know. Let's just sit back and see what he says, if anything at all.

However,...

(and using a random sampling of BigMike's own [slightly paraphrased) words)

...here is a suggestion of what BigMike's more "typical response" would have been with his usual reliance on AI...

Henry, I see what you’re getting at—you make an important distinction between knowing and not knowing the answer to a question before it has been clarified.

Your analysis is sharp, and your approach to questions remains a useful tool for placing different knowledge systems in a clear epistemic hierarchy.

Questions—at their core—have long been a vehicle for shaping human understanding, a mirror reflecting our beliefs, desires, and anxieties. But within this vast realm of "question asking" lies a dangerous undercurrent—one that reinforces illusions rather than dismantling them. Among the most pernicious of these is the persistent glorification of free will, an idea so deeply embedded in fictional narratives that it has distorted how people perceive reality itself.

I trust that the "process of questioning" is an entire and coherent system—not as an article of faith, but because all empirical evidence supports that conclusion. The coherence of the "process of questioning" is not a belief imposed onto reality; it’s an observation derived from rigorous testing and validation. The universe operates under consistent principles, and while our understanding of those principles evolves, they do not contradict themselves.

Your analysis of the human condition and the role of "question-asking" in alleviating existential angst is profoundly insightful. You correctly imply that ascertaining the answers to questions functions as an immediate psychological relief mechanism, providing individuals with a sense of knowing and comfort in the face of uncertainty. That is a deeply honest assessment of why the "process of asking questions" persists, despite its fundamental incompatibility with those who wish to remain ignorant.

In conclusion, this is not an argument for the abandonment of meaning, purpose, or ethical frameworks—rather, it is an argument for building those frameworks on what is real, not what is comforting. The pursuit of truth—as best as we can grasp it through the asking of questions—remains our most reliable path to understanding existence. Anything else is an invitation to contradiction and, ultimately, epistemic collapse.

_______

[BigMike]

Ah yes, the classic I have descended from a higher, non-material plane routine. Truly, Alexis, your dawning view of the universe is breathtakingly original—never before has a human being entertained the idea that they’re a mystical traveler from a realm beyond flesh and blood.

No, that is not quite what I meant. My view is that all people who come into this world actually, or more really, exist on an eternal plane. The issue (in my view) has to do with whether their choices bind them into increased entanglement in materialism or perhaps material life or about a life lived in a context of bringing more of what is non-materially known into this plane. (Hence all my references to metaphysical realness).

The life we have here is in this sense less real than the permanent life in an ultimate sense. Such a view does create a tension though. I am uncertain as to how best to deal with it.

It’s really not a question of “originality” but rather about what sort of paradigmatic conceptual structures a person (in that ultimate Carlylean sense) lives through and in relation to.

It does not bother me at all that you would mock the “myth” of being a traveler in this world, since I mock your closed-loop conceptual structure based in scientism (hopped up by a driven mathematical personality).

The actual point goes beyond personalities and personalized ideological conflicts. It really has to do with one’s “metaphysical dream of the world”. What I think you fail to grasp is the degree to which you operate out of a metaphysics but see it as irreducible realism.

Tell me, do you recall your departure from this non-material plane, or was it more of a whoops, I slipped into a mortal coil situation? And what duty and destiny do you have here, beyond dazzling us with florid metaphysical musings? Do share. I, for one, am dying to know the details of your interdimensional itinerary.

That is actually a true lie. You have no interest at all in whatever it is I refer to. In fact it — this sort of conceptualization — is utterly contemptible to you.

And your motives in that are quite complex.

Ah, so now it’s not that you’re a mystical traveler from another plane, but rather that all people are, in some grand eternal sense. How generous of you to include the rest of us in your cosmic adventure. And what a fascinating system you’ve devised—where some poor souls are tragically entangled in materialism while the more enlightened few, presumably including yourself, are here to bring forth the wisdom of the eternal plane like some kind of metaphysical UPS delivery service.

