Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

At present Metaphysics is a critical necessity for the majority of people based on the existing evolutionary psychological state.
As verified and justified, metaphysics is rated at the lowest rung of the epistemic ladder [FSK in terms of credibility and objectivity].
The point is we cannot let metaphysics have a free reign else one will end up being delusional.

As Kant alluded, metaphysics is mired in a sea of illusions.

It [Pure Understanding of the mind] is the land of Truth -- enchanting name! -- surrounded by a wide and stormy ocean, the native home of Illusion, where many a fog bank and many a swiftly melting iceberg give the deceptive Appearance of farther shores,
deluding the adventurous seafarer ever anew with empty hopes, and engaging him in enterprises which he can never abandon and yet is unable to carry to completion.
CPR B295

Those who dabble with the mystery will end up being delusional:

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397

Kant claimed he had resolved the mysteries of all metaphysics in modulating the said illusions;

In this enquiry [CPR] I have made Completeness my chief aim, and I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied.
CPR [Axiii]

Kant polished up the answers to the mysteries [never substantives or constitutive] and used them as guides [ideal - regulatively*] for humanity's progress.
* analogically like a regulated thermostat.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Then what happened?

[Gary Childress]

Then what happened?

Then Hegel came along and (perhaps most famously) paved the way for Marx.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But alas, why bother? When you can simply feel the truth, why get tangled up in the messy business of proving it?

You have, for me at least, helped me to re-realize something of importance: the things I believe that I know, and which as you say (there is some sense to it) are unverifiable, are yet the things that become “operative truth”: the truth I live by.

I am in no sense immune to the problem that you bring out however.

So much in literature, in art, in music, involves the communication of the incommunicable.

The full Carlyle quote is interesting:

But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion; or, it may be, his mere scepticism and no-religion: the manner it is in which he feels himself to be spiritually related to the Unseen World or No-World; and I say, if you tell me what that is, you tell me to a very great extent what the man is, what the kind of things he will do is.

Thomas Carlyle

[Alexis Jacobi]

Then what happened?

Then Hegel came along and (perhaps most famously) paved the way for Marx.

That’s a good thing, right?

[seeds]

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.

Fortunately, henry, I can't do an AI version of you or AJ.

And I say "fortunately" because, unlike BigMike, yours and AJ's writings don't sound (and—look) like they've been lifted straight from a conversation with ChatGPT after ChatGPT was fed our arguments and prompted to make its response seem like a normal conversation that one can then deceitfully pass-off here on the forum as being wholly original.

However, there's just no mistaking the telltale signs of Chat's somewhat robotic (almost too perfect) style of grammar and wording.

In other words, you and AJ not only sound like humans (no offense intended ),...

...but despite our disagreements in the past, I nevertheless trust that you both are men of integrity who will always cite the sources of information that you are using to support your arguments.

Now I could be wrong about Big ol' Mikey, and if so, I apologize.

However, because I (and others) have raised this "uncited use of AI" issue before and BigMike never seems to deny the accusation, his integrity (at least on this particular matter) is therefore questionable,...

...which, in turn, makes one wonder about the value (in terms of "morality") in holding and promoting the philosophy of "determinism."

I guess what I am getting at, was it "determined" 13.8 billion years ago at the alleged beginning of the universe that the meat machine that calls itself BigMike would turn out to be dishonest?
_______

[Gary Childress]

Then what happened?

Then Hegel came along and (perhaps most famously) paved the way for Marx.

That’s a good thing, right?

What are you referring to as a good thing, Hegel paving the way for Marx or Harpo's musical performance?

[BigMike]

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

Personally, I reserve the term "blind faith" for beliefs that persist despite clear evidence to the contrary—such as the belief in deities and free will. Faith, in that sense, is not just belief without evidence but belief *against* evidence, which is why science does not belong in the same category.

Yes, science starts with foundational assumptions—like the uniformity of nature or the reliability of logic—but these assumptions are not held dogmatically. They are constantly tested, challenged, and refined. The difference between science and religious faith is precisely in this self-correcting mechanism. A scientific theory is not an article of faith; it is a working model, always subject to falsification. If an assumption no longer holds under scrutiny, science adapts. Faith does not.

