Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Pistolero]

You say the act — the phenomenon — is the boundary. And I agree: definitions should ultimately refer back to some kind of observable or testable act in the world. That’s what makes them meaningful. But where we differ is this: not all appearances are equally informative, and not all definitions based on appearance clarify rather than confuse.

I never said anything about "equality".
Equality is a human construct.
No where in nature do we find equality.
We find equilibrium, which is ephemeral.

You bring up Kant’s phenomenon, which is a perceptual construct — sure. But Kant also reminds us that what appears is shaped by how we perceive, not just by what is. And that’s where definitions must be careful. If we base our conceptual fences purely on appearance, without accounting for what generates the appearance (i.e., underlying structures, systems, or dynamics), we risk defining the shadow, not the object casting it.

And that's what 'testing' a hypothesis means....to convert it into ACTION, and then compare what you expected with the consequences...adjusting your hypothesis accordingly.

To define well is to cut reality at its joints — not just where it looks like it bends.

And we begin by looking at the world, not into a dictionary or some book.

Does the dictionary definition refer to what is observable?

[BigMike]

You say the act — the phenomenon — is the boundary. And I agree: definitions should ultimately refer back to some kind of observable or testable act in the world. That’s what makes them meaningful. But where we differ is this: not all appearances are equally informative, and not all definitions based on appearance clarify rather than confuse.

I never said anything about "equality".
Equality is a human construct.
No where in nature do we find equality.
We find equilibrium, which is ephemeral.

You bring up Kant’s phenomenon, which is a perceptual construct — sure. But Kant also reminds us that what appears is shaped by how we perceive, not just by what is. And that’s where definitions must be careful. If we base our conceptual fences purely on appearance, without accounting for what generates the appearance (i.e., underlying structures, systems, or dynamics), we risk defining the shadow, not the object casting it.

And that's what 'testing' a hypothesis means....to convert it into ACTION, and then compare what you expected with the consequences...adjusting your hypothesis accordingly.

To define well is to cut reality at its joints — not just where it looks like it bends.

And we begin by looking at the world, not into a dictionary or some book.

Does the dictionary definition refer to what is observable?

Exactly — we’re nearly aligned here.

The only point I’d press is this: while we both agree that definitions must root themselves in the observable world, they can’t stop at appearances alone. They need to dig deeper — through testing, consequence, feedback, and refinement — to clarify what those appearances mean. That’s what separates definition from description.

So yes, we start with the world, not with books. But once we see something, we don’t just name it — we probe it, pressure it, compare it to similar phenomena, and define it by its structure and function, not just its surface.

And that’s how we cut closer to the bone — with definitions that don't just label, but explain.

[Belinda]

You say the act — the phenomenon — is the boundary. And I agree: definitions should ultimately refer back to some kind of observable or testable act in the world. That’s what makes them meaningful. But where we differ is this: not all appearances are equally informative, and not all definitions based on appearance clarify rather than confuse.

I never said anything about "equality".
Equality is a human construct.
No where in nature do we find equality.
We find equilibrium, which is ephemeral.

You bring up Kant’s phenomenon, which is a perceptual construct — sure. But Kant also reminds us that what appears is shaped by how we perceive, not just by what is. And that’s where definitions must be careful. If we base our conceptual fences purely on appearance, without accounting for what generates the appearance (i.e., underlying structures, systems, or dynamics), we risk defining the shadow, not the object casting it.

And that's what 'testing' a hypothesis means....to convert it into ACTION, and then compare what you expected with the consequences...adjusting your hypothesis accordingly.

To define well is to cut reality at its joints — not just where it looks like it bends.

And we begin by looking at the world, not into a dictionary or some book.

Does the dictionary definition refer to what is observable?

Exactly — we’re nearly aligned here.

The only point I’d press is this: while we both agree that definitions must root themselves in the observable world, they can’t stop at appearances alone. They need to dig deeper — through testing, consequence, feedback, and refinement — to clarify what those appearances mean. That’s what separates definition from description.

So yes, we start with the world, not with books. But once we see something, we don’t just name it — we probe it, pressure it, compare it to similar phenomena, and define it by its structure and function, not just its surface.

And that’s how we cut closer to the bone — with definitions that don't just label, but explain.

We may define our terms pro tem though. I mean, for instance , if you are a doctor talking to a patient with no medical background you probably use lay terminology instead of statistics, in depth bacteriology, and so forth.

I am afraid that there are some posters who pretend to their readers that they understand, by using terminology to sound knowledgeable.

[BigMike]

I never said anything about "equality".
Equality is a human construct.
No where in nature do we find equality.
We find equilibrium, which is ephemeral.



And that's what 'testing' a hypothesis means....to convert it into ACTION, and then compare what you expected with the consequences...adjusting your hypothesis accordingly.



And we begin by looking at the world, not into a dictionary or some book.

Does the dictionary definition refer to what is observable?

Exactly — we’re nearly aligned here.

