Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

Belindo, that comment is quite insulting really.

There are a few things to establish: 1) disagreements abound today. And in a climate of disagreement and confusion people show themselves thoroughly rebellious and oppositional when they encounter ideas that run contrary to their own cherished ideas. So what they do is demonstrate non-cooperation.

2) Many people cone here not to discuss ideas but specifically to externalize interior conflicts! You have to see and understand it. You are not going to change it.

You will notice these conflicts everywhere today. So in fact that becomes the needed topic of conversation. It becomes a conversation about the reasons for stark division.

These are sociological and cultural issues. Tell me exactly what “philosophy” deals in this area?

And in fact, Belindo, you are one of those starkly committed to your own political and scientistic views and you also will not cooperate when other points of view are presented. You cannot see yourself.

Examine your own comments about the failed socialization that you believe is the cause of recent political wins. And what you believe is needed to steer those poor, lost souls who engage in wrongthink back into the fold. I.e. your fold.

And you quote my recent comment to illustrate failure to discuss ideas?!

:::breaks out sobbing but then turns to anger:::

This is an outrage! I can barely contain myself!

BigMike’s “philosophy” and his shtick is a symptom of utter one-sidedness. A ridiculous, ignorant, barking certitude that his skewed angle is the correct way to organize understanding of this world and existence here.

You are largely in the same camp!

I wrote this glorious post and got ZERO response from you.

Please Belindo, you do better!

[Alexis Jacobi]

I left out one word accidentally:

Those who write on this forum are, to be honest, nearly completely ignorant of the intellectual roots that stand behind the manifestations of the Dissident Right. You effectively *hide your heads in the sand* and refuse even to examine what must certainly be examined if you were to get any genuine, operative understanding of the present.

[Gary Childress]

I give up. I don't know what to say anymore.

[BigMike]

Is there, anywhere in the vast reaches of the internet, a philosophy forum where arguments based on observable, repeatable facts don’t get dismissed as “utter one-sidedness” and “ridiculous, ignorant, barking certitude”? Where citing conservation laws and fundamental interactions isn’t met with theatrical hand-wringing about metaphysical mysteries? Where “skepticism” doesn’t mean throwing up vague appeals to intuition and whining that science doesn’t coddle one’s cherished illusions?

Because if such a place exists, I’d love to hear about it. A place where people actually engage with reality instead of wailing about how cruel and reductive it is to point out that causal chains don’t just poof into existence because someone finds determinism emotionally inconvenient.

Frankly, the sheer cowardice of it all is exhausting. The perpetual dance of “Well, we can never really know” followed immediately by “But I know determinism can’t be true” is the kind of dishonest nonsense that makes productive discussion impossible. If there’s a forum where people don’t flinch at the idea that reality doesn’t care about their feelings, where arguments are built on evidence rather than evasions, please—point the way. Because I’m tired of wasting time on people who are more interested in defending their own discomfort than in actually understanding anything.

[Gary Childress]

Is there, anywhere in the vast reaches of the internet, a philosophy forum where arguments based on observable, repeatable facts don’t get dismissed as “utter one-sidedness” and “ridiculous, ignorant, barking certitude”? Where citing conservation laws and fundamental interactions isn’t met with theatrical hand-wringing about metaphysical mysteries? Where “skepticism” doesn’t mean throwing up vague appeals to intuition and whining that science doesn’t coddle one’s cherished illusions?

Because if such a place exists, I’d love to hear about it. A place where people actually engage with reality instead of wailing about how cruel and reductive it is to point out that causal chains don’t just poof into existence because someone finds determinism emotionally inconvenient.

Frankly, the sheer cowardice of it all is exhausting. The perpetual dance of “Well, we can never really know” followed immediately by “But I know determinism can’t be true” is the kind of dishonest nonsense that makes productive discussion impossible. If there’s a forum where people don’t flinch at the idea that reality doesn’t care about their feelings, where arguments are built on evidence rather than evasions, please—point the way. Because I’m tired of wasting time on people who are more interested in defending their own discomfort than in actually understanding anything.

BigMike, I think you are an important addition to the community. I hope you decide to stay here and continue posting as AJ has made his home here as well. I think you are a good counterbalance to him. But I know how frustrating it is to deal with AJ because half of what he posts are pompous declarations of irrelevant nonsense like magic flutes, rabid dogs, aerosols and "correspondence courses" that no one cares about. However, know that you are an important part of the community as well. I think you add an indispensable component essential to reason and enlightenment to the mix.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You devil Gary! You modified your post!

What you said is “What do you want us to do, start reading Mein Kampf?”
_____________

That is what I responded to below:

Gary’s response is, I’d say, typical. The implication? That Dissident Right means Mien Kampf. Gary’s view is one (I submit) thoroughly informed by American propaganda views. And to understand this one need only make reference to (just one example) the association of Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler.

This is an example of a Pavlovian response: the bell rings, the dog salivates.

But here is the important factor here: We can see, and we do understand, how political thought is propagandized. Even the mind-dead denizens here can recognize this as an accurate fact (even if they cannot self-examine their own ideological commitments).

But the real and operative function of reactive Pavlovianism is to ruin the prospect of thinking things through in an independent sense. Effectively, it is to forestall fair, honest and accurate assessment of occurrences in the present. Only binary lenses are available, and both are tendentious and contaminated.

