Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

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!

Alexis, you’re confusing “historical origin” with “epistemic justification.” Just because people once explained morality and justice through metaphysical stories doesn’t mean those values depend on those stories to be valid or functional today. That’s like saying modern medicine owes its authority to bloodletting because people once believed illness came from imbalanced humors. Nice historical footnote—not a foundation.

You say ethics, morality, justice, and compassion “all have mystical foundations.” No—they had mythical narratives, sure. But their actual utility, their evolutionary role, and their social function are grounded in the biology of cooperation, the psychology of empathy, and the structure of human relationships. These are not gifts from some metaphysical ether—they are adaptive, causal, and explainable features of our species.

You argue they “cannot stand as values” because they are “no part of nature.” That’s absurd. They’re not floating in the clouds—they’re human phenomena, produced by brains, shaped by environment, and essential to group survival. Just because the natural world doesn’t run on compassion doesn’t mean compassion isn’t real. Thunderstorms don’t care about mathematics either, yet math remains valid.

And then your big “gotcha” is a sarcastic nudge when I say human behavior is caused, not freely chosen. But you didn’t refute it. You didn’t even try. Because deep down you know you can’t. All you can do is look sideways at the claim and imply it’s somehow unsavory to say out loud.

You live in the nostalgia of metaphysics because you can’t bear to face the fact that morality and meaning don’t need the supernatural. They just need honesty—about what we are, how we work, and what actually helps reduce harm and increase human well-being.

That’s not a denial of value. It’s the only way to truly preserve it.

[Skepdick]

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.

You can't falsify "gravity" when you've defined it phenomenologically, you numbskull.

Anything which explains why apples fall from trees; and why light lenses around objects with large masses is what you call "gravity".

Even if it ultimately turns out that gravity doesn't exist ontologically. Whatever explains those phenomena is your theory OF gravity.

[BigMike]

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.

You can't falsify "gravity" when you've defined it phenomenologically, you numbskull.

Anything which explains why apples fall from trees; and why light lenses around objects with large masses is what you call "gravity".

Even if it ultimately turns out that gravity doesn't exist ontologically. Whatever explains those phenomena is your theory OF gravity.

Skepdick, thanks for the noise, but once again, you’re confusing epistemology with semantics, and doing it with your usual smug condescension, as if stringing insults together makes your point more coherent.

Let’s clear it up: when I say we don’t “prove” gravity—or determinism—I’m stating a basic scientific principle. We don’t prove models in the absolute sense; we test them, we try to falsify them, and we accept them provisionally based on how well they explain and predict phenomena. That applies whether we're talking about Newtonian gravity, general relativity, or whatever better model comes next. That’s the structure of science, not “numbskullery.”

You think you’ve found some clever trap by saying “gravity” is just what we call "whatever explains falling apples and lensing light.” And… yes. That’s how models work. We call the force we’ve observed and quantified “gravity,” and the theories that explain it—like Newton’s or Einstein’s—are frameworks that can be tested and refined. If a new model replaces them with something deeper or better—great. That doesn’t mean gravity was a myth. It means we’ve updated our understanding of the underlying cause based on new evidence.

Same goes for determinism. If someone shows that an event—especially a mental or behavioral one—can occur without cause, that would falsify determinism. But so far? Every field that actually explains anything—from physics to neuroscience—depends on causality. Not poetic rambling. Not semantic word games. Just cause and effect, consistently observed.

So no, redefining gravity as “whatever explains this stuff” doesn’t invalidate the process. It just shows you don’t understand what scientific models are—or worse, that you do and are trying to obscure it with snark instead of substance.

Try again, but this time with fewer tantrums and more thought.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

Consciousness, ethics, morality, language and meaning all arose within Reality because they exist eternally. It is through concept such as these that I define what is “divine”. Preexisting order. Or an ordering principle.

They [consciousness, ethics, morality, language and meaning] existed before anything manifested, and similarly to what Alexiev says, they will exist even when there is no being there to enunciate language or to think with language. You are wrong (in my view) that all that will be left are scribbles or glyphs with no one capable of interpretation.