And of course, this life—this tangible, observable, testable reality—is merely less real than your permanent ultimate life on a plane you can neither define nor demonstrate, but which you somehow know is more real. That’s quite the neat little trick. When reality doesn’t align with your claims, simply declare it a lesser version of what you really mean.

Then there’s the predictable pivot to scientism—as if recognizing the validity of empiricism is some dreadful, narrow-minded affliction. Meanwhile, your worldview, steeped in vague metaphysical declarations, is apparently expansive and rich despite having no explanatory power beyond poetic abstraction.

And the pièce de résistance? The dramatic accusation that my curiosity is a true lie, a veiled contempt, a mask for my complex motives. How very mysterious. Perhaps I, too, am an eternal being, but instead of being caught in materialism, I’m bound in some cosmic loop of skepticism, tragically unable to see the grand metaphysical truth. Or maybe, just maybe, you’ve constructed an elaborate, self-affirming belief system that conveniently insulates itself from critique by declaring all dissenters to be trapped in lower levels of understanding. But sure, let’s go with my motives are complex. Sounds much more profound.

[Alexis Jacobi]

How generous of you to include the rest of us in your cosmic adventure.

It is the least I could do, I mean if you think it all through.

And what a fascinating system you’ve devised—where some poor souls are tragically entangled in materialism while the more enlightened few, presumably including yourself, are here to bring forth the wisdom of the eternal plane like some kind of metaphysical UPS delivery service.

Except that it is essentially Vedic doctrine so not something I devised. More like a conceptual ideal that I choose to align with.

However it must be said that the Christian ideal is quite similar.

And of course, this life—this tangible, observable, testable reality—is merely less real than your permanent ultimate life on a plane you can neither define nor demonstrate, but which you somehow know is more real.

Yes, and I think the metaphor of Plato’s Cave, as a “myth”, is illustrative of a sense of the realness of a plane that is (ultimately) more real than the mutable world we find ourselves in. It seems almost a necessary manoeuvre of our minds and consciousness.

We are in many way in rebellion against the mercilesslness of such a dangerous, mutable world, and therefore strive to make it different. And we do that in a variety of ways, or work on various levels to bring a different awareness, and different possibilities, down into our world.

Intuition — what is understood to be ultimately true — is indeed what is being talked about in this thread.

See you are not unteachable, Mike! You’re doing good!

Then there’s the predictable pivot to scientism—as if recognizing the validity of empiricism is some dreadful, narrow-minded affliction.

Do you mean scientism and empiricism in your skewed sense, or perhaps in a more balanced sense? Trust in empiricism is not exactly where you stumble, where you stumble is in a) your illiteracy (lack of familiarity with different modes of understanding), and b) in a furious, driven imposition of a mathematical paradigm — a function of your personality, the way you are constructed.

That is what “skewed” means. Not wrong (not wholly wrong) but sufficiently wrong that your entire orientation careens toward fanatical lunacy.

You are indeed “narrow minded”.

And the pièce de résistance? The dramatic accusation that my curiosity is a true lie, a veiled contempt, a mask for my complex motives. How very mysterious.

Only perhaps to you. It is pretty obvious to me.

My point: that you drip with contempt is, I think, pretty sound. It is therefore a false curiosity. But I think you knew that, no?

Or maybe, just maybe, you’ve constructed an elaborate, self-affirming belief system that conveniently insulates itself from critique by declaring all dissenters to be trapped in lower levels of understanding.

No, I don’t think that is accurate because I very well understand both of the polarities: your strict and absolute materialism in comparison to my perspective. I can “access” both perspectives and I have lived out of both.

At the end of the day I choose a different metaphysical structure.

Remember: the conversation turned to that of “myth” and such things as truths revealed in supposed fictions. I just try to fill it out a bit.

you’ve constructed an elaborate, self-affirming belief system that conveniently insulates itself from critique by declaring all dissenters to be trapped in lower levels of understanding.

Years ago now I tried to explain to IC the logic of the notion of “gnosis” (I do not mean Gnosticism). So yes, and very much, I think it really does depend on what one knows. The purpose of one life lived may well be just to concretize one important truth in one’s understanding.

