Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am

BigMike wrote: 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?

Could you give some examples?

What about pretty much everything that IC posts?

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 9:06 am I hope you can see that beneath the sharp edges of my words, there’s a genuine desire to connect, to understand, and to encourage others to “dare to know.”

What an unfortunate choice of words to use in conversation with a holocaust denier.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 9:32 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 9:06 am I hope you can see that beneath the sharp edges of my words, there’s a genuine desire to connect, to understand, and to encourage others to “dare to know.”

What an unfortunate choice of words to use in conversation with a holocaust denier.

That's low even for you. I didn't know that (probably because I never read anything he posts). I don't even remember why I put him on 'ignore'--or was that Alexhiev? They are interchangeable to me Has he mentioned it on this thread?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 9:32 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 9:06 am I hope you can see that beneath the sharp edges of my words, there’s a genuine desire to connect, to understand, and to encourage others to “dare to know.”

What an unfortunate choice of words to use in conversation with a holocaust denier.

FlashDangerpants, if my choice of words was poorly suited to the context, I’m open to better suggestions. What words would you propose I use to convey my message without distorting its intent or substance?

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 9:39 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 9:32 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 9:06 am I hope you can see that beneath the sharp edges of my words, there’s a genuine desire to connect, to understand, and to encourage others to “dare to know.”

What an unfortunate choice of words to use in conversation with a holocaust denier.

FlashDangerpants, if my choice of words was poorly suited to the context, I’m open to better suggestions. What words would you propose I use to convey my message without distorting its intent or substance?

TBH your message is just clockwork causation with some messianic reform-church overtones crammed on top. It's not fresh or important.

Jacobi is trying to spread a much more worrying message of his own, and to further that end he hopes to establish himself as some sort of public intellectual. I am merely giving you the background information you might find helpful if you want to avoid being his patsy in that matter.

Big Mike, I note that you are a determinist and an atheist.
Determinism however is incompatible with atheism, and is compatible with God or nature.

Determinism is the theory that all that happens necessarily happens: what necessarily happens is the core meaning of 'God'. (Subsidiary meaning of 'God' is the Greek influenced meaning that God is co-terminous with good, truth and beauty,)

Not all religious embrace the impossible. I take the title to refer to the notion of an Almighty God Who can and does occasionally lay aside His own laws of nature and miraculously intervenes in His own creation . The miraculous , not science, are what stop a lot of people believing that God is a deterministic process.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 9:17 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am

BigMike wrote: 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?

Could you give some examples?

Attofishpi, are you genuinely telling me—cross your heart and hope to die—that you've never encountered examples of religious adherents rejecting scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview? Not even once?

Stuff like dinosaurs not existing but Adam & Eve did...sure.

What do you think about the Jesus stuff - changing water to wine for example? I have no reason to doubt that happened (from what I have experienced of REAL_IT_Y) --> do I have to reject science to comprehend that as plausible

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 10:48 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 9:17 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am

Could you give some examples?

Attofishpi, are you genuinely telling me—cross your heart and hope to die—that you've never encountered examples of religious adherents rejecting scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview? Not even once?

Stuff like dinosaurs not existing but Adam & Eve did...sure.

What do you think about the Jesus stuff - changing water to wine for example? I have no reason to doubt that happened (from what I have experienced of REAL_IT_Y) --> do I have to reject science to comprehend that as plausible

Atto, I hope you don't mind if I interrupt.

The wine was changed into water in the sense that Jesus substituted water for wine . It was a novel idea that for ritual purposes water would do equally well as wine.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 11:45 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 10:48 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 9:17 am

Attofishpi, are you genuinely telling me—cross your heart and hope to die—that you've never encountered examples of religious adherents rejecting scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview? Not even once?

Stuff like dinosaurs not existing but Adam & Eve did...sure.

What do you think about the Jesus stuff - changing water to wine for example? I have no reason to doubt that happened (from what I have experienced of REAL_IT_Y) --> do I have to reject science to comprehend that as plausible

Atto, I hope you don't mind if I interrupt.

The wine was changed into water in the sense that Jesus substituted water for wine . It was a novel idea that for ritual purposes water would do equally well as wine.

I don't mind people interrupting if they are not talking nonsense. The account within the New Testament is a clear account of Jesus performing a "miracle" where water auto converted to wine.

I can't make head to tail of what you are implying, do elaborate. Are you implying some waffly metaphoric symbolism?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 9:32 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 9:06 am I hope you can see that beneath the sharp edges of my words, there’s a genuine desire to connect, to understand, and to encourage others to “dare to know.”