I fully recognize and I nobly accept that you regard the foundation of my understanding of reality (existence, being) as insubstantial and “unprovable”. And there is no part of your argument that is non-intelligible to me. And I understand how you are employing hard nosed mathematical reason to arrive at your belligerent opinions.

However, try as you might you will not be able to dislodge me from my operational understanding of Reality (life, existence, being) if only because you by your own chosen predicates lock yourself out of possibilities and alternatives to that belligerency.

You come here — obviously — to fight and to struggle. To attempt to knock down any view of Reality (being, existence) that does not conform to your rigid scientistic pseudo-philosophy. It is a pseudo philosophy I must remind you. This was demonstrated 50 pages back by other adept posters.

However, I want you and in fact I command you to carry on with your charmingly insulting but boringly repetitive communication methods.

I WILL ARISE and go now, and go to Innisfree, And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made; Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honey-bee, And live alone in the bee-loud glade.

And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow, Dropping from the veils of the morning to where the cricket sings; There midnight's all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow, And evening full of the linnet's wings.

I will arise and go now, for always night and day I hear lake-water lapping with low sounds by the shore; While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements gray, I hear it in the deep heart's core.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, thanks for the noise, but once again, you’re confusing epistemology with semantics, and doing it with your usual smug condescension, as if stringing insults together makes your point more coherent.

Let’s clear it up: when I say we don’t “prove” gravity—or determinism—I’m stating a basic scientific principle. We don’t prove models in the absolute sense; we test them, we try to falsify them, and we accept them provisionally based on how well they explain and predict phenomena. That applies whether we're talking about Newtonian gravity, general relativity, or whatever better model comes next. That’s the structure of science, not “numbskullery.”

You think you’ve found some clever trap by saying “gravity” is just what we call "whatever explains falling apples and lensing light.” And… yes. That’s how models work. We call the force we’ve observed and quantified “gravity,” and the theories that explain it—like Newton’s or Einstein’s—are frameworks that can be tested and refined. If a new model replaces them with something deeper or better—great. That doesn’t mean gravity was a myth. It means we’ve updated our understanding of the underlying cause based on new evidence.

Same goes for determinism. If someone shows that an event—especially a mental or behavioral one—can occur without cause, that would falsify determinism. But so far? Every field that actually explains anything—from physics to neuroscience—depends on causality. Not poetic rambling. Not semantic word games. Just cause and effect, consistently observed.

So no, redefining gravity as “whatever explains this stuff” doesn’t invalidate the process. It just shows you don’t understand what scientific models are—or worse, that you do and are trying to obscure it with snark instead of substance.

Try again, but this time with fewer tantrums and more thought.

What a fucking moron. There is no such "force" as gravity. That was the whole point of Einstein's theory.

Falsifiability is a basic scientific principle.
Is the existence of gravity a falsifiable claim? e.g is it scientific; or not?

What would convince you that gravity is a myth? It seems to me your answer is "nothing".

By insisting that we keep modifying our "underlying understanding" while always preserving gravity (at any cost) you are literally admitting to being unscientific.

[BigMike]

…

Consciousness, ethics, morality, language and meaning all arose within Reality because they exist eternally. It is through concept such as these that I define what is “divine”. Preexisting order. Or an ordering principle.

They [consciousness, ethics, morality, language and meaning] existed before anything manifested, and similarly to what Alexiev says, they will exist even when there is no being there to enunciate language or to think with language. You are wrong (in my view) that all that will be left are scribbles or glyphs with no one capable of interpretation.

I fully recognize and I nobly accept that you regard the foundation of my understanding of reality (existence, being) as insubstantial and “unprovable”. And there is no part of your argument that is non-intelligible to me. And I understand how you are employing hard nosed mathematical reason to arrive at your belligerent opinions.