This is why your FS classification system, while a neat analytical tool, seems limited in practical utility. As long as science remains self-correcting, it will always be our best and most reliable system of reference. Unlike religious frameworks, which cling to preordained truths, science acknowledges its provisional nature—and that is precisely what makes it superior.

Framing science as another kind of "faith," even if you call it "pragmatic faith," risks misleading people into thinking that all belief systems are on equal footing. They are not. Theists may argue that their beliefs serve psychological or social functions, but those are not epistemic justifications. Science, by contrast, does not *require* belief—it earns trust through demonstrable results.

So while theistic belief may still be *psychologically* useful to some, it remains *epistemically* bankrupt. The question is not how to accommodate it, but how to continue the process of weaning humanity off illusions, in favor of a reality-based understanding of existence. The future is not about ranking religion on a continuum; it is about ensuring that, eventually, it no longer needs a place on that continuum at all.

[BigMike]

But alas, why bother? When you can simply feel the truth, why get tangled up in the messy business of proving it?

You have, for me at least, helped me to re-realize something of importance: the things I believe that I know, and which as you say (there is some sense to it) are unverifiable, are yet the things that become “operative truth”: the truth I live by.

I am in no sense immune to the problem that you bring out however.

So much in literature, in art, in music, involves the communication of the incommunicable.

The full Carlyle quote is interesting:

But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion; or, it may be, his mere scepticism and no-religion: the manner it is in which he feels himself to be spiritually related to the Unseen World or No-World; and I say, if you tell me what that is, you tell me to a very great extent what the man is, what the kind of things he will do is.

Thomas Carlyle

If all beliefs, no matter how unverifiable, become "operative truths" simply by being deeply felt, then truth itself loses any meaningful distinction from mere preference. What stops one person’s sincere conviction from carrying as much weight as another’s, even when they are mutually contradictory? If the only criterion for validity is subjective certainty, then nothing is ever truly falsified, and everything is permitted. That is not a pathway to understanding; it is a blueprint for chaos.

This is the danger of elevating personal conviction over empirical verification. It creates a world where no belief can be meaningfully challenged, where faith and delusion hold the same epistemic weight as rigorously tested knowledge. And what follows from that? Never-ending conflicts, war, killings, eternal pain and suffering—because if one person's deeply held belief justifies action, so does another's. History is littered with the consequences of this thinking.

Carlyle’s passage, for all its poetic weight, only reinforces the problem. Yes, people act according to what they believe is true—but what matters is whether those beliefs correspond to reality. If someone's "vital relation to the universe" leads them to see others as enemies, as obstacles to be eliminated, as heretics to be purged—what principle exists to correct that belief if we refuse to demand verification?

If truth is to mean anything at all, it cannot be reduced to whatever one feels most intensely. The only way to separate knowledge from illusion, progress from regression, is through methods that do not rely on personal intuition but on external validation. Otherwise, we are left with nothing but competing fantasies, where force, not reason, becomes the final arbiter of truth.

[Age]

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

Personally, I reserve the term "blind faith" for beliefs that persist despite clear evidence to the contrary—such as the belief in deities and free will.

While others reserve the term 'blind faith' for beliefs that persist despite ACTUAL PROOF to the contrary - such as the BELIEF IN there are 'no choices' at all' and 'determinism' ONLY.

So, it looks like "bigmike" reserves the term 'blind faith' for the very BELIEF/s that "bigmike" HAS, and is DEARLY 'TRYING TO' HOLD ONTO.

Faith, in that sense, is not just belief without evidence but belief *against* evidence, which is why science does not belong in the same category.

ANYWAY, "bigmike" is OBVIOUSLY HAS BELIEF not just 'against' EVIDENCE but, LAUGHINGLY, 'against' PROOF, itself.

Which BELONGS in its OWN 'special category'.

Yes, science starts with foundational assumptions—like the uniformity of nature or the reliability of logic—but these assumptions are not held dogmatically.

LOL
LOL
LOL

How then are they being HELD, EXACTLY?

It is like 'this one' has NOT CONSIDERED what the 'HELD' word IS ACTUALLY MEANING and IS ACTUALLY REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

They are constantly tested, challenged, and refined.

