Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Atla]

It's a question that never fails to fascinate and frustrate in equal measure. Why is it that religious adherents, who often champion their beliefs as rooted in truth, so vehemently reject scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview? Take determinism, for instance. Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws. There’s no room for free will in this framework. Every thought, every action, every choice we believe we make is a product of these deterministic processes.

And yet, so many religious doctrines cling to the idea of free will as if it’s a gift from their deity, a cornerstone of moral responsibility. But let’s face it: free will, as traditionally understood, is about as plausible as a flat Earth. It defies the very laws of physics and neuroscience.

Why, then, does this cognitive dissonance persist? Could it be that religious institutions thrive on the illusion of free will because it allows them to enforce moral codes, assign blame, and justify eternal rewards or punishments? After all, a deterministic universe leaves no room for sin, no room for divine judgment, and no room for the comforting, if delusional, notion that we control our destiny.

Let’s unpack this. How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws? Why do they resist scientific findings, like the absence of free will, that challenge these beliefs? And what does it say about the human condition that so many prefer comforting illusions to uncomfortable truths?

I’d love to hear your thoughts—especially if you think there’s a way to bridge this gap between religious belief and scientific reality.

Many religious people don't reject science but interpret findings through their beliefs. The tension often arises when science challenges ideas like free will, which is central to moral responsibility and divine judgment in many religions. For many, free will provides comfort and meaning, offering a sense of control and purpose. Some religious thinkers reconcile this with science by embracing compatibilism, which suggests free will and determinism can coexist. Ultimately, the gap between religion and science is often about emotional comfort and control, and bridging it may require understanding both perspectives.

Looks like a bot

[Atla]

They require interactions—physical ones. Measurement doesn’t need a soul. It just needs a system capable of absorbing information.

Seeds's nonsense aside where we can get a Ferrari out of the wavefunction of a potato.

Yes it's all physical, but apart from that, no one knows what a measurement actually is in physics. "Information" is almost certainly just an abstract concept, it can't be absorbed, that's just handwaving. "Interaction" is also just handwaving as the universe isn't made of distinct interacting parts, and how is it that they can put say a buckyball into superposition when it has many internal interactions. Gravity is also an interaction and it doesn't seem to effect superpositions. Maybe it has something to do with irreversible energy transfer (change) from a certain perspective (for example from the perspective of a certain part of human consciousness), don't know.

[attofishpi]

They require interactions—physical ones. Measurement doesn’t need a soul. It just needs a system capable of absorbing information.

Seeds's nonsense aside where we can get a Ferrari out of the wavefunction of a potato.

Absolute gold!

[popeye1945]

The religious can forever be preoccupied with things that don't exist. Others have better things to do.

EXCELLENT! That's mine from now on----lol!!

[seeds]

Henry, let’s get something straight: you’re not “opposing me.” You’re opposing reality—cause, effect, physics, neuroscience, and everything else that makes sense of the world without invoking ghosts or cosmic whispers....

...your whole post reeks of projection. You accuse me of being in “the void,” but you're the one terrified of a world that doesn’t bend to human fantasy. You're so afraid of determinism that you’d rather invent metaphysical fluff than deal with the simple, humbling truth: we are caused, through and through. That doesn’t make us meaningless. It makes us real.

So no—I’m not in a pit. I’m standing on solid ground....

And right there, BigMike (in that enlarged and bolded last sentence), is where you demonstrate that you just haven't gone deep enough into the study and exploration of the workings of the universe.

For it is obvious that your entire focus is on the thin (and outer) "veneer" of reality...

(of which physicist David Bohm calls the "Explicate Order")

...while completely ignoring what Bohm calls the "Implicate Order."

And the point is that by ignoring the "Implicate Order" of reality,...

(or at least by not recognizing and emphasizing the importance of its "noumenal-like" relationship to the "Explicate Order")

...you present yourself as seeming to be completely oblivious to the fact that the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on...

(at least according to certain interpretations of quantum physics)

...is nothing more than a "holographic-like" projection from a deeper level of reality that Bohm not only calls the "Implicate Order," but he also calls it the "Holomovement."

Bohm calls it the "Holomovement" because it is theorized...

(via experiment, and by reason of the implications of Schrödinger's equation)

...to consist of moving and roiling...

