Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Dubious]

We need a little insanity to make life interesting but let's not over do it by supplanting the physical, which is wholly deterministic, with the metaphysical which are nothing more than conscious dream states expressed philosophically or poetically...thought nebulas whose sole purpose is to eclipse the logic of a cold universe in the desperate effort to keep our metaphysics warm.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…with the metaphysical which are nothing more than conscious dream states expressed philosophically or poetically...thought nebulas whose sole purpose is to eclipse the logic of a cold universe in the desperate effort to keep our metaphysics warm.

Because your mind and spirit are afflicted, you talk like an old buffoon — and this makes me very angry . I am ashamed to see you drool on your bib Dubious!

You seem to deliberately attempt to piss me off.

What you dismiss as “dream states” are the productions of the psyche, you moron! and what is metaphysical has provided everything that is valuable to man.

You pitiable clownish crackhead! Get down here right now for I will knock sense into you!

thought nebulas

Thought nebulae …

[Dubious]

…with the metaphysical which are nothing more than conscious dream states expressed philosophically or poetically...thought nebulas whose sole purpose is to eclipse the logic of a cold universe in the desperate effort to keep our metaphysics warm.

Because your mind and spirit are afflicted, you talk like an old buffoon — and this makes me very angry . I am ashamed to see you drool on your bib Dubious!

You seem to deliberately attempt to piss me off.

What you dismiss as “dream states” are the productions of the psyche, you moron! and what is metaphysical has provided everything that is valuable to man.

You pitiable clownish crackhead! Get down here right now for I will knock sense into you!

thought nebulas

Thought nebulae …

My word! I seem to have hit a nerve!

Oh, btw, thank you for the correction! Thank goodness my simple foxpaw didn't cause any further damage to your prematurely aged hemorrhoidal neurons!

Actually it was a general statement without having you in mind; but if you're pissed-off, I don't mind. Knowing that, I shall attempt to do it more often! I'm here to serve!

[Dubious]

...and what is metaphysical has provided everything that is valuable to man.

Indeed, there is much that is valuable, even indispensable! Not everything in human thought must correlate to physics. But what produces the psyche if not the physical brain? Should the psyche be less because of that? It too requires a foundation!

[BigMike]

...and what is metaphysical has provided everything that is valuable to man.

Indeed, there is much that is valuable, even indispensable! Not everything in human thought must correlate to physics. But what produces the psyche if not the physical brain? Should the psyche be less because of that? It too requires a foundation!

Dubious, that line you quoted—“what is metaphysical has provided everything that is valuable to man”—actually reveals Alexis’ fundamental flaw.

When I think of what’s valuable to humanity, I don’t think of vague metaphysical posturing—I think of ethics, morality, justice, compassion. And those don’t require mystical foundations. They require honest recognition of how the world actually works—including the undeniable truth that human behavior is caused, not chosen freely.

Alexis clings to a morality built on the outdated and false belief in free will. And what does that kind of morality demand? That we hold people personally responsible for their actions—regardless of what caused those actions. That we blame instead of understand. That we punish instead of prevent. And that, in its extreme form, leads to hatred, revenge, conflict, even war. All of it built on the lie that someone “could have done otherwise.”

But they couldn’t. No one could have. That’s what a deterministic understanding makes clear: people act as they do because of causes—genetic, environmental, psychological—that shape them entirely. If we actually care about reducing harm and improving the human condition, then the only moral response is to change the causes of harmful behavior—not moralize about it.

Alexis romanticizes the metaphysical because it allows him to preserve a sense of “meaning” rooted in outdated notions of human agency. But the truth is, real moral progress comes not from defending myths, but from dismantling them. The only valuable metaphysics is the one that can survive contact with physics, neuroscience, and reason. Everything else is a beautifully worded excuse for doing harm.

[Skepdick]

...and what is metaphysical has provided everything that is valuable to man.

Indeed, there is much that is valuable, even indispensable! Not everything in human thought must correlate to physics. But what produces the psyche if not the physical brain? Should the psyche be less because of that? It too requires a foundation!

Dubious, that line you quoted—“what is metaphysical has provided everything that is valuable to man”—actually reveals Alexis’ fundamental flaw.

When I think of what’s valuable to humanity, I don’t think of vague metaphysical posturing—I think of ethics, morality, justice, compassion. And those don’t require mystical foundations. They require honest recognition of how the world actually works—including the undeniable truth that human behavior is caused, not chosen freely.

Alexis clings to a morality built on the outdated and false belief in free will. And what does that kind of morality demand? That we hold people personally responsible for their actions—regardless of what caused those actions. That we blame instead of understand. That we punish instead of prevent. And that, in its extreme form, leads to hatred, revenge, conflict, even war. All of it built on the lie that someone “could have done otherwise.”

