Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[seeds]

Is there, anywhere in the vast reaches of the internet, a philosophy forum where arguments based on observable, repeatable facts don’t get dismissed...?...Because if such a place exists, I’d love to hear about it. A place where people actually engage with reality....

Yes, there are such forums.

However, they're not called "philosophy" forums, no, they are called "science" forums, where closed-minded, superficial thinkers (such as yourself) can congregate to discuss the superficial features of what they collectively (and falsely) believe "reality" to be, when, in truth, they are merely focusing on and addressing reality's thin "veneer."

Frankly, the sheer cowardice of it all is exhausting.

Well, from my perspective, the actual "cowards" are those who are afraid to "think outside the box" of dogmatic and hardcore materialism.

Indeed, the "cowards of materialism" prefer the safety of the box-like enclosure of their familiar and measurable surroundings.

And even though they haven't the slightest clue as to how the box came into existence, their own self-imposed rules which determine who is qualified to remain inside the box, does not permit the insiders to even speculatively imagine what might lie beyond the walls of the box, for if they do, their coveted membership in the "Inside the Box Thinkers" Club® will be revoked.

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.

Hmmm, that kind of sounds like the person who implies that they "know" there is no such thing as "free will."

I personally have no problem in thinking that there are deterministic processes at play in the ongoing development and workings of the material universe.

However, the idea that these processes extend into the sovereign and autonomous domain of a human mind where the possessor of free will resides, is a step too far, and is the problem associated with the materialist's refusal ("cowardice") to venture beyond the rigid (but safe) boundaries of the abovementioned "box thinking."
_______

[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...?...Because if such a place exists, I’d love to hear about it. A place where people actually engage with reality....

Yes, there are such forums.

However, they're not called "philosophy" forums, no, they are called "science" forums, where closed-minded, superficial thinkers (such as yourself) can congregate to discuss the superficial features of what they collectively (and falsely) believe "reality" to be, when, in truth, they are merely focusing on and addressing reality's thin "veneer."

Frankly, the sheer cowardice of it all is exhausting.

Well, from my perspective, the actual "cowards" are those who are afraid to "think outside the box" of dogmatic and hardcore materialism.

Indeed, the "cowards of materialism" prefer the safety of the box-like enclosure of their familiar and measurable surroundings.

And even though they haven't the slightest clue as to how the box came into existence, their own self-imposed rules which determine who is qualified to remain inside the box, does not permit the insiders to even speculatively imagine what might lie beyond the walls of the box, for if they do, their coveted membership in the "Inside the Box Thinkers" Club® will be revoked.

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.

Hmmm, that kind of sounds like the person who implies that they "know" there is no such thing as "free will."

I personally have no problem in thinking that there are deterministic processes at play in the ongoing development and workings of the material universe.

However, the idea that these processes extend into the sovereign and autonomous domain of a human mind where the possessor of free will resides, is a step too far, and is the problem associated with the materialist's refusal ("cowardice") to venture beyond the rigid (but safe) boundaries of the abovementioned "box thinking."
_______

To be fair to BigMike, you seem to post like someone who believes they have incontrovertible proof that there is free will. how do you know there is free will? How do you know hard determinism isn't the case? Where's the scientific evidence? Does any exist?

[Belinda]

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 Ddssident 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.

The "Dissident Right" appears then to take the view of human nature that it's the same as biological primate nature no more no less. The dissident right takes no note of the fact that biological primate nature has, in the case of our species, been modified by thousands of years of culture mediated through language. These thousands of years of culture leapt forward globally around 500BC ---probably because technological advances made possible sufficient urbanisation and communication for a cultural leap to happen.

True, we still are basically primates. However it's stupid to ignore cultural evolution.

[Belinda]

What did I write in my post? Did you read it?

I would maintain that though you — and so many others — do not seem on the surface to hold to a specific religious mythology (as IC does) that on other levels — felt levels, levels of sentiment — you definitely do. So I’d refer to submerged metaphysics or perhaps subconscious metaphysics.

Thank you for clarifying what I should respond to in your response. I am agnostic, but I would like to believe there is a God but I'm hesitant to embrace Christianity. I think I have made that plain. Is there something wrong with that or what more do you detect that I believe that there is something wrong with?

Gary, you write "embrace Christianity". There is no need for you to embrace others' stance on Christianity. Your thoughts and feelings are free. Make of the myth of Christ what you will.

[Belinda]

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.