I actually do believe that.

Mike! You are doing GREAT!

[Alexiev]

The answer is never the answer. What's really interesting is the mystery. If you seek the mystery instead of the answer, you'll always be seeking. I've never seen anybody really find the answer, but they think they have. So they stop thinking. But the job is to seek mystery, evoke mystery, plant a garden in which strange plants grow and mysteries bloom. The need for mystery is greater than the need for an answer.

Ken Kesey

[BigMike]

How generous of you to include the rest of us in your cosmic adventure.

It is the least I could do, I mean if you think it all through.

And what a fascinating system you’ve devised—where some poor souls are tragically entangled in materialism while the more enlightened few, presumably including yourself, are here to bring forth the wisdom of the eternal plane like some kind of metaphysical UPS delivery service.

Except that it is essentially Vedic doctrine so not something I devised. More like a conceptual ideal that I choose to align with.

However it must be said that the Christian ideal is quite similar.

And of course, this life—this tangible, observable, testable reality—is merely less real than your permanent ultimate life on a plane you can neither define nor demonstrate, but which you somehow know is more real.

Yes, and I think the metaphor of Plato’s Cave, as a “myth”, is illustrative of a sense of the realness of a plane that is (ultimately) more real than the mutable world we find ourselves in. It seems almost a necessary manoeuvre of our minds and consciousness.

We are in many way in rebellion against the mercilesslness of such a dangerous, mutable world, and therefore strive to make it different. And we do that in a variety of ways, or work on various levels to bring a different awareness, and different possibilities, down into our world.

Intuition — what is understood to be ultimately true — is indeed what is being talked about in this thread.

See you are not unteachable, Mike! You’re doing good!

Then there’s the predictable pivot to scientism—as if recognizing the validity of empiricism is some dreadful, narrow-minded affliction.

Do you mean scientism and empiricism in your skewed sense, or perhaps in a more balanced sense? Trust in empiricism is not exactly where you stumble, where you stumble is in a) your illiteracy (lack of familiarity with different modes of understanding), and b) in a furious, driven imposition of a mathematical paradigm — a function of your personality, the way you are constructed.

That is what “skewed” means. Not wrong (not wholly wrong) but sufficiently wrong that your entire orientation careens toward fanatical lunacy.

You are indeed “narrow minded”.

And the pièce de résistance? The dramatic accusation that my curiosity is a true lie, a veiled contempt, a mask for my complex motives. How very mysterious.

Only perhaps to you. It is pretty obvious to me.

My point: that you drip with contempt is, I think, pretty sound. It is therefore a false curiosity. But I think you knew that, no?

Or maybe, just maybe, you’ve constructed an elaborate, self-affirming belief system that conveniently insulates itself from critique by declaring all dissenters to be trapped in lower levels of understanding.

No, I don’t think that is accurate because I very well understand both of the polarities: your strict and absolute materialism in comparison to my perspective. I can “access” both perspectives and I have lived out of both.

At the end of the day I choose a different metaphysical structure.

Remember: the conversation turned to that of “myth” and such things as truths revealed in supposed fictions. I just try to fill it out a bit.

you’ve constructed an elaborate, self-affirming belief system that conveniently insulates itself from critique by declaring all dissenters to be trapped in lower levels of understanding.

Years ago now I tried to explain to IC the logic of the notion of “gnosis” (I do not mean Gnosticism). So yes, and very much, I think it really does depend on what one knows. The purpose of one life lived may well be just to concretize one important truth in one’s understanding.

I actually do believe that.

Mike! You are doing GREAT!

Ah, so now it’s Vedic doctrine—not something you devised, merely something you’ve chosen to align with. A convenient pivot, really, since now you can absolve yourself of any responsibility for its coherence. It’s not your system, after all—you’re just the humble messenger, here to nudge us toward higher truths with a knowing smile.