So, IF the ASSUMPTIONS that 'nature is uniform' and/or 'logic is reliable' is, supposedly, being CONSTANTLY TESTED, CHALLENGED, and REFINED, then what are the ACTUAL EXPERIMENTS or TESTS, which are being CONSTANTLY USED TO TEST, CHALLENGE, and REFINE 'these HELD ASSUMPTIONS.

Also, WHY even BEGIN WITH 'assumptions' AT ALL, LET ALONE WHY HOLD ONTO 'assumptions'?

WHY NOT just START and BEGIN WITH ONLY 'that', which IS IRREFUTABLE, ONLY?

The difference between science and religious faith is precisely in this self-correcting mechanism. A scientific theory is not an article of faith; it is a working model, always subject to falsification. If an assumption no longer holds under scrutiny, science adapts. Faith does not.

Do you, REALLY, NOT NOTICE and SEE the INCONSISTENCIES that you KEEP MAKING, here?

This is why your FS classification system, while a neat analytical tool, seems limited in practical utility. As long as science remains self-correcting, it will always be our best and most reliable system of reference.

Having a so-called 'self-correcting system', based on 'assumptions', alone, then you REALLY A LONG WAY OFF and FROM the ACTUAL BEST and MOST RELIABLE SYSTEM of them ALL.

Unlike religious frameworks, which cling to preordained truths, science acknowledges its provisional nature—and that is precisely what makes it superior.

But, what makes so-called 'science' SO INFERIOR is that 'your version' of 'science' is BASED UPON 'assumptions', which NEED CORRECTING.

Framing science as another kind of "faith," even if you call it "pragmatic faith," risks misleading people into thinking that all belief systems are on equal footing.

But they ARE. 'They' are ALL BASED ON BELIEVING some thing is true, or false. So, they ALL stand on 'this equal footing'.

AGAIN, and ONCE MORE, for those of SLOW LEARNING, or who were just NOT YET AWARE, once some thing IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE True, and KNOWN, absolutely NO BELIEF in or of it IS NEEDED.

Thus, ONLY what is NOT YET KNOWN, FOR SURE, is BELIEVED, and UNNECESSARILY SO, AS WELL.

They are not. Theists may argue that their beliefs serve psychological or social functions, but those are not epistemic justifications. Science, by contrast, does not *require* belief—it earns trust through demonstrable results.

Come on now "bigmike" you are NOT FOOLING 'us', here.

If one, or 'science', is BASED ON 'assumptions', and one, or 'science' does NOT have A BELIEF that the 'assumptions' IS true and/or right, to begin with, then WHY would ANY one, or 'science', move down 'that line' of INQUIRY?

Also, and ONCE MORE, there is absolutely NOTHING AT ALL that 'requires' BELIEF, EXCEPT, OF COURSE, that One and ONLY thing, I have talked ABOUT, previously.

So while theistic belief may still be *psychologically* useful to some, it remains *epistemically* bankrupt.

If there is A so-caleld 'theistic' belief, then there is also a 'scientific' belief, as well, right?

If no, then WHY NOT, EXACTLY?

And, if there is a 'scientific' belief, then it is UNNECESSARY and NOT REQUIRED AS each and EVERY 'theistic' belief. ALL OF 'these beliefs' HAVE and CONTINUE TO LEAD you human beings ASTRAY.

The question is not how to accommodate it, but how to continue the process of weaning humanity off illusions, in favor of a reality-based understanding of existence.

Considering the IRREFUTABLE Fact that you are SO DESPERATELY 'TRYING TO' ARGUE FOR ILLUSIONS, here, and can NOT even NOTICE that BELIEFS in 'science' or in 'theology' are BOTH EQUALLY UNNECESSARY and HOLDING you people BACK, then CLAIMING that the 'things' that you BELIEVE (in) are based on a so-called 'reality-based understanding of existence' is A FORM OF DELUSION, itself, and thus NOT a 'reality-based understanding of existence' AT ALL.

The future is not about ranking religion on a continuum; it is about ensuring that, eventually, it no longer needs a place on that continuum at all.