But causality is metaphysical. Metaphysical means, not only what exists, but also how we can understand what exists. Causality is the force that we presume underlies change. Please refer to David Hume that causation as far as we can know it empirically is constant conjunction of events. Beyond constant conjunction lies metaphysics.
I am not defending my own comfort as is evident from the fact that David Hume's empirical view of causation, i.e. simply constant conjunction, is less comforting and comfortable than the view that constant conjunction indicates underlying harmony i.e. God.
God as underlying harmony is a human creation. It has always been and always will be hard work seeking underlying harmony, and I agree with you that wishful thinking is far from sufficient to create this good harmony we all aim for in our different and often misguided ways.
Your modern stance is a good way to seek and/or establish underlying harmony . However there is no need to cast out metaphysics; there are theories of existence and theories of epistemology that fit both physicalism and idealism.

[Gary Childress]

What did I write in my post? Did you read it?

Thank you for clarifying what I should respond to in your response. I am agnostic, but I would like to believe there is a God but I'm hesitant to embrace Christianity. I think I have made that plain. Is there something wrong with that or what more do you detect that I believe that there is something wrong with?

Gary, you write "embrace Christianity". There is no need for you to embrace others' stance on Christianity. Your thoughts and feelings are free. Make of the myth of Christ what you will.

Thank you, Belinda.

I was looking over my posts just now and I think IC is right about some things in general, some tendencies that we humans can or maybe do have, I have become a zealot, fighting everyone else for my own domination of the forum. It seems to me that I'm acting as though Philosophy has become a contest as I try to assert myself over others by unreasonably debasing their claims, at times demonstrating myself to be a hypocrite.

The weird thing is, tomorrow, when I wake up, I may be of a totally different character than I am at this moment that I'm writing. I have moments of insight but they're pushed out by some kind of bull headed obstinance that takes over. I don't know how to control it. Do I need to control it?

God, I hate to admit it, but AJ seems to be right. I am dominated by moods. Sometimes those moods lead me to remorse and sometimes those moods lead me to argue with just about everyone. I have no allies; it's only me and I act as though I have to be more "right" than anyone else.

Do others perceive themselves this way or is it just me who is being this way?

And more importantly, should I and anyone else who acts this way try to change behavior? Or is the way I and possibly some others behave "fair game" or something?

Should I be more "open", "unassuming" and less insisting on 'my way or the highway', as Age often seems to point out? Then I could maybe get along with others without causing friction. Instead of friction maybe there would be a sense of peace and open exchange of ideas on the forum. Maybe I'm driving better quality thinkers off the forum.

Thoughts?

[Belinda]

Seeds wrote:

---the idea that these processes extend into the sovereign and autonomous domain of a human mind where the possessor of free will resides, is a step too far, and is the problem associated with the materialist's refusal ("cowardice") to venture beyond the rigid (but safe) boundaries of the abovementioned "box thinking."

_______

It's magical thinking (reification) to presume that free will or no free will is difference of kind. Free will or no free will is not a difference of kind it's difference of degree.

[Belinda]

Seeds wrote:

---the idea that these processes extend into the sovereign and autonomous domain of a human mind where the possessor of free will resides, is a step too far, and is the problem associated with the materialist's refusal ("cowardice") to venture beyond the rigid (but safe) boundaries of the abovementioned "box thinking."

_______

It's magical thinking (reification) to presume that free will or no free will is difference of kind. Free will or no free will is not difference of kind it's difference of degree.

[seeds]

Seeds wrote:

---the idea that these processes extend into the sovereign and autonomous domain of a human mind where the possessor of free will resides, is a step too far, and is the problem associated with the materialist's refusal ("cowardice") to venture beyond the rigid (but safe) boundaries of the abovementioned "box thinking."

_______

It's magical thinking (reification) to presume that free will or no free will is difference of kind. Free will or no free will is not a difference of kind it's difference of degree.

That's kind of like saying that the difference between life and death, or, better yet, the difference between existence and nonexistence is a difference of degree.

You make no sense, because you cannot apply some sort of scale of degrees to absolute polar opposites, for it is either one or the other with nothing (no degrees) in between.
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

The "Dissident Right" appears then to take the view of human nature that it's the same as biological primate nature no more no less. The dissident right takes no note of the fact that biological primate nature has, in the case of our species, been modified by thousands of years of culture mediated through language. These thousands of years of culture leapt forward globally around 500BC ---probably because technological advances made possible sufficient urbanisation and communication for a cultural leap to happen.

True, we still are basically primates. However it's stupid to ignore cultural evolution.

I admit I have never heard or imagined or conceived of a more bizarre interpretation of the Dissident Right.

However today — these days — it is pretty common that the wildest interpretations are invented and distributed as opinion.