And naturally, we can’t forget Plato’s Cave, that trusty metaphor trotted out whenever someone wants to claim their unverifiable assertions are actually more real than the observable world. Because, you see, the rest of us are just poor prisoners, staring at shadows on the wall, while you bask in the radiant glow of metaphysical insight. How fortunate we are to have you here, guiding us toward the exit.

But wait—what’s this? A brief intermission to psychoanalyze me? I must say, Alexis, your diagnostic talents are truly remarkable. You’ve uncovered my illiteracy (despite my ability to systematically dismantle your assertions), my narrow-mindedness (despite my willingness to engage with your labyrinth of metaphysical musings), and my fanatical lunacy (which I can only assume is a projection, given the material under discussion). And let’s not forget my false curiosity, because naturally, anyone who questions your worldview must be dripping with contempt rather than, say, demanding a coherent argument.

Then there’s the gnosis flourish—the ultimate escape hatch. Your perspective isn’t just a belief, oh no—it’s a knowing. And how does one attain such knowledge? Ah, well, that’s the great trick, isn’t it? You just have to know. No evidence required, no logical consistency needed—just an ineffable truth that, conveniently, you’ve managed to grasp while the rest of us flounder in ignorance.

Bravo, Alexis. Truly, chef’s kiss on the rhetorical gymnastics. But don’t worry, I’ll keep working at it—after all, you say I’m doing GREAT! Wouldn’t want to let my spiritual tutor down.

[Alexis Jacobi]

A convenient pivot, really, since now you can absolve yourself of any responsibility for its coherence. It’s not your system, after all—you’re just the humble messenger, here to nudge us toward higher truths with a knowing smile.

Heh!

You are on a roll! It makes me happy that I’ve given you material to work with.

The “coherence” of the metaphysical notion that our activity on Earth will cause us to ascend or to descend (in so many different ways) is the Vedic idea. It is not a question of absolving myself of it, and rather my objective is to try to explain to you how deeply the idea has penetrated into consciousness — including yours I might add.

If you are going to attempt ridicule, Mike, I beg you to try to carry it off with more elan! This is performative art! Take it seriously!

The entire point in this discussion, and of all speech, is to “nudge” toward perspectives viewed as higher (better). You do not seem very conscious of your own sermonic rhetoric!

And naturally, we can’t forget Plato’s Cave, that trusty metaphor trotted out whenever someone wants to claim their unverifiable assertions are actually more real than the observable world.

That “observable world” does not offer any sort of metaphysics! So it is precisely for this reason that metaphysics is relevant to man. You cannot get from mere nature any sort of larger, paradigmatic model. Nature is an enormous physical and biological machine that consumes itself in ever-becoming.

The important metaphysics, my darling child, spin out of idealism related to notions of being. Eternal being if you wish.

The notion of what is and what is not “verifiable” fucks you over every time! How can I help? You can verify temperature, mass & velocity, my drooling friend, but every higher value is not measurable nor can it be registered with a mechanical device! Yet what I refer to here is definitely verifiable, and all of us have determined those verities.

Except poor, recalcitrant, belligerent & mathematical Mike.

Because, you see, the rest of us are just poor prisoners, staring at shadows on the wall

You’re onto something important. But put to the side “the rest of us” and focus on yourself. You seem trapped in fanatically powered ideas. Try to turn your head!

You’ve uncovered my illiteracy (despite my ability to systematically dismantle your assertions), my narrow-mindedness (despite my willingness to engage with your labyrinth of metaphysical musings), and my fanatical lunacy (which I can only assume is a projection, given the material under discussion).

You dismantle nothing, in my view. But I would not take from you an analytic strength. That’s your mathematical training, isn’t it?

Your idea of “engagement” is simply appearing on a field of argumentation and repeating established a priories. I don’t see that as a strength.

There is nothing “fanatical” in any idea I have suggested here. Yet, and I point this out in as fair a spirit as I can, your fanatical ideology seems to have many of the defining hallmarks of a fanatic-religiousness.

You are so certain of your perspectives! You express not one doubt.

it’s a knowing. And how does one attain such knowledge?