Talk ABOUT ONLY being ABLE TO SEE FROM "one side" or FROM ONE PERSPECTIVE of things, ONLY.

But, this is just the NATURE OF BELIEFS, and the BELIEF-SYSTEM, itself.

[Dubious]

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.

At present Metaphysics is a critical necessity for the majority of people based on the existing evolutionary psychological state.
As verified and justified, metaphysics is rated at the lowest rung of the epistemic ladder [FSK in terms of credibility and objectivity].
The point is we cannot let metaphysics have a free reign else one will end up being delusional.

As Kant alluded, metaphysics is mired in a sea of illusions.

I use the term metaphysics contextually, quite removed from its historical versions Kant and other philosophers of his time encountered. Yes, in that sense, metaphysics had and has no viability on the epistemic ladder; that much is clear.

Experientially considered, it incorporates a different reality based on perspective, emanating from the physics or process which allows for a consciousness to improvise its own values as it must. It's an imperative implicit with the human ability to reason both epistemically and improvisationally either separately or in tandem depending on the subject, which can be artistic as well as resolutely epistemic. In effect, meta-physics as it derives from physics without which all our creations, including discoveries, wouldn't exist. In that sense, the word epistemic does not summarily preclude metaphysics nor does it negate the deterministic processes responsible for the creation of consciousness and its improvised contents.

[Age]

But alas, why bother? When you can simply feel the truth, why get tangled up in the messy business of proving it?

You have, for me at least, helped me to re-realize something of importance: the things I believe that I know, and which as you say (there is some sense to it) are unverifiable, are yet the things that become “operative truth”: the truth I live by.

I am in no sense immune to the problem that you bring out however.

So much in literature, in art, in music, involves the communication of the incommunicable.

The full Carlyle quote is interesting:

But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion; or, it may be, his mere scepticism and no-religion: the manner it is in which he feels himself to be spiritually related to the Unseen World or No-World; and I say, if you tell me what that is, you tell me to a very great extent what the man is, what the kind of things he will do is.

Thomas Carlyle

If all beliefs, no matter how unverifiable, become "operative truths" simply by being deeply felt, then truth itself loses any meaningful distinction from mere preference. What stops one person’s sincere conviction from carrying as much weight as another’s, even when they are mutually contradictory?

NOTHING, as you ARE PROVING, here, FOR 'us', that is; WHILE one is HOLDING ONTO their SINCERE CONVICTION.

If the only criterion for validity is subjective certainty, then nothing is ever truly falsified, and everything is permitted. That is not a pathway to understanding; it is a blueprint for chaos.

And, IS 'your way' WORKING, "bigmike"?

This is the danger of elevating personal conviction over empirical verification.

Which is, EXACTLY, what you have been DOING, here, "bigmike".

you HAVE BEEN, and CONTINUALLY ARE, elevating your OWN 'personal conviction' OVER 'empirical verification'. So, WHEN are you GOING TO STOP DOING 'this'?

It creates a world where no belief can be meaningfully challenged, where faith and delusion hold the same epistemic weight as rigorously tested knowledge.

Yet, here you ARE DOING 'this' VERY SAME thing.

And what follows from that? Never-ending conflicts, war, killings, eternal pain and suffering—because if one person's deeply held belief justifies action, so does another's. History is littered with the consequences of this thinking.

LOL Have you NOT NOTICED 'the world' AROUND 'you'?

LOL In the VERY DAYS that this is being written, seemingly NEVER-ENDING CONFLICTS, WARRING, KILLING, ETERNAL PAIN, and SUFFERING CONTINUE.

And, this IS MOSTLY DUE to the Fact that you adult human beings PREFER TO KEEP your PRESUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, INSTEAD OF JUST BECOMING OPEN and REMAINING OPEN, AGAIN.

Carlyle’s passage, for all its poetic weight, only reinforces the problem. Yes, people act according to what they believe is true—but what matters is whether those beliefs correspond to reality.

LOL you REALLY ARE BEING BLIND, here. But, AGAIN, this IS the RESULT of BELIEF, and the BELIEF-system, itself.