(holographic-like, as in interpenetrating/entangled/superpositioned, yet highly correlated)

...patterns of energy and information that underpin and delineate the very structure and phenomenal appearance of the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on that, again, according to certain interpretations of quantum physics,...

...might not even exist as "...solid ground..." were it not for the presence of consciousness "explicating" its phenomenal features into 3-D reality from the patterns of information.

And the fact that you place so little importance on the role that minds and their conscious "agents" play in your deterministic theory, indeed, implying that such "agents" don't even exist,...

...clearly shows me that, again, you simply haven't moved past the "veneer" of what we call "reality" and gone deep enough into the workings of this universe in order to realize that were it not for mind and matter -- working together in tandem -- then this "Great Machine" wouldn't (couldn't) even exist.
_______

You invoke David Bohm’s “Implicate Order” and the concept of a “holomovement” as if they overturn the basic, well-evidenced conclusion of determinism. But let’s be very clear: Bohm’s work was speculative—a philosophical extension of quantum theory, not a demonstrable rejection of physical causality.

Well, all I can say is, unlike you, with your "shut up and calculate" mentality, Bohm didn't ignore the mysteries that were arising from the science of quantum mechanics.

And although they may have been speculative and philosophical in nature, he at least made an effort to come up with some "possible explanations" for the strange behavior of the quantum realm.

You’ve taken Bohm’s rich metaphors and turned them into a mystical smokescreen, dressing them up with words like “noumenal,” “holographic,” “interpenetrating,” and “explicating,” without ever confronting what the rest of the scientific community has made quite plain...

I'm sorry, BigMike, but you just don't seem to understand what Bohm's "...rich metaphors..." actually mean.

As always, just for funzies, I ran this past ChatGPT (some resizing, bolding, and one minor word correction in my question, mine)...

Me:
Physicist David Bohm not only referred to the quantum realm as being the "Implicate Order," but he also referred to it as being the "Holomovement." Why did he call it the "Holomovement"?

ChatGPT:
David Bohm referred to the quantum realm as the "Holomovement" as part of his attempt to describe a radically new vision of reality—one that is dynamic, interconnected, and holistic. Let’s break down why he used that term specifically:

1. "Holo" = Wholeness
The prefix holo- comes from the Greek word holos, meaning whole. Bohm believed that the universe is fundamentally undivided and that the apparent separateness we perceive in classical physics is an illusion. Everything is interconnected in a deeper, underlying order.

He was influenced by the hologram as a metaphor: in a hologram, each part contains the whole. He thought this illustrated how the universe might work at the quantum level—that every point in space could contain information about the entire cosmos.

2. "Movement" = Process, Not Static Being
The second part, movement, reflects his belief that reality is not made up of static "things" but is rather an ongoing, dynamic process. In contrast to the traditional view of particles as isolated entities, Bohm envisioned reality as constant flow and change, where even particles are temporary abstractions of deeper processes.

He emphasized process over structure, and the Holomovement represents this flowing, unfolding, and enfolding activity of the universe.

3. Unified Process of Implicate and Explicate Orders
The Holomovement includes both:

• The Implicate Order (the deeper, hidden order of enfolded reality), and
  
  The Explicate Order (the unfolded, manifest world we perceive).

Bohm saw these two as not separate but rather aspects of a single, unbroken whole—the Holomovement is the totality of that process. It’s the ground from which all orders emerge.

In summary:
David Bohm called it the Holomovement because he wanted to convey that:

• Reality is a whole (not fragmented),
  
  It is fundamentally movement (not static),
  
  And everything we observe is part of a deeper, dynamic and unified process.

Again, you just don't seem to understand what Bohm's "...rich metaphors..." actually mean, or why he used them.

And that's a problem that comes from being so closed-minded about such things.

You say I haven’t gone deep enough, but all I hear from you is a poetic layer atop a reality you don’t seem comfortable looking at directly. That’s not “deep.” That’s evasion dressed as insight.

Are you kidding me?

You are the master of evasion.

I can't keep track of how many of my posts you've ignored (evaded).