I think that is where literacy must kick in. The men I admire (philosophers etc.) always have a very wide literate background. They deal with ideas with delicacy and nuance. So that is one realm of knowing.

The other realm is less tangible, perhaps more difficult of attainment. It has to do with experience, often hard-won.

Laugh if it pleases you. But I think there is a realm of wisdom as distinct from assemblage of multitudinous facts. In your case your fact-assemblies do not appear to have provided you with wisdom. And they cannot! Material facts assembled together cannot provide either “knowledge” nor “wisdom”.

C’mon Mike! You know this shit and you are fucking with me, aren’t you (?)

This is a serious “philosophical” conversation and a serious topic. The reference to “wisdom” is valid.

Truly, chef’s kiss on the rhetorical gymnastics.

I’d forgotten about that marvelous turn of phrase chef’s kiss! And I would agree that it should be used sparingly. Months have elapsed so good on you.

In any case thank you for your kind words. (Just keep your hands to yourself as we go forward).

[BigMike]

A convenient pivot, really, since now you can absolve yourself of any responsibility for its coherence. It’s not your system, after all—you’re just the humble messenger, here to nudge us toward higher truths with a knowing smile.

Heh!

You are on a roll! It makes me happy that I’ve given you material to work with.

The “coherence” of the metaphysical notion that our activity on Earth will cause us to ascend or to descend (in so many different ways) is the Vedic idea. It is not a question of absolving myself of it, and rather my objective is to try to explain to you how deeply the idea has penetrated into consciousness — including yours I might add.

If you are going to attempt ridicule, Mike, I beg you to try to carry it off with more elan! This is performative art! Take it seriously!

The entire point in this discussion, and of all speech, is to “nudge” toward perspectives viewed as higher (better). You do not seem very conscious of your own sermonic rhetoric!

And naturally, we can’t forget Plato’s Cave, that trusty metaphor trotted out whenever someone wants to claim their unverifiable assertions are actually more real than the observable world.

That “observable world” does not offer any sort of metaphysics! So it is precisely for this reason that metaphysics is relevant to man. You cannot get from mere nature any sort of larger, paradigmatic model. Nature is an enormous physical and biological machine that consumes itself in ever-becoming.

The important metaphysics, my darling child, spin out of idealism related to notions of being. Eternal being if you wish.

The notion of what is and what is not “verifiable” fucks you over every time! How can I help? You can verify temperature, mass & velocity, my drooling friend, but every higher value is not measurable nor can it be registered with a mechanical device! Yet what I refer to here is definitely verifiable, and all of us have determined those verities.

Except poor, recalcitrant, belligerent & mathematical Mike.

Because, you see, the rest of us are just poor prisoners, staring at shadows on the wall

You’re onto something important. But put to the side “the rest of us” and focus on yourself. You seem trapped in fanatically powered ideas. Try to turn your head!

You’ve uncovered my illiteracy (despite my ability to systematically dismantle your assertions), my narrow-mindedness (despite my willingness to engage with your labyrinth of metaphysical musings), and my fanatical lunacy (which I can only assume is a projection, given the material under discussion).

You dismantle nothing, in my view. But I would not take from you an analytic strength. That’s your mathematical training, isn’t it?

Your idea of “engagement” is simply appearing on a field of argumentation and repeating established a priories. I don’t see that as a strength.

There is nothing “fanatical” in any idea I have suggested here. Yet, and I point this out in as fair a spirit as I can, your fanatical ideology seems to have many of the defining hallmarks of a fanatic-religiousness.

You are so certain of your perspectives! You express not one doubt.

it’s a knowing. And how does one attain such knowledge?

I think that is where literacy must kick in. The men I admire (philosophers etc.) always have a very wide literate background. They deal with ideas with delicacy and nuance. So that is one realm of knowing.

The other realm is less tangible, perhaps more difficult of attainment. It has to do with experience, often hard-won.

Laugh if it pleases you. But I think there is a realm of wisdom as distinct from assemblage of multitudinous facts. In your case your fact-assemblies do not appear to have provided you with wisdom. And they cannot! Material facts assembled together cannot provide either “knowledge” nor “wisdom”.