It will matter not one whit that I expressed this: there is no one home to fairly think things through. A nuanced response such as mine must only mean complicity with the Trump-Nazi project.

:::opens a whisky bottle and pours an enormous drink:::

That’s it! You assholes have driven me to drink!

[Gary Childress]

You devil Gary! You modified your post!

What you said is “What do you want us to do, start reading Mein Kampf?”
_____________

That is what I responded to below:

Gary’s response is, I’d say, typical. The implication? That Dissident Right means Mien Kampf. Gary’s view is one (I submit) thoroughly informed by American propaganda views. And to understand this one need only make reference to (just one example) the association of Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler.

This is an example of a Pavlovian response: the bell rings, the dog salivates.

But here is the important factor here: We can see, and we do understand, how political thought is propagandized. Even the mind-dead denizens here can recognize this as an accurate fact (even if they cannot self-examine their own ideological commitments).

But the real and operative function of reactive Pavlovianism is to ruin the prospect of thinking things through in an independent sense. Effectively, it is to forestall fair, honest and accurate assessment of occurrences in the present. Only binary lenses are available, and both are tendentious and contaminated.

It will matter not one whit that I expressed this: there is no one home to fairly think things through. A nuanced response such as mine must only mean complicity with the Trump-Nazi project.

:::opens a whisky bottle and pours an enormous drink:::

That’s it! You assholes have driven me to drink!

Yes. I anticipated your response, therefore I deleted it before you posted. Maybe you ought to delete your post, asshole.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You just don’t understand, Gary, how & why the conversation we have had here, and apparently are still having, is so relevant in our present.

Deal with what you meant to say, and what you mean.

It will be much more fun!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Is there, anywhere in the vast reaches of the internet, a philosophy forum where arguments based on observable, repeatable facts don’t get dismissed as “utter one-sidedness” and “ridiculous, ignorant, barking certitude”? Where citing conservation laws and fundamental interactions isn’t met with theatrical hand-wringing about metaphysical mysteries? Where “skepticism” doesn’t mean throwing up vague appeals to intuition and whining that science doesn’t coddle one’s cherished illusions?

Is this a rhetorical question?

[Gary Childress]

You just don’t understand, Gary, how & why the conversation we have had here, and apparently are still having, is so relevant in our present.

Sorry, AJ. I guess I was brainwashed by an education grounded in ideas of the enlightenment. Enlightenment values are what I was taught. I dabbled a little with the "continental philosophy" side of the department, Heidegger, Derrida, Gadamer, etc and found many of them to be irrelevant to me once I began to glean more what they were about.

[Gary Childress]

Deal with what you meant to say, and what you mean.

It will be much more fun!

I deleted my previous response because I decided ahead of time that your anticipated response seemed like a fair rebuttal and so I, perhaps wrongly, thought I ought to withdraw my response.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You just don’t understand, Gary, how & why the conversation we have had here, and apparently are still having, is so relevant in our present.

Sorry, AJ. I guess I was brainwashed by an education grounded in ideas of the enlightenment. Enlightenment values are what I was taught. I dabbled a little with the "continental philosophy" side of the department, Heidegger, Derrida, Gadamer, etc and found many of them to be irrelevant to me once I began to glean more what they were about.

At the very least, with what you just wrote, you have stepped momentarily out of the construct that you were “taught”. But to imply that anti-Liberalism is not also a product of or significantly connected to Enlightenment thought, is false.

Anti-Liberalism is a special category of the thinkers of the Dissident Right.

And as I do not tire of repeating: if you want to have an accurate view of what is happening in our present you will need to under Anti-Liberal thought.

This is not a revolutionary nor even a challenging idea, blockhead!

[Gary Childress]

You just don’t understand, Gary, how & why the conversation we have had here, and apparently are still having, is so relevant in our present.

Sorry, AJ. I guess I was brainwashed by an education grounded in ideas of the enlightenment. Enlightenment values are what I was taught. I dabbled a little with the "continental philosophy" side of the department, Heidegger, Derrida, Gadamer, etc and found many of them to be irrelevant to me once I began to glean more what they were about.

At the very least, with what you just wrote, you have stepped momentarily out of the construct that you were “taught”. But to imply that anti-Liberalism is not also a product of or significantly connected to Enlightenment thought, is false.

Anti-Liberalism is a special category of the thinkers of the Dissident Right.

And as I do not tire of repeating: if you want to have an accurate view of what is happening in our present you will need to under Anti-Liberal thought.

This is not a revolutionary nor even a challenging idea, blockhead!

You're clueless. I'd rather not be instructed by the clueless.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I deleted my previous response because I decided ahead of time that your anticipated response seemed like a fair rebuttal and so I, perhaps wrongly, thought I ought to withdraw my response.

That was the right thing to do!

:::pats Gary’s head:::

Now go a step further and recant your fellative post to BigMike. (It was fucking embarrassing).

You will earn some points.

[Gary Childress]

I deleted my previous response because I decided ahead of time that your anticipated response seemed like a fair rebuttal and so I, perhaps wrongly, thought I ought to withdraw my response.

That was the right thing to do!

:::pats Gary’s head:::

Now go a step further and recant your fellative post to BigMike. (It was fucking embarrassing).

You will earn some points.

See my previous response.