However, try as you might you will not be able to dislodge me from my operational understanding of Reality (life, existence, being) if only because you by your own chosen predicates lock yourself out of possibilities and alternatives to that belligerency.

You come here — obviously — to fight and to struggle. To attempt to knock down any view of Reality (being, existence) that does not conform to your rigid scientistic pseudo-philosophy. It is a pseudo philosophy I must remind you. This was demonstrated 50 pages back by other adept posters.

However, I want you and in fact I command you to carry on with your charmingly insulting but boringly repetitive communication methods.

I WILL ARISE and go now, and go to Innisfree, And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made; Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honey-bee, And live alone in the bee-loud glade.

And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow, Dropping from the veils of the morning to where the cricket sings; There midnight's all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow, And evening full of the linnet's wings.

I will arise and go now, for always night and day I hear lake-water lapping with low sounds by the shore; While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements gray, I hear it in the deep heart's core.

Alexis, you just packed more mysticism, evasion, and flowery misdirection into one post than most people manage in a full semester of undergrad philosophy.

Let’s cut through the fog: you’re now claiming that consciousness, ethics, morality, language, and meaning existed eternally—before brains, before biology, before matter? That’s not philosophy. That’s mythology with a thesaurus. You’ve turned abstract human concepts into floating Platonic ghosts, existing independently of any mechanism that could produce, carry, or interpret them.

And when you say “this is what I call divine,” you’re not offering clarity. You’re doing exactly what I’ve been calling out since page one: using poetic labels to mask your refusal to explain anything. “Preexisting order”? “Ordering principle”? Those are placeholder phrases for “something I can’t define, measure, test, or explain—but I want it to sound majestic enough that no one presses me too hard.”

You say language would still “exist” even if no one could interpret it. No, Alexis—it wouldn’t. There’d be ink on a page, marks in stone, or data on a hard drive. But without a brain to assign meaning, all you'd have are meaningless patterns—like hearing thunder and calling it a symphony. Meaning requires a mind. Remove the mind, and meaning disappears. That’s not a radical view—it’s the basic structure of semantics.

Then you pat yourself on the back for “nobly accepting” that I consider your worldview insubstantial and unprovable. That’s not noble, Alexis—it’s necessary, because it’s true. You then accuse me of being belligerent because I hold ideas accountable to logic, evidence, and clarity. But guess what? That’s not belligerence. That’s philosophy. What you’re doing is ducking every challenge by slapping the label “scientistic pseudo-philosophy” on anything that makes you uncomfortable.

And as for this bit:
“You come here — obviously — to fight and to struggle.”

No, I come here to expose flimsy thinking. You just happen to be the loudest source of it.

And finally—you close with Yeats. Of course. When in doubt, quote a poem and flee into metaphor. But poetry won’t save you from the plain fact that your worldview is built on things you can’t define, explain, or defend, and you’ve made a career here out of acting like that’s some kind of intellectual virtue.

You say I lock myself out of “possibilities.” No—what I do is lock the door on nonsense. You’re welcome to stay in the bee-loud glade, whispering to ghosts of meaning. I’ll be over here, grounded in a world that actually explains itself.

[phyllo]

That’s not belligerence. That’s philosophy.

You are belligerent.

That's just an obvious fact.

[BigMike]

Skepdick, thanks for the noise, but once again, you’re confusing epistemology with semantics, and doing it with your usual smug condescension, as if stringing insults together makes your point more coherent.

Let’s clear it up: when I say we don’t “prove” gravity—or determinism—I’m stating a basic scientific principle. We don’t prove models in the absolute sense; we test them, we try to falsify them, and we accept them provisionally based on how well they explain and predict phenomena. That applies whether we're talking about Newtonian gravity, general relativity, or whatever better model comes next. That’s the structure of science, not “numbskullery.”

You think you’ve found some clever trap by saying “gravity” is just what we call "whatever explains falling apples and lensing light.” And… yes. That’s how models work. We call the force we’ve observed and quantified “gravity,” and the theories that explain it—like Newton’s or Einstein’s—are frameworks that can be tested and refined. If a new model replaces them with something deeper or better—great. That doesn’t mean gravity was a myth. It means we’ve updated our understanding of the underlying cause based on new evidence.