TO absolutely EVERY one of you human beings WHENEVER you BELIEVE some thing IS TRUE, then THOSE BELIEFS correspond, EXACTLY, and ACCURATELY, TO 'reality'. Well in 'that one head' ANYWAY.

LOL ABSOLUTELY NO one is going to HAVE A BELIEF, which they do NOT BELIEVE CORRESPONDS WITH 'reality'.

LOL It is BECAUSE of BELIEF, itself, WHY 'confirmation bias' EXISTS. Which, OBVIOUSLY, THEN REINFORCES, FURTHER, one's VERY BELIEF that what they ARE BELIEVING CORRESPONDS WITH 'reality', itself.

Just like 'you', "bigmike", who BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that your OWN BELIEFS CORRESPOND WITH 'reality', itself, SO TO DO the very people WITH the COMPLETELY OPPOSING BELIEFS, FROM you, BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that their OWN BELIEFS CORRESPOND WITH 'reality'. AGAIN, this the VERY NATURE of BELIEF, and of the BELIEF-system, themselves.

And, just like 'you', 'the other', ALSO BELIEVES that it IS 'the other' who IS NOT SEEING 'reality' for what 'it' TRULY IS, 'COINCIDENTALLY'.

If someone's "vital relation to the universe" leads them to see others as enemies, as obstacles to be eliminated, as heretics to be purged—what principle exists to correct that belief if we refuse to demand verification?

Have you NOTICED HOW you are 'SEEING' others, here, as 'your ENEMIES', and that you are 'TRYING' your HARDEST, here, TO ELIMINATE 'them', and 'THOSE OPPOSING VIEWS and BELIEFS'?

If truth is to mean anything at all, it cannot be reduced to whatever one feels most intensely. The only way to separate knowledge from illusion, progress from regression, is through methods that do not rely on personal intuition but on external validation.

So, WHERE in the WHOLE of the Universe IS 'the validation' that you human beings do NOT HAVE the ABILITY TO JUST 'MAKE CHOICES', EXACTLY?

Otherwise, we are left with nothing but competing fantasies, where force, not reason, becomes the final arbiter of truth.

Which is WHY you human beings WERE, in the days when this was being written anyway, STILL, SEEKING OUT and SEARCHING FOR the ACTUAL Truth of things.

BUT, one day 'you' TOO WILL ALSO LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, WHAT, WHERE, and MORE IMPORTANTLY WHY, you WERE DOING Wrong.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If all beliefs, no matter how unverifiable, become "operative truths" simply by being deeply felt, then truth itself loses any meaningful distinction from mere preference. What stops one person’s sincere conviction from carrying as much weight as another’s, even when they are mutually contradictory? If the only criterion for validity is subjective certainty, then nothing is ever truly falsified, and everything is permitted. That is not a pathway to understanding; it is a blueprint for chaos.

The one who write this operates from foolish predicates. It amounts to a rephrasing of what had been expressed previously by a man who has dedicated himself to hearing badly, understanding incorrectly, and cynically transforming what was said into something that was not meant.

Simply put, every person has a conscience, and every person goes through life and in the course of living life comes to understand certain things which are learned on a subjective, interior plane. Must this be tiresomely explained?

There surely is a false *subjective certainty* that for many is corrected, often harshly, by *life* itself. And when one communicated the meaning that one has come to understand with others — preferably mature others with a developed sensitivity — one *compares notes* and one forges sound platforms through which one lives one’s life.

Such basic stuff. But Mike: you have cut and pasted someone else’s or something else’s thoughts here. You are a dishonest troll.

This is the danger of elevating personal conviction over empirical verification. It creates a world where no belief can be meaningfully challenged, where faith and delusion hold the same epistemic weight as rigorously tested knowledge. And what follows from that? Never-ending conflicts, war, killings, eternal pain and suffering—because if one person's deeply held belief justifies action, so does another's. History is littered with the consequences of this thinking.

Yes, you moron, there is always dangers in living out of one’s subjective understanding about life. One will have made many mistakes, and often serious mistakes, in relationships, in child-raising, and as a result of meditation on these errors, one learns things. It all happens on an inner plane and there is no way that any exterior machine can measure any of this. There is no math formula. But there definitely is sharing of perspectives between people who have been through similar things. And then one establishes *personal convictions* which definitely have to do with empirical verification, but in a domain that you seem excluded from understanding. However, I am pretty certain that *you* are not writing this and rather it is a machine. Again, you are a troll.