The only point I’d press is this: while we both agree that definitions must root themselves in the observable world, they can’t stop at appearances alone. They need to dig deeper — through testing, consequence, feedback, and refinement — to clarify what those appearances mean. That’s what separates definition from description.

So yes, we start with the world, not with books. But once we see something, we don’t just name it — we probe it, pressure it, compare it to similar phenomena, and define it by its structure and function, not just its surface.

And that’s how we cut closer to the bone — with definitions that don't just label, but explain.

We may define our terms pro tem though. I mean, for instance , if you are a doctor talking to a patient with no medical background you probably use lay terminology instead of statistics, in depth bacteriology, and so forth.

Yes, absolutely — context matters. I wouldn’t use Weierstrass’ ε-δ definition of continuity to teach a child. But if I understand that rigorous definition, I can simplify it — Cauchy-style — in a way the child can grasp. Precision at the core gives you flexibility at the surface. The stronger the foundation, the better you can tailor your explanation to the audience without losing the truth behind it.

[Pistolero]

We may define our terms pro tem though. I mean, for instance , if you are a doctor talking to a patient with no medical background you probably use lay terminology instead of statistics, in depth bacteriology, and so forth.

I am afraid that there are some posters who pretend to their readers that they understand, by using terminology to sound knowledgeable.

The muddy the water to make it seem deep

The simpleton tries to complicate the simple to appear profound. The complex mind simplifies the complex, to make it comprehensible to a simpleton.

The brain is a simplifying organ.
It reduces complex, dynamic, interactions down to an image, a form, a scent, a colour, a texture, a sound.

All is energy.
Mind reduces energy patterns to 'things.'

This is why where the mind cannot perceive patterns it interpret it as dark, void, no-thingness.

[Age]

We may define our terms pro tem though. I mean, for instance , if you are a doctor talking to a patient with no medical background you probably use lay terminology instead of statistics, in depth bacteriology, and so forth.

I am afraid that there are some posters who pretend to their readers that they understand, by using terminology to sound knowledgeable.

The muddy the water to make it seem deep

The simpleton tries to complicate the simple to appear profound. The complex mind simplifies the complex, to make it comprehensible to a simpleton.

The brain is a simplifying organ.
It reduces complex, dynamic, interactions down to an image, a form, a scent, a colour, a texture, a sound.

All is energy.
Mind reduces energy patterns to 'things.'

This is why where the mind cannot perceive patterns it interpret it as dark, void, no-thingness.

But, absolutely every thing in Life is easy, and pure simplicity.

Only you adult human beings 'try to' make things appear hard, complex, and/or complicated.

Living; being alive is easy, and simple. But, some of you adults have not yet come to realise and accept this Fact.

[Dubious]

Each were represents a concept. A concept that may or may not be testable.
How?
By applying the theory - by converting the theory into action.
By comparing the theory to actions.
By comparing the expectations, derived in theory, to the consequences, derived through actions.

Thanks for the reply. The way you described it pretty well indicates how Bayesian reasoning works though often it's the observation of actions which creates the theory which gets a probability status based on feedback and refinement.

As for free will, I never could understand what's so free about it since at best, in practice, it offers nothing more than a closed loop of possible options and sometimes no options at all.

The "free will" concept at its core and root, is a theological device fundamental to another concept called Sin being that which is against the Will of God and or against his commandments. Christianity couldn't exist without it!

[attofishpi]

Owe my word..

[Pistolero]

Thanks for the reply. The way you described it pretty well indicates how Bayesian reasoning works though often it's the observation of actions which creates the theory which gets a probability status based on feedback and refinement.

Is this a critique, or an observation?

As for free will, I never could understand what's so free about it since at best, in practice, it offers nothing more than a closed loop of possible options and sometimes no options at all.

Because you're infected with a conventional definition positing irrational criteria.

But options is the point.
The fact that you need another point is part of your infection.

There is no "closed loop, other than in your head.
Existence is not an enclosure, nor is it absolutely ordered.
What you call "loop" is a reaffirming iteration that necessitated adjustments.
The basis of natural selection and of the advantage of being conscious.

The "free will" concept at its core and root, is a theological device fundamental to another concept called Sin being that which is against the Will of God and or against his commandments. Christianity couldn't exist without it!

See...you are infected by the Biblical narrative which describes an un-free freedom of choice.
A method of warning the believer not to practice his free-choice.
The warning concludes with the loss of paradise...as the cost of such indiscretions.


Denial of free-will is, in fact, an advancement of this narrative, eliminating the scapegoat of god, and adopting a narrative where nobody can ever break the will of comic order. It is a completion of totalitarian, absoluteness.
No shame, no guilt, because nothing is an error, but determined.
God's will is supreme....no paradoxes, because no man can ever go against his will, which is now simply Will, or order, or universe.
A progression do the same superstitious bullshyte.
No need for primordial sin.

Abrahamism weaponized shame and guilt....postmodernism "liberates" the believer, and adopts shamelessness, and guiltless absolute innocence.
No need to earn your entrance into Paradise....Utopia is all-inclusive.