Same goes for determinism. If someone shows that an event—especially a mental or behavioral one—can occur without cause, that would falsify determinism. But so far? Every field that actually explains anything—from physics to neuroscience—depends on causality. Not poetic rambling. Not semantic word games. Just cause and effect, consistently observed.

So no, redefining gravity as “whatever explains this stuff” doesn’t invalidate the process. It just shows you don’t understand what scientific models are—or worse, that you do and are trying to obscure it with snark instead of substance.

Try again, but this time with fewer tantrums and more thought.

What a fucking moron. There is no such "force" as gravity. That was the whole point of Einstein's theory.

Falsifiability is a basic scientific principle.
Is the existence of gravity a falsifiable claim? e.g is it scientific; or not?

What would convince you that gravity is a myth? It seems to me your answer is "nothing".

By insisting that we keep modifying our "underlying understanding" while always preserving gravity (at any cost) you are literally admitting to being unscientific.

Skepdick, if you could pause the tantrum long enough to read, you'd realize you’re not scoring points—you’re just shouting your confusion louder.

Yes, Einstein redefined gravity—not as a Newtonian force acting at a distance, but as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. Congratulations on discovering that fact 100 years late. But here’s the part you can’t seem to grasp: the word "gravity" doesn't refer to one fixed mechanism—it refers to the observed phenomena we’re trying to explain. Like objects accelerating toward Earth, like the bending of light near massive objects, like the orbital dynamics of planets.

The theory of gravity changes. The data—what we observe—doesn’t. That’s science. We don’t throw out “gravity” because the explanation gets refined. We update the model to better reflect reality. It’s called progress. What you’re doing is semantic nitpicking masquerading as insight.

Now, about falsifiability: of course gravity is falsifiable. If we saw objects not accelerate toward mass in a predictable way, or if light didn’t bend around galaxies, or if GPS systems stopped needing relativistic corrections—that would falsify current models. But they don’t. Everything we observe continues to match the predictions of these models—across scales, across systems.

Your real issue here is that you’re mistaking stability of observation for dogma. We keep the word “gravity” because it refers to a class of phenomena we continue to observe. We don't "preserve gravity at any cost"—we preserve whatever works until something else works better.

So if your point is that we should throw out the term “gravity” because we keep improving our understanding of it, then guess what—you’re not attacking science. You’re just attacking the dictionary like it owes you money.

You’re flailing, Skepdick. Loudly. If you want to actually challenge something, drop the edge-lord language, learn how science works, and bring a falsifiable alternative. Otherwise, you’re just yelling at the scaffolding while the rest of us are building the damn structure.

[BigMike]

That’s not belligerence. That’s philosophy.

You are belligerent.

That's just an obvious fact.

Phyllo, go ahead—elaborate. What exactly do you mean by "belligerent"?

Is it belligerent to demand clarity? To challenge vague or undefended claims? To insist on definitions and mechanisms when someone makes assertions about reality?

Or is it just that calling out incoherence feels aggressive when you're used to conversations that politely tiptoe around it?

Be specific. What, exactly, are you calling belligerent—and what would you prefer instead?

[phyllo]

'Belligerent' means hostile and aggressive.

'Philosophy' is what you say, 'belligerence' is how you say it.

Go over your posts and count how often you insult people, how often you make negative personal comments about them, how often you talk down to them.

[BigMike]

'Belligerent' means hostile and aggressive.

'Philosophy' is what you say, 'belligerence' is how you say it.

Go over your posts and count how often you insult people, how often you make negative personal comments about them, how often you talk down to them.

Fair enough, Phyllo. I’ll own that tone matters—and mine hasn’t exactly been gentle. But here’s the distinction: I aim my fire at ideas and arguments—and when someone repeatedly dodges, deflects, or resorts to empty posturing, I call it out directly. Not to be cruel, but to cut through the noise. Precision sometimes requires pressure.