Carlyle’s passage, for all its poetic weight, only reinforces the problem. Yes, people act according to what they believe is true—but what matters is whether those beliefs correspond to reality. If someone's "vital relation to the universe" leads them to see others as enemies, as obstacles to be eliminated, as heretics to be purged—what principle exists to correct that belief if we refuse to demand verification?

Verification comes through processes where our intelligence considers things on a deep level and approaches the issues sincerely. If one cannot ever get things right — there are definitely such cases — then one really does end up a fool. One who missed the mark.

Carlyle’s remark was not *poetry* and what informed it was (I gather) a life lived observing men. It is more existential philosophy and deeply rooted in common sense.

The challenge for you, you insipid looser, would be to self-perform such action of self-analysis about your own predicates and all that informs your viewpoints. You do not have any idea what *reality* is because you have reduced it — that is, human being in this manifest world — to ‘rolling rocks’. This is a pathetically stupid things to have done when it is thought through. And for months now you nail yourself down into perspectives that are ridiculous on their face.

If truth is to mean anything at all, it cannot be reduced to whatever one feels most intensely. The only way to separate knowledge from illusion, progress from regression, is through methods that do not rely on personal intuition but on external validation. Otherwise, we are left with nothing but competing fantasies, where force, not reason, becomes the final arbiter of truth.

You have no idea what is *true*. And you do not understand the difference between a mere feeling and a deeply realized sentiment.

However, I do not deny that in the realm of subjective experience — and our entire life is lived subjectively — that there certainly are people who seem to exist in delusions. I have referred to A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America (Michael Barkun). There are definitely orders of minds that have severe issues dealing with fantasy and imagination, and their turbulent feelings and desires, and have difficulties arriving at clear-thinking and clear-seeing in life.

[Gary Childress]

I think the crux of the issue is that metaphysics needs to be grounded in evidence. Evidence is provided by the sciences. And science needs to be directed by good will. Direction comes from metaphysics. Directions can be good or bad. Some metaphysics is arguably good and some is arguably bad.

Please continue, gentlemen.

[BigMike]

If all beliefs, no matter how unverifiable, become "operative truths" simply by being deeply felt, then truth itself loses any meaningful distinction from mere preference. What stops one person’s sincere conviction from carrying as much weight as another’s, even when they are mutually contradictory? If the only criterion for validity is subjective certainty, then nothing is ever truly falsified, and everything is permitted. That is not a pathway to understanding; it is a blueprint for chaos.

The one who write this operates from foolish predicates. It amounts to a rephrasing of what had been expressed previously by a man who has dedicated himself to hearing badly, understanding incorrectly, and cynically transforming what was said into something that was not meant.

Simply put, every person has a conscience, and every person goes through life and in the course of living life comes to understand certain things which are learned on a subjective, interior plane. Must this be tiresomely explained?

There surely is a false *subjective certainty* that for many is corrected, often harshly, by *life* itself. And when one communicated the meaning that one has come to understand with others — preferably mature others with a developed sensitivity — one *compares notes* and one forges sound platforms through which one lives one’s life.

Such basic stuff. But Mike: you have cut and pasted someone else’s or something else’s thoughts here. You are a dishonest troll.

This is the danger of elevating personal conviction over empirical verification. It creates a world where no belief can be meaningfully challenged, where faith and delusion hold the same epistemic weight as rigorously tested knowledge. And what follows from that? Never-ending conflicts, war, killings, eternal pain and suffering—because if one person's deeply held belief justifies action, so does another's. History is littered with the consequences of this thinking.

Yes, you moron, there is always dangers in living out of one’s subjective understanding about life. One will have made many mistakes, and often serious mistakes, in relationships, in child-raising, and as a result of meditation on these errors, one learns things. It all happens on an inner plane and there is no way that any exterior machine can measure any of this. There is no math formula. But there definitely is sharing of perspectives between people who have been through similar things. And then one establishes *personal convictions* which definitely have to do with empirical verification, but in a domain that you seem excluded from understanding. However, I am pretty certain that *you* are not writing this and rather it is a machine. Again, you are a troll.