This one, for example, from a couple of days ago...

viewtopic.php?p=764635#p764635

-------

Now, let me address your claim that “conscious agents” are required for reality to exist. This is the same tired misreading of quantum mechanics that’s been parroted since the 1970s—typically by those who want physics to sound more like spirituality. But quantum decoherence, entanglement, and observer effects don’t require consciousness to “collapse” anything. They require interactions—physical ones. Measurement doesn’t need a soul. It just needs a system capable of absorbing information.

Again, you don't seem to be fully informed on some of these issues.

So, to bring you up to speed, according to Wiki (emphasis mine)...

"...Decoherence was first introduced in 1970 by the German physicist H Dieter Zeh and has been a subject of active research since the 1980s. Decoherence has been developed into a complete framework, but it does not solve the measurement problem, as the founders of decoherence theory admit in their seminal papers....Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse...."

So, no, there has been no resolution to the "measurement problem" in terms of pinning down precisely what it is that causes the collapse of the wave-function.
_______

[attofishpi]

The religious can forever be preoccupied with things that don't exist. Others have better things to do.

EXCELLENT! That's mine from now on----lol!!

Great - that makes another two to the clan of the extremely short of sight people.

[BigMike]

Mike,

I think you're interested in truth & wisdom.
Sadly, that sets you apart -
even on a philosophy forum.

Many are not interested in truth,
they're interested in security.

Your capacity to present truth threatens them,
as their security does not rest upon truth.

Truth reveals their volatility.

Alone, they'll likely squirm -
but together, like hyenas,
they'll try to circle you,
try to smother you with falsehood -
and if you become exhausted,
that's when they'll go for the throat.

To eliminate you,
by any tactic,
allows them to declare falsehood truth.
Allows them to declare the strength of their falsehood,
when all they established was the weakness of flesh.

Truth does not die.
Regardless of if not one speaks it.

They're not obeying the principles you are,
they're on a different path -
as you recognize, the path of truth scares them.

They do not know what they're doing -
they ignorantly lash out,
because they're frightened animals.

Not realizing their thrashing,
is carving out the pit,
that they'll starve in.

-

Fortunately, you're not obligated to play their 'game'.
If they were genuinely interested in truth,
they could research the insincere questions they pose -
but they wont do that, they're not interested in the response.
They demand YOU, respond to every intellectual dishonesty they can muster.
Why? To overwhelm you.
Again, they believe overwhelming you is equivalent to establishing the contents of their beliefs.
And again, all it would establish is the capacity for a majority to overwhelm a minority.

To listen, evaluate and explain takes energy/effort.
These are finite resources.
If you deplete these resources on their falsehoods,
you've gained nothing, and they've ensured their security.

I suggest focusing your energy on discovering, defining & living by truth.
It builds upon itself and empowers those who align with it.
That is not wasted energy.

The greater that monument of truth,
the more falsehood that will be revealed by it's light.

I encourage you to exercise prudence in your allocation of energy.
It's not a race.

-

You have demonstrated a strong capacity to speak for yourself,
and you can exercise your own judgement as to how to proceed.
Don't let me stop you from pursuing your vision.

It may very well be easy for you to maintain producing responses,
and if the length of this thread is anything to go by,
you've again demonstrated your aptitude in this area.

Ben, I appreciate this more than you probably know.

Your words cut through the noise like a blade—sharp, steady, and honest. You saw the dynamics here exactly for what they are: not a debate over facts, but a psychological rebellion against reality itself. And when someone refuses to take the leap into truth, they try to drag the messenger back into the illusion. It’s not just resistance. It’s survival instinct. Because when you’ve built your identity on fantasy, facts feel like violence.

But you’re right: truth doesn’t die. It doesn’t need applause, consensus, or comfort. It just needs clarity, and enough courage to say: This is what the evidence shows, no matter how unsettling. That’s the only path to wisdom. And it’s the only path that builds something worth standing on.

I won’t waste much more breath on the hyenas. I’ve seen how they operate. But I also know that every honest word spoken—every clear idea articulated—builds something real. A place for others to stand. A place where one person, tired of fairy tales and contradictions, might finally stop running from what they already know to be true.

Thank you for seeing the difference. And thank you for standing in the light.

[BigMike]

They require interactions—physical ones. Measurement doesn’t need a soul. It just needs a system capable of absorbing information.

Seeds's nonsense aside where we can get a Ferrari out of the wavefunction of a potato.