That said, if someone takes offense because I dismantle their ideas with force and clarity, that’s not “hostility”—that’s the friction of honest debate. But when someone insists on defending nonsense or hiding behind language games, yeah, I’m going to call it what it is. You can call that belligerence. I call it intellectual accountability.

Still, I’ll take your point. If you think the message is being lost in the tone, I can dial it back. But don’t mistake bluntness for bad faith. I’m not here to make anyone feel small—I’m here to make the ideas stand tall or fall.

[Skepdick]

Yes, Einstein redefined gravity—not as a Newtonian force acting at a distance, but as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. Congratulations on discovering that fact 100 years late. But here’s the part you can’t seem to grasp: the word "gravity" doesn't refer to one fixed mechanism—it refers to the observed phenomena we’re trying to explain. Like objects accelerating toward Earth, like the bending of light near massive objects, like the orbital dynamics of planets.

What a fucking idiot.

You can't falsify "gravity" when you've defined it phenomenologically, you numbskull

[Alexis Jacobi]

And then your big “gotcha” is a sarcastic nudge when I say human behavior is caused, not freely chosen. But you didn’t refute it. You didn’t even try. Because deep down you know you can’t. All you can do is look sideways at the claim and imply it’s somehow unsavory to say out loud.

You live in the nostalgia of metaphysics because you can’t bear to face the fact that morality and meaning don’t need the supernatural. They just need honesty—about what we are, how we work, and what actually helps reduce harm and increase human well-being.

That’s not a denial of value. It’s the only way to truly preserve it.

It is like saying that an event depends on a previous event. That events follow from previous events. However, my consciousness creates causal events. And that is all I need to know and to realize. I thought IC explained this well enough 50 pages ago.

I would not use the word “unsavory” to encapsulate what I understand of the consequences of the scientistic religious-like philosophy that you hold to. A big part of my own endeavor (in philosophical-like thought) is to understand the consequences of ideas.

And the ideas you hold to, to which you are committed to with religious belligerency, are extremely destructive to “modes of knowing” and understanding that I value too much to relinquish them to over-mechanical thought.

Nostalgia you say?

[Greek nostos, a return home; see nes- in Indo-European roots + -algia.]

Here you might be onto something, but inadvertently as will likely always be the case with a lopsided existential philosophy.

The longing for home — like Odysseus I will suppose — is deeply seated in human being. And at a philosophical and spiritual level the idea of what home is, and what the Self longs for and what ultimately motivates man — yes, this is really what interests me.

I do not so much retreat weakly into okder forms of seeing and perceiving, as I seek to preserve conceptual pathways to the meanings that have been expressed by men throughout millennia.

You are a (ridiculous!) newcomer to The World, fool! I grant that you (i.e. science-methodology and also scientism) have claimed and also have immense power. But you do not determine, ultimately, what is right, good and productive for man in those arenas dealing with meaning, value and necessity.

Yes, I do not bother with refutation of your argument because they operate within a domain I believe I understand. I have an amphibious relationship to the issues of our time.

That is not nostalgia in your negative sense of badly utilized sentiment however.

My concerns involve issues and concerns that do not, and cannot, appear on your ideational radar. And that is because you are a sheer and absolute atheist and no concept of “god” or of “metaphysical reality” is admitted by you.

In fact, a huge part of your project is in insisting that there is a whole range of concerns and reality-definitions that are false and outmoded, and that you have the right and proper way to understand and explain — everything.

[Alexis Jacobi]

'Belligerent' means hostile and aggressive.

'Philosophy' is what you say, 'belligerence' is how you say it.

Go over your posts and count how often you insult people, how often you make negative personal comments about them, how often you talk down to them.

Yeah, Mike. You see? You are really starting to piss people off. And that makes me doubly angry .