There are a few titles that offer a reality-based view:

A Fair Hearing (George Shaw)
National Populism (Roger Eatwell)

[seeds]

Is there, anywhere in the vast reaches of the internet, a philosophy forum where arguments based on observable, repeatable facts don’t get dismissed...?...Because if such a place exists, I’d love to hear about it. A place where people actually engage with reality....

Yes, there are such forums.

However, they're not called "philosophy" forums, no, they are called "science" forums, where closed-minded, superficial thinkers (such as yourself) can congregate to discuss the superficial features of what they collectively (and falsely) believe "reality" to be, when, in truth, they are merely focusing on and addressing reality's thin "veneer."

Frankly, the sheer cowardice of it all is exhausting.

Well, from my perspective, the actual "cowards" are those who are afraid to "think outside the box" of dogmatic and hardcore materialism.

Indeed, the "cowards of materialism" prefer the safety of the box-like enclosure of their familiar and measurable surroundings.

And even though they haven't the slightest clue as to how the box came into existence, their own self-imposed rules which determine who is qualified to remain inside the box, does not permit the insiders to even speculatively imagine what might lie beyond the walls of the box, for if they do, their coveted membership in the "Inside the Box Thinkers" Club® will be revoked.

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.

Hmmm, that kind of sounds like the person who implies that they "know" there is no such thing as "free will."

I personally have no problem in thinking that there are deterministic processes at play in the ongoing development and workings of the material universe.

However, the idea that these processes extend into the sovereign and autonomous domain of a human mind where the possessor of free will resides, is a step too far, and is the problem associated with the materialist's refusal ("cowardice") to venture beyond the rigid (but safe) boundaries of the abovementioned "box thinking."
_______

To be fair to BigMike,...

Is it pre-determined that I must be fair to BigMike? Or, do I have the free will to choose not to be fair to BigMike?

...you seem to post like someone who believes they have incontrovertible proof that there is free will.

No more or less than BigMike posts like someone who believes they have incontrovertible proof that there is no such thing as free will.

...how do you know there is free will?

Because I freely choose to believe that I have the free will to choose the option that free will exists.

How do you know hard determinism isn't the case? Where's the scientific evidence? Does any exist?

Where's the scientific evidence that refutes the implications of the theory of "strong emergence" which suggest that the "wholly otherness" of the properties of a human mind...

(i.g., the thinking and dreaming that takes place therein)

...cannot necessarily be traced back to some measurable physical cause?

And no, some "hot spots" on a fMRI (or some other device) cannot be used as proof of why you "freely chose" to imagine yourself lying next to some beautiful female on a beach somewhere, as opposed to composing the carefully crafted content of your next post.

Please reread what I said about the problem of "inside the box" thinking.
_______

[Belinda]

Seeds wrote:

---the idea that these processes extend into the sovereign and autonomous domain of a human mind where the possessor of free will resides, is a step too far, and is the problem associated with the materialist's refusal ("cowardice") to venture beyond the rigid (but safe) boundaries of the abovementioned "box thinking."

_______

It's magical thinking (reification) to presume that free will or no free will is difference of kind. Free will or no free will is not a difference of kind it's difference of degree.

That's kind of like saying that the difference between life and death, or, better yet, the difference between existence and nonexistence is a difference of degree.

You make no sense, because you cannot apply some sort of scale of degrees to absolute polar opposites, for it is either one or the other with nothing (no degrees) in between.
_______

But a dead person has no free will whatsoever. The difference of degree concerning free will applies only to the living. For instance a newborn baby has less free will than a two year old.

[Belinda]

Seeds wrote:


_______

It's magical thinking (reification) to presume that free will or no free will is difference of kind. Free will or no free will is not a difference of kind it's difference of degree.

That's kind of like saying that the difference between life and death, or, better yet, the difference between existence and nonexistence is a difference of degree.

You make no sense, because you cannot apply some sort of scale of degrees to absolute polar opposites, for it is either one or the other with nothing (no degrees) in between.
_______

But a dead person has no free will whatsoever. The difference of degree concerning free will applies only to the living. For instance a newborn baby has less free will than a two year old.
Free will is not a thing like the bony skeleton ,or the musculature ,of an animal is a thing. Free will is comparative state of the organism. You talk about free will as if it were an indwelling ghost.

[seeds]

Pay attention!

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

Regarding your video of "Noam Chomsky on Slavoj Žižek"...

I highly respect old Noam, however, if one could find a way to chemically synthesize his vocal tone and offer it in an OTC pill form, they would put Sominex, ZzzQuil, and Unisom out of business.

Furthermore, no disrespect intended, but I've never been able to get past Žižek's ssslurring and nose swiping long enough to ever understand anything he talks about.
_______

[seeds]

_______

Notes: KIV
_______