Yes it's all physical, but apart from that, no one knows what a measurement actually is in physics. "Information" is almost certainly just an abstract concept, it can't be absorbed, that's just handwaving. "Interaction" is also just handwaving as the universe isn't made of distinct interacting parts, and how is it that they can put say a buckyball into superposition when it has many internal interactions. Gravity is also an interaction and it doesn't seem to effect superpositions. Maybe it has something to do with irreversible energy transfer (change) from a certain perspective (for example from the perspective of a certain part of human consciousness), don't know.

Atla, you're absolutely right to highlight this: physics has a measurement problem. It has many problems, and frankly, that’s what makes it such a powerful, honest discipline. Unlike metaphysics or theology, science doesn’t pretend to know with absolute certainty. In fact, it openly admits it never will.

That’s the beauty of the hypothetico-deductive method. Science doesn’t deal in final truths—it deals in models that make predictions. And when those predictions match what we observe, we update our confidence. But it’s always conditional, always provisional. That’s why physicists argue about wavefunction collapse, or what counts as a “measurement,” or whether information is ontological or epistemic. These aren’t weaknesses—they’re features of a system that refuses to lie to itself.

And yes, terms like “interaction” or “information” often get tossed around with a kind of casual confidence, but deep down we know: they’re models, not reality. Useful approximations. Shorthand for phenomena we don’t fully understand. The fact that a buckyball can enter superposition despite its internal complexity should shock us—but instead, we learn from it. We refine the model. And even if we can’t fully define “measurement,” we can still observe what triggers collapse, what yields decoherence, and under what conditions those patterns repeat.

This is where Bayesian reasoning shines. It acknowledges our ignorance, and says: Given what we’ve seen, what’s most likely? Not what’s “True” with a capital T—but what’s most consistent with everything we’ve tested so far. That humility, baked into the very core of science, is why it works—and why it keeps working, while other systems freeze in the comfort of certainty.

So yeah: the gaps are real. The unknowns are vast. But science keeps walking toward them—with open eyes and open hands. That’s not weakness. That’s integrity.

[BigMike]

And right there, BigMike (in that enlarged and bolded last sentence), is where you demonstrate that you just haven't gone deep enough into the study and exploration of the workings of the universe.

For it is obvious that your entire focus is on the thin (and outer) "veneer" of reality...

(of which physicist David Bohm calls the "Explicate Order")

...while completely ignoring what Bohm calls the "Implicate Order."

And the point is that by ignoring the "Implicate Order" of reality,...

(or at least by not recognizing and emphasizing the importance of its "noumenal-like" relationship to the "Explicate Order")

...you present yourself as seeming to be completely oblivious to the fact that the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on...

(at least according to certain interpretations of quantum physics)

...is nothing more than a "holographic-like" projection from a deeper level of reality that Bohm not only calls the "Implicate Order," but he also calls it the "Holomovement."

Bohm calls it the "Holomovement" because it is theorized...

(via experiment, and by reason of the implications of Schrödinger's equation)

...to consist of moving and roiling...

(holographic-like, as in interpenetrating/entangled/superpositioned, yet highly correlated)

...patterns of energy and information that underpin and delineate the very structure and phenomenal appearance of the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on that, again, according to certain interpretations of quantum physics,...

...might not even exist as "...solid ground..." were it not for the presence of consciousness "explicating" its phenomenal features into 3-D reality from the patterns of information.

And the fact that you place so little importance on the role that minds and their conscious "agents" play in your deterministic theory, indeed, implying that such "agents" don't even exist,...

...clearly shows me that, again, you simply haven't moved past the "veneer" of what we call "reality" and gone deep enough into the workings of this universe in order to realize that were it not for mind and matter -- working together in tandem -- then this "Great Machine" wouldn't (couldn't) even exist.
_______

You invoke David Bohm’s “Implicate Order” and the concept of a “holomovement” as if they overturn the basic, well-evidenced conclusion of determinism. But let’s be very clear: Bohm’s work was speculative—a philosophical extension of quantum theory, not a demonstrable rejection of physical causality.

Well, all I can say is, unlike you, with your "shut up and calculate" mentality, Bohm didn't ignore the mysteries that were arising from the science of quantum mechanics.