C’mon Mike! You know this shit and you are fucking with me, aren’t you (?)

This is a serious “philosophical” conversation and a serious topic. The reference to “wisdom” is valid.

Truly, chef’s kiss on the rhetorical gymnastics.

I’d forgotten about that marvelous turn of phrase chef’s kiss! And I would agree that it should be used sparingly. Months have elapsed so good on you.

In any case thank you for your kind words. (Just keep your hands to yourself as we go forward).

Ah, Alexis, the ever-enigmatic metaphysician, weaving grandiose tales of ascent and descent, nudging us—nay, gracing us—with the weighty wisdom of the eternal plane. And yet, when all is said and done, your argument still boils down to mihi sic videtur, ergo est. "It seems so to me, therefore it is."

How compelling.

You insist, with theatrical flair, that metaphysics is "relevant to man" because mere nature offers no grand, paradigmatic model. But tell me, dear mystic, why should anyone trade the rigor of empirical verification for the ethereal musings of one who can neither define nor demonstrate his lofty claims? What you call "higher values" and "eternal being" are, in the end, nothing more than the amorphous offspring of your own imagination—your feelings draped in borrowed philosophical garb.

And then, the pièce de résistance: your desperate attempt to frame my position as "fanatically powered." The irony is almost too rich. Here you are, spinning a cosmic narrative that conveniently validates your unprovable beliefs, yet it's me who’s ensnared in ideology? The man who insists on falsifiability, who refuses to accept assertions without evidence, is somehow the dogmatist—while you, wading knee-deep in unverifiable metaphysical sentiment, are the picture of open-minded reason? Delightful.

But of course, this is where you flourish—in the realm of rhetorical somersaults, where a refusal to accept unsubstantiated claims is recast as a lack of wisdom, and your own intellectual meanderings are elevated to some higher plane of understanding. You claim that true wisdom comes not from facts but from experience—how convenient, since your "experience" is as nebulous as the divine realms you claim to intuit. A lovely little tautology: you have wisdom because you say you do, and if others don’t see it, well, they just lack the literacy to grasp it.

C’mon, Alexis. You’re so close to making a real argument. Just one step further and you might actually present something tangible. But alas, why bother? When you can simply feel the truth, why get tangled up in the messy business of proving it?

[henry quirk]

Henry, I see what you’re getting at—you make an important distinction between knowing and not knowing the answer to a question before it has been clarified.

Your analysis is sharp, and your approach to questions remains a useful tool for placing different knowledge systems in a clear epistemic hierarchy.

Questions—at their core—have long been a vehicle for shaping human understanding, a mirror reflecting our beliefs, desires, and anxieties. But within this vast realm of "question asking" lies a dangerous undercurrent—one that reinforces illusions rather than dismantling them. Among the most pernicious of these is the persistent glorification of free will, an idea so deeply embedded in fictional narratives that it has distorted how people perceive reality itself.

I trust that the "process of questioning" is an entire and coherent system—not as an article of faith, but because all empirical evidence supports that conclusion. The coherence of the "process of questioning" is not a belief imposed onto reality; it’s an observation derived from rigorous testing and validation. The universe operates under consistent principles, and while our understanding of those principles evolves, they do not contradict themselves.

Your analysis of the human condition and the role of "question-asking" in alleviating existential angst is profoundly insightful. You correctly imply that ascertaining the answers to questions functions as an immediate psychological relief mechanism, providing individuals with a sense of knowing and comfort in the face of uncertainty. That is a deeply honest assessment of why the "process of asking questions" persists, despite its fundamental incompatibility with those who wish to remain ignorant.

In conclusion, this is not an argument for the abandonment of meaning, purpose, or ethical frameworks—rather, it is an argument for building those frameworks on what is real, not what is comforting. The pursuit of truth—as best as we can grasp it through the asking of questions—remains our most reliable path to understanding existence. Anything else is an invitation to contradiction and, ultimately, epistemic collapse.