[Belinda]

Each were represents a concept. A concept that may or may not be testable.
How?
By applying the theory - by converting the theory into action.
By comparing the theory to actions.
By comparing the expectations, derived in theory, to the consequences, derived through actions.

Thanks for the reply. The way you described it pretty well indicates how Bayesian reasoning works though often it's the observation of actions which creates the theory which gets a probability status based on feedback and refinement.

As for free will, I never could understand what's so free about it since at best, in practice, it offers nothing more than a closed loop of possible options and sometimes no options at all.

The "free will" concept at its core and root, is a theological device fundamental to another concept called Sin being that which is against the Will of God and or against his commandments. Christianity couldn't exist without it!

I thought if a Christian repents then God would forgive their sin . Actually God is a deterministic idea.

[Dubious]

Thanks for the reply. The way you described it pretty well indicates how Bayesian reasoning works though often it's the observation of actions which creates the theory which gets a probability status based on feedback and refinement.

Is this a critique, or an observation?

Neither! It's a statement of fact whether you like it or not. A theory or hypothesis is usually based on something of which a theory tries to make sense. That, in case you haven't observed, is called observation.

I happily leave you to the other idiots who believe you have something to offer!

[Dubious]

Each were represents a concept. A concept that may or may not be testable.
How?
By applying the theory - by converting the theory into action.
By comparing the theory to actions.
By comparing the expectations, derived in theory, to the consequences, derived through actions.

Thanks for the reply. The way you described it pretty well indicates how Bayesian reasoning works though often it's the observation of actions which creates the theory which gets a probability status based on feedback and refinement.

As for free will, I never could understand what's so free about it since at best, in practice, it offers nothing more than a closed loop of possible options and sometimes no options at all.

The "free will" concept at its core and root, is a theological device fundamental to another concept called Sin being that which is against the Will of God and or against his commandments. Christianity couldn't exist without it!

I thought if a Christian repents then God would forgive their sin . Actually God is a deterministic idea.

Whatever!

[Pistolero]

Neither! It's a statement of fact whether you like it or not. A theory or hypothesis is usually based on something of which a theory tries to make sense. That, in case you haven't observed, is called observation.

I happily leave you to the other idiots who believe you have something to offer!

And your method is superior?
Tell me about your method....other than casting dismissive aspersions.

Everything I post is based on first-hand observation, supported by second hand observation - knowledge - and understanding.

What's your method, other than pseudo-intellectualism?

[Belinda]

We may define our terms pro tem though. I mean, for instance , if you are a doctor talking to a patient with no medical background you probably use lay terminology instead of statistics, in depth bacteriology, and so forth.

I am afraid that there are some posters who pretend to their readers that they understand, by using terminology to sound knowledgeable.

The muddy the water to make it seem deep

The simpleton tries to complicate the simple to appear profound. The complex mind simplifies the complex, to make it comprehensible to a simpleton.

The brain is a simplifying organ.
It reduces complex, dynamic, interactions down to an image, a form, a scent, a colour, a texture, a sound.

All is energy.
Mind reduces energy patterns to 'things.'

This is why where the mind cannot perceive patterns it interpret it as dark, void, no-thingness.

100%

[Pistolero]

Exactly — we’re nearly aligned here.

The only point I’d press is this: while we both agree that definitions must root themselves in the observable world, they can’t stop at appearances alone. They need to dig deeper — through testing, consequence, feedback, and refinement — to clarify what those appearances mean. That’s what separates definition from description.

So yes, we start with the world, not with books. But once we see something, we don’t just name it — we probe it, pressure it, compare it to similar phenomena, and define it by its structure and function, not just its surface.

And that’s how we cut closer to the bone — with definitions that don't just label, but explain.

Once we agree on how to define the terms we will use, we can move to the method of analyzing the data.

So, first we agree that words, representing ideas, i.e., abstractions, mental models, interpretations of what is present, as the apparent (phenomenon).
Example: I sensorially perceive, using the medium of light, a phenomenon that is present, has presence, it exists.
I, first, verify that what I perceive is actually present, by asking for second-hand validations.

What I perceive has certain characteristics, all of which are dynamic and interactive: color, shape/form, movement/momentum...sound, texture, taste, scent etc.. Every sensory organ using its own methods of interpreting a presence....its own contexts.

All of these traits are interpretations of energy, of interactivity....reduced to a form the brain can process and store. The brain can also synthesize sense data into unities. And even re-synthesize them...as it can re-synthesize a man and a horse into a centaur...or it can invert its abstraction and convert multiplicity into a imagined singularity that can only exist in the brain, and so on ....
Once the interactivity is reduced to a neural pulse, transmitted to the brain, the sensory data can be manipulated.

Color, for example is a vibration the brain has evolved to a priorily interpret as a kind of light vibration, within our species range of perception - the electromagnetic range, from infrared (fast vibrations) to ultraviolet (slow vibrations).
The color is not insignificant, but it says something about the phenomenon - Kant's noumenon. Along with all the other traits, it constitutes an interpretation of an existence, a presence.
All are qualifiers of the phenomenon.