And although they may have been speculative and philosophical in nature, he at least made an effort to come up with some "possible explanations" for the strange behavior of the quantum realm.

You’ve taken Bohm’s rich metaphors and turned them into a mystical smokescreen, dressing them up with words like “noumenal,” “holographic,” “interpenetrating,” and “explicating,” without ever confronting what the rest of the scientific community has made quite plain...

I'm sorry, BigMike, but you just don't seem to understand what Bohm's "...rich metaphors..." actually mean.

As always, just for funzies, I ran this past ChatGPT (some resizing, bolding, and one minor word correction in my question, mine)...

Me:
Physicist David Bohm not only referred to the quantum realm as being the "Implicate Order," but he also referred to it as being the "Holomovement." Why did he call it the "Holomovement"?

ChatGPT:
David Bohm referred to the quantum realm as the "Holomovement" as part of his attempt to describe a radically new vision of reality—one that is dynamic, interconnected, and holistic. Let’s break down why he used that term specifically:

1. "Holo" = Wholeness
The prefix holo- comes from the Greek word holos, meaning whole. Bohm believed that the universe is fundamentally undivided and that the apparent separateness we perceive in classical physics is an illusion. Everything is interconnected in a deeper, underlying order.

He was influenced by the hologram as a metaphor: in a hologram, each part contains the whole. He thought this illustrated how the universe might work at the quantum level—that every point in space could contain information about the entire cosmos.

2. "Movement" = Process, Not Static Being
The second part, movement, reflects his belief that reality is not made up of static "things" but is rather an ongoing, dynamic process. In contrast to the traditional view of particles as isolated entities, Bohm envisioned reality as constant flow and change, where even particles are temporary abstractions of deeper processes.

He emphasized process over structure, and the Holomovement represents this flowing, unfolding, and enfolding activity of the universe.

3. Unified Process of Implicate and Explicate Orders
The Holomovement includes both:

• The Implicate Order (the deeper, hidden order of enfolded reality), and
  
  The Explicate Order (the unfolded, manifest world we perceive).

Bohm saw these two as not separate but rather aspects of a single, unbroken whole—the Holomovement is the totality of that process. It’s the ground from which all orders emerge.

In summary:
David Bohm called it the Holomovement because he wanted to convey that:

• Reality is a whole (not fragmented),
  
  It is fundamentally movement (not static),
  
  And everything we observe is part of a deeper, dynamic and unified process.

Again, you just don't seem to understand what Bohm's "...rich metaphors..." actually mean, or why he used them.

And that's a problem that comes from being so closed-minded about such things.

You say I haven’t gone deep enough, but all I hear from you is a poetic layer atop a reality you don’t seem comfortable looking at directly. That’s not “deep.” That’s evasion dressed as insight.

Are you kidding me?

You are the master of evasion.

I can't keep track of how many of my posts you've ignored (evaded).

This one, for example, from a couple of days ago...

viewtopic.php?p=764635#p764635

-------

Now, let me address your claim that “conscious agents” are required for reality to exist. This is the same tired misreading of quantum mechanics that’s been parroted since the 1970s—typically by those who want physics to sound more like spirituality. But quantum decoherence, entanglement, and observer effects don’t require consciousness to “collapse” anything. They require interactions—physical ones. Measurement doesn’t need a soul. It just needs a system capable of absorbing information.

Again, you don't seem to be fully informed on some of these issues.

So, to bring you up to speed, according to Wiki (emphasis mine)...

"...Decoherence was first introduced in 1970 by the German physicist H Dieter Zeh and has been a subject of active research since the 1980s. Decoherence has been developed into a complete framework, but it does not solve the measurement problem, as the founders of decoherence theory admit in their seminal papers....Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse...."

So, no, there has been no resolution to the "measurement problem" in terms of pinning down precisely what it is that causes the collapse of the wave-function.
_______

Seeds, I appreciate your willingness to engage with Bohm’s ideas and push the conversation into deeper terrain—truly. And you’re right to point out that physics, for all its rigor, still wrestles with the measurement problem, the ontology of the wavefunction, and the philosophical implications of quantum theory. There’s no denying that.

