Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Belinda]

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 …

Preference for causal determinism is not 'mental absolutism" its basic cause is biological. In other words, causal determinism is what we all do. Alexis is on the defensive for some reason. BTW are you a Roman Catholic?

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

No Mike. The three of you (and now with sidekick Belinda with a beanie and chewing gum) are really there is that alley! The stage for on-going argument — philosophical blood sport par excellence — has actually been set …

… under that buzzing & flickering streetlight casting huge shadows on the alley wall where we onlookers stare, transfixed.

You guys don’t really know where you are.

[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.

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,

There it is again—the smirking retreat. The stylized cynicism. When challenged to engage directly with a serious question, you don’t answer—you caricature. You don’t refute—you mock. And all of it is wrapped in the kind of theatrical detachment that tries to make earnestness look like a flaw.

But I’ll say this plainly:

You still haven’t answered the questions I put to you. Not one.

You haven’t said whether you disagree with the core facts I’ve laid out—that human behavior is caused, that the brain operates under physical law, that our choices emerge from antecedent conditions we didn’t choose.

You haven’t explained what exactly is “missing” from that framework—what metaphysical or poetic gloss you think makes the truth more complete, more coherent, or more useful.

You haven’t pointed to anything I’ve said that is false—only that you find it “absolutist,” or “mathematical,” or that it fails to flatter the lyrical sensibilities you seem to prize over clarity.

And now you want to frame this entire exchange as some pseudo-Calvinist passion play—where I’m a wild-eyed truth-monger raging in the temple, and you’re what exactly? The wistful skeptic? The bemused sage? The chorus of irony watching from the wings?

Give me a break.

I asked you to stay on target. You swerved.

I asked you to engage the ideas. You deflected.

I asked you to clarify your objection. You opted for poetry and snark.

So let me ask again—and I dare you to answer plainly this time:

Do you disagree with the claim that everything we think, feel, and do is caused?

If not, what is your real objection—clarity? Honesty? Following those facts to where they lead?

Because if your problem isn’t with the facts, but only with the style in which they’re presented, then it’s not my worldview you’re resisting—it’s your own implications that you’re unwilling to face.

You keep saying, “Mike, I understand.” But what I see is evasion. What I hear is a man doing verbal gymnastics to avoid putting his worldview on the line.

So no more theater. No more deflection. No more snide applause from the balcony.

What, exactly, do you think I got wrong?
If you can’t answer that, then maybe—just maybe—you’re the one out of moves.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Preference for causal determinism is not 'mental absolutism" it's basic cause is biological.

Not one person has ever proposed that causal determinism is false. Everyone with an opposing argument has focused their critique on other elements. All in the first 10 pages of this thread.

[henry quirk]

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.

Aw, can't we do both: mock you and engage in good-faith dialogue?

I think we can and have.

Speakin' of good-faith dialogue: There are a couple or three responses of mine just up-thread you neglected to tackle. Want me to replicate them?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You still haven’t answered the questions I put to you. Not one.

What I have to say to you flies over your head.

[BigMike]

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.

No Mike. The three of you (and now with sidekick Belinda with a beanie and chewing gum) are really there is that alley! The stage for on-going argument — philosophical blood sport par excellence — has actually been set …

… under that buzzing & flickering streetlight casting huge shadows on the alley wall where we onlookers stare, transfixed.

You guys don’t really know where you are.

Alexis,

You always find a way to dodge, don’t you?

Ask a direct question—get a lantern-lit stage direction. Raise a logical objection—get a metaphor. Try to hold you to account—and you vanish behind yet another layer of theatrical posturing. You're no longer participating in a discussion. You’re putting on a show.

And now, your latest bit: we don’t “know where we are.” Really?

No, Alexis. We know exactly where we are. We’re in the middle of a conversation that, at its heart, is about whether we face reality or decorate it with metaphysical ornaments to avoid discomfort. That’s the whole point. And your response is to retreat into poetic riddles and alleyway shadows.

I get it. Honestly, I do. Clarity can be terrifying. It leaves no room to hide. When you accept that human behavior is entirely caused—no exceptions, no sacred selves—it strips the illusion bare. You either embrace the implications with integrity, or you reach for incense and metaphor to fill the gap.

But here's the thing:

Metaphor doesn’t answer the question. Irony doesn’t address the claim. Performance doesn’t replace proof.

So unless you're ready to actually engage—to say what you think is false, and what you think is true, and why—then maybe it’s time to admit that you're not here for the truth. You're here for the pageantry.

But I’ll leave you with this:

Truth doesn’t care about your prose style.
Reality doesn’t bend to your poetics.
And facts don’t flicker under gas lamps.

They just are. Whether you like the lighting or not.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What, exactly, do you think I got wrong?

Personally, I gather (sense, opine, speculate) that you are “possessed” by something psychological. You correspond to a religious fanatic. You have taken on the role of iconoclast and with zealous energy.

All this I have already expressed! In a dozen different ways and right from the start.

In essence, and perhaps reduced to the very basics, you operate with a radical atheist’s perspective. And those you talk at have a very different experience-set that motivates them to contradict your absolutist sermonizing.

That said, I am myself aware that I personally think that the battles of our age are essentially psychic and psychological. They are not really about pure ideas but much more linked to sentiments, to personality types, to power-dynamics.