Carlyle’s passage, for all its poetic weight, only reinforces the problem. Yes, people act according to what they believe is true—but what matters is whether those beliefs correspond to reality. If someone's "vital relation to the universe" leads them to see others as enemies, as obstacles to be eliminated, as heretics to be purged—what principle exists to correct that belief if we refuse to demand verification?

Verification comes through processes where our intelligence considers things on a deep level and approaches the issues sincerely. If one cannot ever get things right — there are definitely such cases — then one really does end up a fool. One who missed the mark.

Carlyle’s remark was not *poetry* and what informed it was (I gather) a life lived observing men. It is more existential philosophy and deeply rooted in common sense.

The challenge for you, you insipid looser, would be to self-perform such action of self-analysis about your own predicates and all that informs your viewpoints. You do not have any idea what *reality* is because you have reduced it — that is, human being in this manifest world — to ‘rolling rocks’. This is a pathetically stupid things to have done when it is thought through. And for months now you nail yourself down into perspectives that are ridiculous on their face.

If truth is to mean anything at all, it cannot be reduced to whatever one feels most intensely. The only way to separate knowledge from illusion, progress from regression, is through methods that do not rely on personal intuition but on external validation. Otherwise, we are left with nothing but competing fantasies, where force, not reason, becomes the final arbiter of truth.

You have no idea what is *true*. And you do not understand the difference between a mere feeling and a deeply realized sentiment.

However, I do not deny that in the realm of subjective experience — and our entire life is lived subjectively — that there certainly are people who seem to exist in delusions. I have referred to A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America (Michael Barkun). There are definitely orders of minds that have severe issues dealing with fantasy and imagination, and their turbulent feelings and desires, and have difficulties arriving at clear-thinking and clear-seeing in life.

Ah, Alexis, ever the paragon of composure and intellectual grace. When confronted with a straightforward argument—one that merely points out the dangers of elevating subjective conviction over verifiable truth—you descend into frothing indignation, accusations of dishonesty, and, of course, the requisite name-calling. Bravo. A truly compelling defense of your position.

You insist that every person has a conscience, as if that somehow safeguards them from delusion. But history—and indeed, everyday reality—demonstrates otherwise. People have committed the most horrific acts fully convinced they were righteous. Subjective certainty, no matter how deeply felt, does not equal truth. If you disagree, then what, exactly, prevents every contradictory belief from claiming the same legitimacy? What principle allows you to dismiss another's conviction as misguided while maintaining the supremacy of your own? You wave vaguely toward "deep realization" and "self-analysis," but that is nothing more than Mihi sic videtur, ergo est—"It seems so to me, therefore it is."

And then we have your predictable lament about the limitations of empiricism. "There is no math formula," you cry, as if the absence of a mathematical proof somehow validates your metaphysical musings. But here's the thing, Alexis: external validation is not just about numbers. It’s about coherence, about the ability to demonstrate—not just assert—the truth of a claim. You speak of "deeply realized sentiments" as if they hold a special epistemic status, but unless they can be tested, challenged, and verified against reality, they remain what they are: feelings. And feelings, for all their importance in the human experience, are not a substitute for truth.

Carlyle’s passage, in all its existential grandeur, does not excuse the failures of unverifiable belief. It merely describes the human tendency to act according to conviction, regardless of whether that conviction is justified. You treat it as if it were a defense of subjective certainty when, in fact, it is an indictment of it. People act according to what they believe; this is not in question. The question is should they, when those beliefs are built on nothing but personal intuition?

Finally, your signature move: declaring that I simply "do not understand reality." Ah yes, the ultimate trump card—if someone disagrees with you, it must be because they are trapped in narrow materialism, incapable of grasping the ineffable profundity of your wisdom. But Alexis, that is not an argument; it is a refusal to engage. You do not get to simply declare yourself in possession of deeper truth without demonstrating why that truth is valid. Otherwise, we are right back where we started—drowning in a sea of competing fantasies, where the only thing left to determine truth is force, not reason.