But here's the essential difference between our approaches: science acknowledges its limits. It admits that it doesn't have all the answers. It doesn’t wrap its uncertainty in mysticism—it puts it on the table, in full view. That’s what makes science powerful: it’s not about certainty, it’s about probability, inference, and the long, slow refinement of ideas through testable prediction.

You quote ChatGPT on Bohm’s holomovement—nicely done. Yes, Bohm proposed a richly imaginative framework. And yes, the implicate order offers a poetic and possibly valuable metaphor for understanding hidden structure and interconnectivity. But even Bohm knew this wasn’t a replacement for physical law—it was a supplemental interpretation. Not a falsification of determinism, but an alternative lens on how determinism might manifest at quantum scales.

Now, to the heart of the issue:

“...but it does not solve the measurement problem...”

You're right. Decoherence doesn’t solve the measurement problem. It describes how quantum coherence vanishes through entanglement with an environment—but it doesn’t pinpoint a mechanism for why a single outcome is experienced. This is still debated. But that’s not a secret. It’s not a weakness. It’s part of science’s honesty. Physics doesn’t claim to know everything. It never did.

Unlike dogma or metaphysical speculation, science says: “We don’t know, but we’re working on it—and here’s how far we’ve gotten.” Through Bayesian inference, through empirical testing, through iteration, we get closer and closer to describing how things behave, even if we never know, in an absolute sense, why. That’s what it means to seek truth without pretending to possess it.

So yes, you’re right: the ground beneath our feet may be more complex than Newton ever dreamed. But until someone shows a reliable, testable, falsifiable way to turn “holomovement” into a model that predicts results better than the current standard models, it remains speculative—inspiring, maybe, but still on the periphery of science, not at its core.

And let me be clear: I’m not against wonder. I’m not against poetry. I’m just committed to separating what we wish were true from what has been demonstrated to hold up under the pressure of evidence.

That’s not shutting down inquiry. That’s protecting it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

[BigMike]

Yes, caveman, Alexis has been joking this whole time.
Every single post, one big joke. Haha, funny joke.
Describing their words as a joke isn't back peddling, hahaha.

Mike threw the first punch, in multiple threads. He set the stage. We, who oppose him, we're supposed to extend the olive branch? Reach across the aisle? Open a dialogue? Compromise?

Hell no.

And this was your extension of the joke.
Hahaha, very funny.

and he was offended

caveman knows what feeling offended is, hahaha.
caveman doesn't know disappointment, no dignity.. hahaha.
caveman see what caveman do.. hahaha.

caveman definitely knew Alexis was 'joking', hahaha.
caveman not fooled, hahaha.

Exactly—thank you, Ben. That "just joking" deflection? It's the oldest dodge in the book. It's what people fall back on when they realize they've said something indefensible, but don't have the spine to admit it. Instead of owning the failure, they pretend it was satire. Or irony. Or performance art. Anything to avoid accountability.

I grew up with that kind of behavior too. The moment things got real—when they got caught misrepresenting, contradicting, or stumbling over their own logic—they’d twist, laugh, and turn it into a performance: "What? You thought I was serious? Wow, you're dumber than I thought." The aim wasn't truth—it was domination through misdirection.

But the thing is, that works when you're twelve. Maybe. Among adults? On a forum for philosophy? We should expect more. We should expect intellectual courage—the kind that doesn’t run and hide behind a smirk when challenged, but actually faces the implications of its own views.

If Alexis, Henry, and others want to mock and posture, fine. But they don't get to do that and then pretend they're engaging in good-faith dialogue. You can’t sit in the dunk tank and then complain when you get wet.

So yeah, let’s hold the bar where it belongs: truth over theater. Reason over ego. And maturity over schoolyard antics.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Mike,

I think you're interested in truth & wisdom. Sadly, that sets you apart — even on a philosophy forum.

Many are not interested in truth, they're interested in security.

Your capacity to present truth threatens them, as their security does not rest upon truth.

Truth reveals their volatility.

Alone, they'll likely squirm — but together, like hyenas, they'll try to circle you, try to smother you with falsehood — and if you become exhausted, that's when they'll go for the throat.

To eliminate you, by any tactic,
allows them to declare falsehood truth. Allows them to declare the strength of their falsehood, when all they established was the weakness of flesh.

Truth does not die. Regardless of if not one speaks it.