_______

Oh, that's very good...do AI AJ next.
I'd say do AI Quirk too (cuz I like a little attention now & then) but I'm a little too plain for an emulation.

[Dubious]

The answer is never the answer. What's really interesting is the mystery. If you seek the mystery instead of the answer, you'll always be seeking. I've never seen anybody really find the answer, but they think they have. So they stop thinking. But the job is to seek mystery, evoke mystery, plant a garden in which strange plants grow and mysteries bloom. The need for mystery is greater than the need for an answer.

Ken Kesey

That actually makes a great deal of sense; a mystery, by its very nature, remains more potent than any sense in having resolved it. The mind, in contemplating it, must travel further than merely stagnating at a known port where all questions are easily digested and responded to. The mystery on its own becomes a guide while remaining totally impersonal in its feedback. One may even, I think, qualify a true mystery as not having an answer and, in that sense, existing forever, standing fast as a beacon which time cannot resolve and the mind, in consequence, never ceases to contemplate. It's the kind of alchemy where the impersonal becomes an expansive power, blending one's identity with the mystery. It creates the perspectives inclusive in what we denote as spirit...or, better still, as Melville wrote in Moby Dick, in landlessness alone resides the highest truth, shoreless, indefinite as god.

Mysteries are the metaphysics of existence and inescapable regardless of any discoveries made now or in the future, including those we ourselves have created.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your analysis is sharp, and your continuum approach remains a useful tool for placing different knowledge systems in a clear epistemic hierarchy. Theists, when pressed, should indeed be compelled to justify their beliefs against the scientific standard, which exposes the glaring deficiencies in their epistemic claims. However, your suggestion that science is also based on some level of faith deserves a closer look.

Science, unlike theistic belief, does not demand faith in the same sense. It begins with hypotheses—tentative explanations that are then rigorously tested. The strength of science is that it doesn’t claim certainty; it refines its models as new evidence emerges. You bring up Hume and Popper, both of whom highlighted the limits of induction and the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. This is true—science does not claim absolute certainty. But does that mean it requires faith? Not in the way religion does.

Consider modus ponens:

1) If P, then Q.
2) P is true.
3) Therefore, Q is true.

Science operates under this structure. It does not claim “Q is true” outright. Instead, it says, “Q is true if P (our observations, repeatable experiments, and theories) are true—and so far, they seem to be.” Science is not a blind faith in its premises; it is an ongoing process that works within those premises, always open to refinement. Unlike religion, science does not require belief in something beyond empirical validation.

My reference and meaning of 'faith' is the following;

• Faith = firm belief in something for which there is no proof; complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Rather than blind faith [high in a continuum] as in religion, science do get involved with 'pragmatic faith' [very low in the other extreme of the continuum].

Here's from AI;

ChatGPT said:

In the scientific framework and system, certain foundational assumptions and principles are taken as given, despite the absence of absolute proof.
These can be seen as involving minimal degrees of faith, though this "faith" is not the same as religious faith—it is more akin to a pragmatic trust based on consistency, empirical adequacy, and success in application.
Here are key areas where this minimal degree of faith is involved:

1. The Existence of an External Reality
• Science operates on the assumption that there is an objective reality independent of human perception.
• While practical for empirical investigation, this cannot be conclusively proven without circular reasoning.

2. The Uniformity of Nature (Induction Problem)
• Science assumes that the laws of nature remain consistent over time and space.
• This assumption is essential for predicting future events based on past observations, yet it cannot be logically proven (Hume’s problem of induction).

3. The Reliability of Human Cognition and Perception
• Scientific inquiry assumes that our senses and cognitive faculties provide a sufficiently accurate representation of reality.
• This assumption is necessary for empirical observation and measurement but cannot be independently verified outside of its own framework.

4. The Effectiveness of Mathematics in Describing Reality
• Mathematics is unreasonably effective in modeling physical phenomena (as noted by Wigner).
• The assumption that mathematical structures correspond to physical reality is a pragmatic one, not something that can be absolutely justified.