[Alexiev]

Alexiev, you keep swinging wildly, hoping that if you hit enough buzzwords with enough attitude, it'll somehow count as a rebuttal. It doesn’t. What you’ve offered here isn’t a counterargument—it’s a defensive ramble dressed up in faux sophistication, as if name-dropping Lewis Carroll and whining about reductionism makes up for your inability to engage with the core point: your ideas are empty until you define them, ground them, and show how they work.

“Transcendence” and “emergent” are not magic passes that let you skip the hard part of explanation. They’re perfectly fine concepts—when used properly. But you’re not doing that. You’re trying to use “emergent” like a mystical escape hatch—some ethereal domain that language floats up into, safe from the dirty, deterministic hands of neuroscience. Except language doesn’t live in the clouds, Alexiev. It lives in brains, in mouths, in ink, in circuits. Studying how brains produce and process language is part of understanding language. You want to cherry-pick the layers that feel more poetic and pretend the rest are irrelevant. That’s not transcendence. That’s laziness.

And your snide remark—“Did you arrive at that by examining my neurons?”—is the kind of smug nonsense people use when they’re out of arguments. Of course we don’t have to slice your brain open to understand what you’re saying. But your words, thoughts, and behavior are still caused by brain activity. That’s not some cute contradiction. That’s just how causality works. There’s no ghost behind the wheel, no metaphysical puppeteer. Just meat, electricity, experience, and context—interacting in deterministic chains you keep trying to wave away.

Then you stumble into this gem: “Everything has a physical cause. Great! Where does that get us?”

Seriously? That gets us science, Alexiev. It gets us the ability to explain, predict, intervene, and understand the world we live in. If everything has a cause, then knowledge becomes possible. Manipulation becomes possible. Progress becomes possible. If you really believe that saying “everything has a cause” is trivial or unhelpful, you’re either being disingenuous or you’ve missed the last 400 years of human advancement.

Your gambling analogy? Cute, but false. You say determinism is irrelevant because we don’t know the exact outcomes. That’s like saying weather science is useless because we can’t predict the exact temperature five weeks from now. Just because we don’t know the full causal chain doesn’t mean we throw causality out—it means we improve our understanding of it. You want to sit in the fog and say “oh well, it’s all too complex.” Meanwhile, the rest of us are building models and making progress.

And finally, your parting shot: “You are like a religious fanatic.” No, Alexiev. A religious fanatic believes something without evidence and calls it truth. I’m demanding evidence, explanation, and coherence, and calling out those who refuse to provide it. You, on the other hand, are defending unfalsifiable fluff, misusing terms, refusing to define your claims, and throwing tantrums when challenged.

You’re not offering a meaningful worldview. You’re offering a tired dance of deflection, dressed in jargon, sprinkled with arrogance, and hollow at its core.

If this is your best, it’s no wonder you keep falling back on fairy tales and philosophical name-dropping.

Keep dodging. I’ll keep dragging the fog into the light.

Who is that is "dodging"? I (who explain myself clearly) or you (who keep telling me what I mean and getting it wrong).

I don't say determinism is irrelevant because we don't know the exact outcomes. Instead, I say that scientific explanations for anything are useful when they can successfully make predictions or demonstrate causal relationships, and useless when they cannot. Simply repeating that "everything has a cause" (without being able to enumerate or affect that cause) is an example of uselessness. OK. Everything in the universe has been determined by physics since the Big Bang. Big whoop! Where does that get us? Nowhere.

Arguing with you, MIke, is like shooting an unarmed man. Victory is easy. But there's not much glory in it.

p.s. to Belinda. I don't conflate "paranormal" and "supernatural". Instead, I was conflating "supernatural" with "metaphysical" -- based on the roots of the words. Obviously, anything that happens in the physical world (whether normal or paranormal) is not "beyond physics" or "beyond nature". The only way this cannot be correct is (and BigMike is guilty of this) to espouse a (quasi religious) Cosmic Clockmaker theory of the universe, where the "laws" take precedence over physical occurrences. My opinion: physical occurrences create the laws, not the other way around.