They're not obeying the principles you are, they're on a different path — as you recognize, the path of truth scares them.

They do not know what they're doing -
they ignorantly lash out, because they're frightened animals.

Not realizing their thrashing, is carving out the pit, that they'll starve in.

Fortunately, you're not obligated to play their 'game'. If they were genuinely interested in truth, they could research the insincere questions they pose — but they wont do that, they're not interested in the response. They demand YOU, respond to every intellectual dishonesty they can muster. Why? To overwhelm you.

Again, they believe overwhelming you is equivalent to establishing the contents of their beliefs. And again, all it would establish is the capacity for a majority to overwhelm a minority.

To listen, evaluate and explain takes energy/effort. These are finite resources. If you deplete these resources on their falsehoods, you've gained nothing, and they've ensured their security.

I suggest focusing your energy on discovering, defining & living by truth. It builds upon itself and empowers those who align with it. That is not wasted energy.

The greater that monument of truth, the more falsehood that will be revealed by it's light.

I encourage you to exercise prudence in your allocation of energy. It's not a race.

You have demonstrated a strong capacity to speak for yourself, and you can exercise your own judgement as to how to proceed. Don't let me stop you from pursuing your vision.

It may very well be easy for you to maintain producing responses, and if the length of this thread is anything to go by, you've again demonstrated your aptitude in this area.

Again, this is psycho-religious sermonizing. It mimics a sort of Calvinist style. It is reverse-Christian-Evangelical but just as furious, just as certain of its absolutisms.

Mike, the Prophet, is surrounded by the demonic-ignorant. They must know that he has “the truth” but they refuse to see it. Like Jesus among the money-changers their “interest” is in security.

The Prophet comes either severe, mathematical, doctrines of truth about the true nature of Reality. But the denizens are committed to trapping poor long-struggling Mike in the mires.

I am sure you could continue forward yourself now that you’ve captured the “meme behind the scene”.

Mental absolutism sets up an absolutist game which, by its definition, only it can win!

Mike is “more grateful than you can know!”

Horseshit of course …

[Alexis Jacobi]

I grew up with that kind of behavior too. The moment things got real—when they got caught misrepresenting, contradicting, or stumbling over their own logic—they’d twist, laugh, and turn it into a performance: "What? You thought I was serious? Wow, you're dumber than I thought." The aim wasn't truth—it was domination through misdirection.

Can you speak more about your childhood? What Christian denomination did you grow up in?

[Belinda]

Henry, let’s get something straight: you’re not “opposing me.” You’re opposing reality—cause, effect, physics, neuroscience, and everything else that makes sense of the world without invoking ghosts or cosmic whispers....

...your whole post reeks of projection. You accuse me of being in “the void,” but you're the one terrified of a world that doesn’t bend to human fantasy. You're so afraid of determinism that you’d rather invent metaphysical fluff than deal with the simple, humbling truth: we are caused, through and through. That doesn’t make us meaningless. It makes us real.

So no—I’m not in a pit. I’m standing on solid ground....

And right there, BigMike (in that enlarged and bolded last sentence), is where you demonstrate that you just haven't gone deep enough into the study and exploration of the workings of the universe.

For it is obvious that your entire focus is on the thin (and outer) "veneer" of reality...

(of which physicist David Bohm calls the "Explicate Order")

...while completely ignoring what Bohm calls the "Implicate Order."

And the point is that by ignoring the "Implicate Order" of reality,...

(or at least by not recognizing and emphasizing the importance of its "noumenal-like" relationship to the "Explicate Order")

...you present yourself as seeming to be completely oblivious to the fact that the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on...

(at least according to certain interpretations of quantum physics)

...is nothing more than a "holographic-like" projection from a deeper level of reality that Bohm not only calls the "Implicate Order," but he also calls it the "Holomovement."

Bohm calls it the "Holomovement" because it is theorized...

(via experiment, and by reason of the implications of Schrödinger's equation)

...to consist of moving and roiling...

(holographic-like, as in interpenetrating/entangled/superpositioned, yet highly correlated)

...patterns of energy and information that underpin and delineate the very structure and phenomenal appearance of the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on that, again, according to certain interpretations of quantum physics,...

...might not even exist as "...solid ground..." were it not for the presence of consciousness "explicating" its phenomenal features into 3-D reality from the patterns of information.

