Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Skepdick]

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

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

I should be so stupid to get dragged into such a pointless activity.

I can't even give you a concise definition of conciseness.

[Alexis Jacobi]

My word! I seem to have hit a nerve!

I apologize. I was bummed that Real Madrid lost to Arsenal yesterday and, well, I took it out on you! I didn’t actually read your post but will try to get to it later.

[Belinda]

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.

Don't you know how conceited you sound! Each and every human being is the product of his culture; Socrates, and Jesus for that matter, are gigantic influences on all who know about them, their lives and their work.

[Belinda]

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

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

I should be so stupid to get dragged into such a pointless activity.

I can't even give you a concise definition of conciseness.

I thought you were the poster who specialises in computer language. Maybe I mistake you for someone else.

[henry quirk]

When are we going to dismantle the myth of determinism?

It was, several times, by different folks, in this thread. Mike will have none of it. He's utterly determined not to.

[Skepdick]

I thought you were the poster who specialises in computer language. Maybe I mistake you for someone else.

I am the guy who agrees with this...

“The purpose of abstracting is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise.”
― Edsger W. Dijkstra

There are things beyond abstraction; and therefore - beyond precision.

[Belinda]

When are we going to dismantle the myth of determinism?

It was, several times, by different folks, in this thread. Mike will have none of it. He's utterly determined not to.

Henry, once more you confuse fatalism and determinism.

*determinism good
*fatalism bad

[Belinda]

I thought you were the poster who specialises in computer language. Maybe I mistake you for someone else.

I am the guy who agrees with this...

“The purpose of abstracting is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise.”
― Edsger W. Dijkstra

There are things beyond abstraction; and therefore - beyond precision.

What "things" are beyond abstracting ideas from?
What is a computer language if not a medium for transmitting and receiving ideas?

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

Ethics, morality, justice, compassion all came into our world — originally — by men responding to and heeding imperatives coming through realization of metaphysical principles. That is I think “simply a fact” no matter where one stands on the issue now.

They all have “mystical foundations”.

What interests me is that “ethics, morality, justice, compassion” in our real present cannot actually stand or hold up as values because they are no part of— no part I tell you! — of nature nor the world of nature. There is no justice or compassion in nature, just brute force battling it out within the constraints of ecological relationships.

including the undeniable truth that human behavior is caused, not chosen freely.

I like how you slipped that in!

When I think of what’s valuable to humanity, I don’t think of vague metaphysical posturing

Of course you don’t!

[henry quirk]

*determinism good
*fatalism bad

Like it or not, B: they're the same thing (manure).

[Belinda]

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.

Ethics, morality, justice, compassion all came into our world — originally — by men responding to and heeding imperatives coming through realization of metaphysical principles. That is I think “simply a fact” no matter where one stands on the issue now.

They all have “mystical foundations”.

What interests me is that “ethics, morality, justice, compassion” in our real present cannot actually stand or hold up as values because they are no part of— no part I tell you! — of nature nor the world of nature. There is no justice or compassion in nature, just brute force battling it out within the constraints of ecological relationships.

including the undeniable truth that human behavior is caused, not chosen freely.

I like how you slipped that in!

How may human behaviour NOT be caused?
It's a matter of fact---look at news media----that justice, compassion, ethics, and morality are in the world. Have you not seen how medics in Palestine lost their lives for sticking to their principles of justice, compassion, ethics, and morality? We need to define 'nature ' before we can make sense to each other.

Either we define 'nature' as distinct from human nature// or we define 'nature' as inclusive of human nature.

Justice, compassion ethics, and morality can be seen among other mammalian species albeit in simplified forms. Justice, compassion, ethics, and morality can be seen in very young children albeit in immature forms.

[Belinda]

*determinism good
*fatalism bad

Like it or not, B: they're the same thing (manure).

If I did not like you I'd not bother replying to you.

[Atla]

Ethics, morality, justice, compassion all came into our world — originally — by men responding to and heeding imperatives coming through realization of metaphysical principles. That is I think “simply a fact” no matter where one stands on the issue now.

They all have “mystical foundations”.

Maybe that's how you and IC see the world due to your conditions. We, normal humans, can actually feel things like morality and compassion, without involving any mystical hoopla. And that's the fact of the matter.

[BigMike]

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.

Belinda, no—we don’t “prove” determinism. That’s not how science works. We don’t prove gravity either. We try to falsify these models, and until someone succeeds, we continue using them because they consistently explain and predict reality.

Determinism, in this context, means that all events—including human behavior—are the result of prior causes. And every serious field that studies nature—physics, biology, neuroscience, psychology—relies on determinism being true just to function. We build models, we run tests, we get repeatable results. No one has ever found a case where something—anything—just happens uncaused.

If someone could falsify determinism—show even one event or human decision that didn’t arise from causes—that would be revolutionary. But it hasn’t happened. And until it does, we accept determinism not as an article of faith, but as the best-supported understanding of how things work.

So no, it's not a myth. It's a framework that continues to withstand every attempt to break it. Which is more than we can say for any theory that tries to defend “free will.”

[henry quirk]

If I did not like you I'd not bother replying to you.

Hey, don't do me any favors.