Did you ever read that Carlyle quote? Wait, I’ll dig it up …

But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion; or, it may be, his mere scepticism and no-religion: the manner it is in which he feels himself to be spiritually related to the Unseen World or No-World; and I say, if you tell me what that is, you tell me to a very great extent what the man is, what the kind of things he will do is.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Mike, a personal question, not exactly philosophical of course: Did you — just once when a teenager — ever measure your wang-dang?

[Belinda]

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.

No Mike. The three of you (and now with sidekick Belinda with a beanie and chewing gum) are really there is that alley! The stage for on-going argument — philosophical blood sport par excellence — has actually been set …

… under that buzzing & flickering streetlight casting huge shadows on the alley wall where we onlookers stare, transfixed.

You guys don’t really know where you are.

What would you have? Certainty ?

[BigMike]

What, exactly, do you think I got wrong?

Personally, I gather (sense, opine, speculate) that you are “possessed” by something psychological. You correspond to a religious fanatic. You have taken on the role of iconoclast and with zealous energy.

All this I have already expressed! In a dozen different ways and right from the start.

In essence, and perhaps reduced to the very basics, you operate with a radical atheist’s perspective. And those you talk at have a very different experience-set that motivates them to contradict your absolutist sermonizing.

That said, I am myself aware that I personally think that the battles of our age are essentially psychic and psychological. They are not really about pure ideas but much more linked to sentiments, to personality types, to power-dynamics.

Did you ever read that Carlyle quote? Wait, I’ll dig it up …

But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion; or, it may be, his mere scepticism and no-religion: the manner it is in which he feels himself to be spiritually related to the Unseen World or No-World; and I say, if you tell me what that is, you tell me to a very great extent what the man is, what the kind of things he will do is.

Alexis—

You just can’t help yourself, can you? Every time you’re asked a direct question—What do you think I got wrong?—you duck behind a psychoanalytic curtain and start diagnosing “fanaticism” and quoting Carlyle like that’s supposed to mean something in this context.

Let me spell it out for you: I’m tired of your games.

You haven’t answered a single one of my questions. Not once. Instead, you’ve spent this entire conversation playing the aloof mystic, tossing out vague speculations and then pretending you’ve already explained yourself. You haven't. You've just rehearsed your escape act.

You say I’m “possessed by something psychological”? That’s rich coming from someone so allergic to clarity that he needs 19th-century literary crutches just to sidestep a yes-or-no answer.

Your whole schtick is one long evasion dressed up in velvet robes—“poetic temperament,” “psychic battles,” “iconoclasm,” “sentiments”—blah blah blah. It's like arguing with a fog machine.

Well, guess what?

I’m not here to debate your feelings.
I’m not here to chase your metaphors down rabbit holes.
And I’m certainly not here to validate your performance art.

You want to know what I believe? You already do. I’ve laid it out in plain, direct language. No incense. No flickering alley lamps. Just reality, as it is.

But you? You don’t argue. You posture.
You don’t refute. You retreat.
And when cornered, you giggle and claim you were never serious.

It’s exhausting. It’s juvenile. And frankly, it’s beneath the kind of discourse this place should be about.

So unless you're ready to stop performing and actually engage like an adult, I’m done playing your game.

Take your shadows and riddles elsewhere. Some of us came here to think.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So unless you're ready to stop performing and actually engage like an adult, I’m done playing your game.

Wait, after a rather long hiatus you came back and engaged me. I told you: I am not your man (for what you are after which is simply to demonstrate that your physicalist theology is the absolute and irreducible one to have).

I asked you to reveal something of your childhood home. What Christian denomination did you grow up with? What happened there? What holds you back Mike? This seems like an important area.

[Belinda]

What, exactly, do you think I got wrong?

Personally, I gather (sense, opine, speculate) that you are “possessed” by something psychological. You correspond to a religious fanatic. You have taken on the role of iconoclast and with zealous energy.

All this I have already expressed! In a dozen different ways and right from the start.

In essence, and perhaps reduced to the very basics, you operate with a radical atheist’s perspective. And those you talk at have a very different experience-set that motivates them to contradict your absolutist sermonizing.

That said, I am myself aware that I personally think that the battles of our age are essentially psychic and psychological. They are not really about pure ideas but much more linked to sentiments, to personality types, to power-dynamics.

Did you ever read that Carlyle quote? Wait, I’ll dig it up …

But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion; or, it may be, his mere scepticism and no-religion: the manner it is in which he feels himself to be spiritually related to the Unseen World or No-World; and I say, if you tell me what that is, you tell me to a very great extent what the man is, what the kind of things he will do is.

I agree. But here we are trying to learn more and learn better by listening to what others have to say and putting our own ideas and feelings into words.

Beauty is truth and truth beauty, Alexis. Mystification is not beautiful.

[Belinda]

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.

Aw, can't we do both: mock you and engage in good-faith dialogue?

I think we can and have.

Speakin' of good-faith dialogue: There are a couple or three responses of mine just up-thread you neglected to tackle. Want me to replicate them?

No , flippancy is dishonest and uncivil when others are in earnest.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I wonder, Mike, what you genuinely think of the Carlyle quote. Obviously, it (and similar ideas) have affected how I see.

What do others here think? Ben? Mike? Henry? Dubious?

But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion; or, it may be, his mere scepticism and no-religion: the manner it is in which he feels himself to be spiritually related to the Unseen World or No-World; and I say, if you tell me what that is, you tell me to a very great extent what the man is, what the kind of things he will do is.