But they couldn’t. No one could have. That’s what a deterministic understanding makes clear: people act as they do because of causes—genetic, environmental, psychological—that shape them entirely. If we actually care about reducing harm and improving the human condition, then the only moral response is to change the causes of harmful behavior—not moralize about it.

Alexis romanticizes the metaphysical because it allows him to preserve a sense of “meaning” rooted in outdated notions of human agency. But the truth is, real moral progress comes not from defending myths, but from dismantling them. The only valuable metaphysics is the one that can survive contact with physics, neuroscience, and reason. Everything else is a beautifully worded excuse for doing harm.

Is this bullshit vendor still at it? How much harm are we willing to tolerate from his metaphysic?

When are we going to dismantle the myth of determinism?

[Atla]

and what is metaphysical has provided everything that is valuable to man.

This is where you send us all your money, it's of no value to you, it's a burden. We just want to help.

[Belinda]

We need a little insanity to make life interesting but let's not over do it by supplanting the physical, which is wholly deterministic, with the metaphysical which are nothing more than conscious dream states expressed philosophically or poetically...thought nebulas whose sole purpose is to eclipse the logic of a cold universe in the desperate effort to keep our metaphysics warm.

Yes, but some ontologies are more life-supporting than others. And some epistemologies are more reasoned than others.

[Belinda]

Indeed, there is much that is valuable, even indispensable! Not everything in human thought must correlate to physics. But what produces the psyche if not the physical brain? Should the psyche be less because of that? It too requires a foundation!

Dubious, that line you quoted—“what is metaphysical has provided everything that is valuable to man”—actually reveals Alexis’ fundamental flaw.

When I think of what’s valuable to humanity, I don’t think of vague metaphysical posturing—I think of ethics, morality, justice, compassion. And those don’t require mystical foundations. They require honest recognition of how the world actually works—including the undeniable truth that human behavior is caused, not chosen freely.

Alexis clings to a morality built on the outdated and false belief in free will. And what does that kind of morality demand? That we hold people personally responsible for their actions—regardless of what caused those actions. That we blame instead of understand. That we punish instead of prevent. And that, in its extreme form, leads to hatred, revenge, conflict, even war. All of it built on the lie that someone “could have done otherwise.”

But they couldn’t. No one could have. That’s what a deterministic understanding makes clear: people act as they do because of causes—genetic, environmental, psychological—that shape them entirely. If we actually care about reducing harm and improving the human condition, then the only moral response is to change the causes of harmful behavior—not moralize about it.

Alexis romanticizes the metaphysical because it allows him to preserve a sense of “meaning” rooted in outdated notions of human agency. But the truth is, real moral progress comes not from defending myths, but from dismantling them. The only valuable metaphysics is the one that can survive contact with physics, neuroscience, and reason. Everything else is a beautifully worded excuse for doing harm.

Is this bullshit vendor still at it? How much harm are we willing to tolerate from his metaphysic?

When are we going to dismantle the myth of determinism?

David Hume already did it. Constant conjunction of events is what causal determinism is empirically based on. Rationally, however determinism is not so much a "myth" but more part of a theory of existence among other theories of existence.

[Skepdick]

David Hume already did it. Constant conjunction of events is what causal determinism is empirically based on. Rationally, however determinism is not so much a "myth" but more part of a theory of existence among other theories of existence.

Sure; but the legitimization of one Grand Theory at the expense of all others is the harm.

Monotheorism is the harm.

[Belinda]

Phyllo, you’re misunderstanding something basic—so let me make it clear.

I'm not "trying to talk about the supernatural" as if it has something legitimate to say. I'm dismantling it. I'm not attempting to understand it—I'm pointing out that it's incoherent, unverifiable, and logically self-defeating, and that pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

You said: “If something affects reality then it exists.”

Exactly. That’s the point. So when people claim a supernatural entity does affect reality—whether it’s through visions, voices, miracles, or mystical downloads of truth—then the burden of proof is on them to show how. What mechanism? What evidence? What causal process?

If they say, “Well, there is no mechanism, it can’t be observed, and logic doesn’t apply,” then sorry—that's a big red flag that what they’re talking about doesn’t exist. You don’t get to claim “it affects the world” and then run away from every follow-up question about what that actually means. That’s not deep, it’s just lazy.pty. Hollow.

As for your question—“Isn’t it a waste of time to keep asking when no answer comes?”

No. It’s not. Because every time I ask, and no answer comes, it proves the point again: this entire category of belief is emUnfalsifiable nonsense dressed up as insight. And sometimes the most effective way to reveal that isn’t by ignoring it, but by dragging it out into the light and showing everyone that there's nothing there.

