Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You're clueless

Talk about this. What do you mean and why?

[Gary Childress]

You're clueless

Talk about this. What do you mean and why?

You don't possess the same background education as I do. I wouldn't know where to start explaining it to you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Horse shit

[Alexis Jacobi]

Pay attention!

[Gary Childress]

Horse shit

If that is what you think, then that is what you think. There's no point in me arguing with what I consider to be a devil's advocate who has turned into a zealot.

[Gary Childress]

What may (arguably either way) be good for Europe is not, in my opinion, good for the United States, given the history of United States.

[Atla]

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.

Science, reality, evidence? Pfft, that's just some pre-Trumpian era rubbish. Someone hasn't been following the news lately.

We have to get with the times. That's why I'm learning to channel the spirit of Atla the Atlantean philosopher-king, from the Zep Tepi era 12000 years ago. (He's a much cooler dude than the Hyperboring Appallon btw.) I think I'll fit right in with the new normal.

(You might try thephilosophyforum.com)

[Gary Childress]

Pay attention!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0

[Gary Childress]

@AJ: If you want to argue why nationalism is not good for United States, that's fine. We can argue, though I don't think it ultimately is. Perhaps I am wrong.

If you should want to argue why ethnic or racial purity are good for the United States, then, given my background education. I cannot entertain such arguments.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am less interested in “arguing” specifics and much more interested in laying out a general, broader picture.

[Gary Childress]

I am less interested in “arguing” specifics and much more interested in laying out a general, broader picture.

The only "pictures" I'm interested in are real ones, not "metaphysical" ones.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am less interested in “arguing” specifics and much more interested in laying out a general, broader picture.

The only "pictures" I'm interested in are real ones, not "metaphysical" ones.

What does the word “metaphysics” refer to when you use it?

[Gary Childress]

I am less interested in “arguing” specifics and much more interested in laying out a general, broader picture.

The only "pictures" I'm interested in are real ones, not "metaphysical" ones.

What does the word “metaphysics” refer to when you use it?

"Metaphysics" is essentially an instrument or lense of interpretation. It's not physical fact or evidence. If you think I have "metaphysical" beliefs, then you are welcome to point out exactly what those beliefs are. I will consider if I need to revise them if you give me evidence of why they should be revised.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is not my object or rôle to decipher your metaphysics or to explain you to you, but it is important to point out that the realism you would seem to profess is a rationalized false-front. You — you especially — seem driven, even determined, by a sort of metaphysics insofar as you are constrained by that structure of interpretation that you mention.

[Gary Childress]

It is not my object or rôle to decipher your metaphysics or to explain you to you, but it is important to point out that the realism you would seem to profess is a rationalized false-front. You — you especially — seem driven, even determined, by a sort of metaphysics insofar as you are constrained by that structure of interpretation that you mention.

As I openly said I am constrained in discussing needs for racial or ethnic purity. If you believe that metaphysical belief is wrong, then what evidence suggests that it is wrong?