5. The Existence and Validity of Logical Principles
• Science relies on classical logic (e.g., the law of non-contradiction, identity, excluded middle).
• These logical principles are presupposed as universally valid but cannot be empirically tested.

6. The Principle of Causality
• Science assumes causal relationships between events, though quantum mechanics has challenged classical notions of determinism.
• While useful, causality as a fundamental principle is assumed rather than proven.

7. The Scientific Method as the Best Path to Knowledge
• The idea that empirical observation, hypothesis testing, and falsifiability yield the most reliable knowledge is a foundational assumption.
• There is no absolute proof that this is the only valid way to gain knowledge.

8. The Reality of Theoretical Entities
• Many scientific theories posit unobservable entities (e.g., quarks, wavefunctions, dark matter) whose existence is inferred rather than directly observed.
• Scientific realism assumes these entities exist beyond mere instrumental usefulness, though this remains a debated position.

9. The Possibility of Understanding Reality
• The assumption that the universe is intelligible and that human inquiry can uncover its workings is an implicit faith in the success of science.
• There is no guarantee that all aspects of reality will be comprehensible to human minds.

10. The Objectivity of Scientific Inquiry
• Science presupposes that objective knowledge is possible, despite human biases and limitations.
• The belief in the self-correcting nature of science rests on the assumption that biases and errors will be eliminated over time.

These areas reflect a kind of minimal, pragmatic "faith" in science, but unlike religious faith, they are continually tested, refined, and adjusted based on empirical evidence.

Also the objectivity of Science is also subjected to low degrees of values and subjectivity;

four stages at which values may affect Science.
They are:
(i) the choice of a Scientific research problem;
(ii) the gathering of evidence in relation to the problem;
(iii) the acceptance of a Scientific hypothesis or theory as an adequate answer to the problem on the basis of the evidence;
(iv) the proliferation and application of Scientific research results (Weber 1917 [1949]).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... isContValu

Ultimately, scientific objectivity [the gold standard] is grounded on subjectivity, i.e. intersubjectivity based on the consensus of peers [subjects]; no intersubjective consensus = no scientific facts, truths nor theories.

Your continuum approach forces a reckoning, making it impossible for theists to claim equal epistemic footing. The challenge, as you rightly acknowledge, is getting them to accept that such a ranking even matters. Faith thrives precisely because it evades the need for justification, whereas science demands it. Bridging the two does not elevate religion—it undermines epistemic integrity. Once exceptions to rationality are entertained, they metastasize.

Living by truth, even when uncomfortable, is more valuable than clinging to comforting illusions. The more humanity embraces rationality, the more it sheds the psychological crutch of theism. The trend is clear: knowledge expands, and as it does, the space for religious belief contracts. The task is to accelerate that process—not by conceding epistemic ground, but by demonstrating that truth-seeking itself is the highest pursuit.

As stated above, the 'highest' pursuit is the continual striving towards the ideal of the Highest Good of high virtues and perpetual peace via knowing oneself, not conceding epistemological [as you stated] and also morality/ethics ground.

Religious beliefs AT PRESENT are critically necessary and is optimal conditionally to the present evolutionary psychological state of the majority.
But religious beliefs [theistic] is sub-optimal to the highest good, thus the solution is to improve and expedite the evolution of the psychological state of the majority towards the ideals [as a guide].
This will involved weaning religions [theistic and non-theistic] in the future and cultivating effective and foolproof approaches to strive with continuous improvements [well-being and flourishing] towards the ideals of the Highest Good.

To be effective in the above we have to rope in religions [theistic and non-theistic] within the epistemic framework and system [FS-Knowledge] continuum and assess its ranking in relation to the scientific FS as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

Example of a ranking between the Science FSK and Mathematics FSK:
viewtopic.php?p=755100#p755100

[accelafine]

Everyone loves a mystery but resolutions tend to be anti-climactic, hence the prevalence of conspiracy nuttery. They aren't interested in actual answers so just make up their own--the more ridiculous the better.