So yeah, I’ll keep asking—not because I expect a good answer, but because the silence or the nonsense that follows is the answer. And it’s the most honest way to persuade anyone watching with an open mind.

You want to believe in mysteries beyond logic? Go for it. But don’t expect them to hold up under scrutiny, and don’t be surprised when someone points out that they collapse the moment you try to define them.

That’s not my problem. That’s the cost of trying to pass off fiction as philosophy.

This is naive, Mike. Obviously, "supernatural" events that occur are, in fact, not "super"natural at all. Instead, they are "natural" (i.e. real). If Jesus rose from the dead, that was a real and therefore "natural" occurrence. Of course there are supernatural CLAIMS that are merely false -- but that's a different matter altogether.

Second, there is nothing "illogical" about the supernatural. Indeed, fairy tales are supremely logical. "If you blow this horn, the walls of the castle will fall down." The character blows the horn, and the walls fall down. This may not conform to what you think is probable, but it is logically sound.

To respond to your earlier response to me, language (and other cultural things) emerge from our brains and transcend and shape our thoughts. Indeed, most physical anthropologists think the development of language shaped our brains (in addition to our brains shaping language). Such was the adaptive value of language that those areas of the brain designed to process it evolved over the generations. So our physical selves are created by an emergent and transcendent "thing".

Kant suggested that instead of assuming that our knowledge must conform to the reality of the world, the world (as we see it) conforms to our way of knowing. Of course we "know" largely through language, so this emergent and transcendent thing (perhaps) determines our reality. I suppose that's not what you mean by "determinism", though. YOur form of determinism is a very Modernistic one: the parts explain the whole. Post modernism has not offered good alternatives -- but its critiques of Modernism are cogent and telling. Perhaps physics does "determine" everything that happens. But we are not in the position to "know" that, because our ways of knowing are always suspect.

Alexiev conflates 'supernatural' and 'paranormal'.

Paranormal events are explained by academic psychology plus anthropology. These are empirical processes.

That there is a state of being which is supernatural is a theory of existence.To argue for this or that theory of existence the custom , ever since the scepticism of Descartes, (1596-1650)is to argue rationally not empirically.
Empirical claims for supernatural existence are medieval.

[Skepdick]

Alexiev conflates 'supernatural' and 'paranormal'.

Paranormal events are explained by academic psychology plus anthropology. These are empirical processes.

That there is a state of being which is supernatural is a theory of existence.To argue for this or that theory of existence the custom , ever since the scepticism of Descartes, (1596-1650)is to argue rationally not empirically.
Empirical claims for supernatural existence are medieval.

I think the distinction is semantic/academic.

You can express bewilderment and lack of understanding about something which seems out of the ordinary as both "paranormal" and "supernatural".

It really doesn't matter.

[Belinda]

David Hume already did it. Constant conjunction of events is what causal determinism is empirically based on. Rationally, however determinism is not so much a "myth" but more part of a theory of existence among other theories of existence.

Sure; but the legitimization of one Grand Theory at the expense of all others is the harm.

Monotheorism is the harm.

Yes, one should be broad -minded. I too dislike dogma. There remains the criterion of the life-affirming qualities of theories of existence. You say "harm". The ultimate purpose of philosophy ,not excluding metaphysics, is the good life.

When empiricism and rationalism come to dead ends we must stand with Socrates who claimed he knew nothing; Socrates died because he would not recant his human right to love truth and honesty.

[Skepdick]

Yes, one should be broad -minded. I too dislike dogma. There remains the criterion of the life-affirming qualities of theories of existence. You say "harm". The ultimate purpose of philosophy ,not excluding metaphysics, is the good life.

When empiricism and rationalism come to dead ends we must stand with Socrates who claimed he knew nothing; Socrates died because he would not recant his human right to love truth and honesty.

Don't listen to Socrates either. There's a time and place for Socratizing; and a time/place to call it out as performative nonsense.

Random Greek: Hey! I like what you have to say! What's your name?
Socrates: I don't know.

The unexamined life is not worth living doesn't mean the examined life is worth living. When philosophy devolves into polemic the good life has escaped you.

[Belinda]

Alexiev conflates 'supernatural' and 'paranormal'.

Paranormal events are explained by academic psychology plus anthropology. These are empirical processes.

That there is a state of being which is supernatural is a theory of existence.To argue for this or that theory of existence the custom , ever since the scepticism of Descartes, (1596-1650)is to argue rationally not empirically.
Empirical claims for supernatural existence are medieval.

I think the distinction is semantic/academic.

You can express bewilderment and lack of understanding about something which seems out of the ordinary as both "paranormal" and "supernatural".

It really doesn't matter.

True, 'paranonormal; and 'supernatural' popularly are conflated.

I am quite surprised at you. I thought you specialised in explicit and concise language.