Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What Mike fails to understand is that it is all interpretive. Or our “relationship to this mysterious universe” is mediated by our psyche. Not altogether by a set of predicates based on Four Physics Facts.

Some things people know at a basic level. And this knowledge is operated. They use it. It is part of their navigation cockpit.

Mike honestly believes that he can justifiably assert a particular set of facts-as-truths
And establish them as a base for a new (revolutionary?) anthropology.

Mike demands to be heard in direct proportion to demonstrating failure to hear (other sides to the issue).

[Belinda]

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.

Freedoms of thought, speech, and association are necessary for a man to identify what he is. Carlyle's theme is freedom.

[henry quirk]

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

I disagree, B. To mock your enemy is honorable.

And: Mike is earnest, yes, but not honest.

[henry quirk]

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.

I believe, on some other occasion when you posted it, I endorsed it. It's spot on.

[henry quirk]

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.

Freedoms of thought, speech, and association are necessary for a man to identify what he is. Carlyle's theme is freedom.

No, B. It's principle.

[Belinda]

What Mike fails to understand is that it is all interpretive. Or our “relationship to this mysterious universe” is mediated by our psyche. Not altogether by a set of predicates based on Four Physics Facts.

Some things people know at a basic level. And this knowledge is operated. They use it. It is part of their navigation cockpit.

Mike honestly believes that he can justifiably assert a particular set of facts-as-truths
And establish them as a base for a new (revolutionary?) anthropology.

Mike demands to be heard in direct proportion to demonstrating failure to hear (other sides to the issue).

But history is not totally interpretative. Besides their interpretation, theories include scientific facts .

[Belinda]

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?

Freedoms of thought, speech, and association are necessary for a man to identify what he is. Carlyle's theme is freedom.

No, B. It's principle.

Is it possible to be sure these are good principles unless they are forged in a conscience that is free to think, speak, and associate?

[Belinda]

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

I disagree, B. To mock your enemy is honorable.

And: Mike is earnest, yes, but not honest.

Why have you made enemies of Mike and me?

I trust this website takes great care to make sure we are all human.

[BigMike]

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.

Sure, Alexis—I’ll respond to Carlyle. Because buried in that passage, beneath the Victorian phrasing and the spiritual window dressing, is actually a scientifically accurate observation—just dressed up in metaphysical robes.

When Carlyle says that the thing a person “lays to heart” about their relation to the universe ends up creatively determining everything else they do—he’s right. That internalized worldview does shape action, perception, behavior, and even emotional response. But what he didn’t know—and what you routinely pretend doesn’t exist—is why that happens.

It happens because that worldview—the belief about one’s “vital relations to the universe”—gets physically wired into the brain.
Literally. Physically. Mechanistically.

Neurons that fire together wire together. Beliefs are not wisps of soul—they’re electrochemical patterns. They are axons sprouting new terminals, dendrites branching out, synapses strengthening through repetition and reinforcement. Your “practical beliefs” are biological structures formed over time through exposure, reward, repetition, and emotional salience.

So yes, Carlyle’s right in his 19th-century poetic way: tell me what a man believes about the universe, and I’ll tell you a lot about how he lives.
But now, we can go deeper. We can tell you how those beliefs formed.
We can watch it in real time, under a microscope, or in fMRI.
We can alter it—through trauma, learning, therapy, propaganda, drugs, or disease.

What Carlyle called a man’s “religion,” neuroscience calls a neural schema.
And unlike Carlyle, we don’t have to guess at it. We can test it, observe it, change it.
Which is exactly what you’ve spent this entire thread refusing to do.

So yes—worldviews matter.
And yes—they determine behavior.
But no—it isn’t spiritual.
It’s cellular.
It’s real.
And it’s governed by cause and effect like everything else in the universe.

So thanks for quoting Carlyle. You accidentally strengthened my case.

[henry quirk]

Is it possible to be sure these are good principles unless they are forged in a conscience that is free to think, speak, and associate?

B, there's nuthin' in this...

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.

...that has anything to do with good. And when I say principle I mean, same as Carlyle, what undergirds and drives a person.

[henry quirk]

Why have you made enemies of Mike and me?

You're determinists; I'm a free will. You'd have me be less; I'd have you both be more.

There's no middle ground for us.

[Belinda]

Is it possible to be sure these are good principles unless they are forged in a conscience that is free to think, speak, and associate?

B, there's nuthin' in this...

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.

...that has anything to do with good. And when I say principle I mean, same as Carlyle, what undergirds and drives a person.

I know you do.
So does Carlyle:"----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------" . Freedom is primary because, if you are not free you are an imitation of something that is not you.

[Belinda]

Why have you made enemies of Mike and me?

You're determinists; I'm a free will. You'd have me be less; I'd have you both be more.

There's no middle ground for us.

Thanks. Your heart is in the right place. You simply don't understand what philosophers mean by 'free will'. The phrase 'free will' belongs in philosophical jargon.

If you would stop saying "free will" and instead say "freedom " and "free" then I'd agree with you.

[henry quirk]

Freedom is primary because, if you are not free you are an imitation of something that is not you.

You are, of course, free to interpret the quote as you like. I think you're wrong, though.

[henry quirk]

You simply don't understand what philosophers mean by 'free will'.

I know exactly what I'm about when I refer to myself, or you, or Mike, as a free will. And what I'm about is perfectly in keeping with libertarian free will/agent causality.