And the fact that you place so little importance on the role that minds and their conscious "agents" play in your deterministic theory, indeed, implying that such "agents" don't even exist,...

...clearly shows me that, again, you simply haven't moved past the "veneer" of what we call "reality" and gone deep enough into the workings of this universe in order to realize that were it not for mind and matter -- working together in tandem -- then this "Great Machine" wouldn't (couldn't) even exist.
_______

Seeds, I appreciate that you’re at least trying to engage with scientific ideas rather than clinging to Bronze Age theology—but we need to talk about what you’re doing with those ideas.

You invoke David Bohm’s “Implicate Order” and the concept of a “holomovement” as if they overturn the basic, well-evidenced conclusion of determinism. But let’s be very clear: Bohm’s work was speculative—a philosophical extension of quantum theory, not a demonstrable rejection of physical causality. You’ve taken Bohm’s rich metaphors and turned them into a mystical smokescreen, dressing them up with words like “noumenal,” “holographic,” “interpenetrating,” and “explicating,” without ever confronting what the rest of the scientific community has made quite plain:

The world still works on cause and effect.
The brain still runs on physical processes.
Nothing about Bohm’s ideas breaks the laws of thermodynamics, conservation, or the principle that all interactions occur through the four fundamental forces.

You say I haven’t gone deep enough, but all I hear from you is a poetic layer atop a reality you don’t seem comfortable looking at directly. That’s not “deep.” That’s evasion dressed as insight.

Now, let me address your claim that “conscious agents” are required for reality to exist. This is the same tired misreading of quantum mechanics that’s been parroted since the 1970s—typically by those who want physics to sound more like spirituality. But quantum decoherence, entanglement, and observer effects don’t require consciousness to “collapse” anything. They require interactions—physical ones. Measurement doesn’t need a soul. It just needs a system capable of absorbing information.

You say I'm missing what lies “beneath” the solid ground. But here's the irony: I see what's beneath it. I just don’t pretend it’s magic. I don’t call it “deep” when it’s really just vague. And I don’t mistake mystery for license to invent.

So if you want to explore the implications of quantum theory and complexity—great. But don’t use that curiosity as an excuse to reject everything we already know about causality, physics, and the complete absence of anything like metaphysical free will.

The universe is not waiting for us to “explicate” it.
It’s moving, interacting, unfolding—regardless of whether anyone notices. And yes, we’re part of that movement. We matter. But not because we float above causality. We matter because we are embedded in it.

You want reality to be participatory. That’s fine. But the real participation isn’t in conjuring up the world from some psychic interface. It’s in recognizing the truth, and living in a way that honors it.

And that, my friend, doesn’t require a holomovement. Just courage.

I agree we are embedded in causality; time, space,and force apply to us as to every other individual or species.

We differ from other species in that human language mediates abstract symbols to a significant degree to which e.g. Border collies , or e.g. great apes , don't measure up to.
Being able to abstract symbols 'frees ' us to 'transcend' quantities and seek qualities.

Our human nature is not one of noble simplicity like that of other species, but is free to invent cultural realities. This freedom is a poisoned chalice and for the sake of prudence we can't have recourse to evasions and wishful thinking. Our holy triad of good, truth, and beauty is a product of human language. However the concept of good, truth, and beauty as holy triad was always Cosmic possibility ready to be tapped.
David Bohm is determinist : he is not fatalist.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ben: You have demonstrated a strong capacity to speak for yourself, and you can exercise your own judgement as to how to proceed. Don't let me stop you from pursuing your vision.

It may very well be easy for you to maintain producing responses, and if the length of this thread is anything to go by, you've again demonstrated your aptitude in this area.

Myself, I am still waiting for the BigMike/Promethean collaboration. The synthesis of materialist Marxism with the Doctrines of Brain Science and The Four Physics Functions!

You’ve gotta develop some basis textbooks since you-plural have in your possession the Absolute and Pure Truth about Life here. You guys not only know but you really know!

The Providence of Determinism’s truth — a sort of realized Spirit whose oracles you are — has finally revealed itself … in two miraculous men!

Do you idiots have any fucking idea how amazingly humorous all this is?!

(You DON’T and so it magnifies in hilariousness!)