What an unfortunate choice of words to use in conversation with a holocaust denier.

When you are raised, as I was, in an American Jewish family & cultural enclave, you receive an entire “picture” about those terrible European events, about Jewish history, Jewish purpose, and certainly about Zionism. So I might say (in relation to BigMike’s recent statement) that it became necessary to question everything about that “cultural indoctrination”.

Long ago, in a thread that I cannot recall, talking about things I don’t remember, I said (paraphrase) “I accept the history of the Shoah in its broad outlines but with a few modifications or quibbles over some details”. I did not go into details for numerous reasons. One important one is that PN is a British forum subject to the highly controlled speech restrictions that generally operate in Europe. So even my “light revisionism” of aspects of the historical narrative are, if I understand correctly, illegal. Out of respect to the owner and the Mods that is a topic best avoided.

Am I bothered that Flash has grabbed this minor revisionism and worked to assign me the most •evil• abuse of free discourse that is possible today? (Holocaust denial). It is not really that since, just now, I explain myself in reasonable terms. But there really is a larger, important point that cannot be dismissed: that we all have been raised within many levels of propaganda narrative. If this is so, then I ask: Is there advantage in learning “the truth” or is it actually better not to challenge, if only personally, those established narratives? (I refer to myriad topics and not to the specific ones of mid-twentieth century wartime narratives.)

So, I tie back Flash’s (rather underhanded) comment to BM’s statement about far larger existential revisions of worldview and, essentially, perceptual models. In short we •interpret reality• through metaphysical lenses. Thus to pay attention, to become aware of, our “metaphysical dream of the world” is a very valid enterprise. We all have one. Or often admixtures of various.

There is more to consider as well: Presently all manner of established narratives are being challenged, revised, reworked, and many topics are topsy-turvy to distressing degrees. I refer here more to •popular narratives• and those who challenge them.

In the largest sense I cannot but think of BM’s position (an activist physicalist atheism deeply concerned about political arrangements) as exemplifying narrative overturn … Could I myself be drawn in those interpretive directions? Certainly! In fact we are all swimming in narrative upheaval. And we seek anchors in “truth”. How people do that is itself is a super interesting topic of conversation.

My recommendation Flash is that you fix yourself some delicious kugel and think things through a bit more. If I can help please do not hesitate to let me know!

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 10:32 am Jacobi is trying to spread a much more worrying message of his own, and to further that end he hopes to establish himself as some sort of public intellectual. I am merely giving you the background information you might find helpful if you want to avoid being his patsy in that matter.

What Flash is alluding to is a vague, paranoid sense that is ascribed to certain thinkers who (to refer generally) have critical postures of the “Liberalism” that defines our cultural and social experience. My opinion about what he does is to •sniff out• any statement that in his paranoia-inclined mind gives off an odor of regressive ideology, dangerous anti-liberalism, and the consideration of a range of topics that in our present have been defined as wrongthink.

But to be aware of these trends in thinking is not, necessarily, to be their advocate. (But for Flash knowledge is complicity).

To be really truthful, Flash, you are not giving “background information”, you are engaging in slander and calumny. It is better — more honest certainty — to know your purpose and to state it honestly. It is a tactic that is used all the time, everywhere.

I have read numerous illiberal thinkers like Nietzsche, Julius Evola, René Guénon, Ortega y Gassett and cannot say I have not been influenced, to degrees, by their philosophies. Really, that right there is the •real crime• and it is thoughtcrime.

The actual point here, the more important point, is about free-thinking. Is it possible? Can it be allowed? Or is it actually best to suppress it and oneself and keep to the straight and narrow?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 10:48 am Big Mike, I note that you are a determinist and an atheist.
Determinism however is incompatible with atheism, and is compatible with God or nature.

Determinism is the theory that all that happens necessarily happens: what necessarily happens is the core meaning of 'God'. (Subsidiary meaning of 'God' is the Greek influenced meaning that God is co-terminous with good, truth and beauty,)

Not all religious embrace the impossible. I take the title to refer to the notion of an Almighty God Who can and does occasionally lay aside His own laws of nature and miraculously intervenes in His own creation . The miraculous , not science, are what stop a lot of people believing that God is a deterministic process.

Belinda, your perspective is intriguing, but I believe you've conflated determinism with theological notions that aren’t necessary to its framework. Let me clarify:

Determinism, at its core, is simply the view that all events, including human actions, arise inevitably from preceding causes according to the laws of nature. It doesn’t necessitate the existence of a deity or higher power to enforce these laws—physics, chemistry, and biology suffice. When we observe the natural world, we see consistent causal relationships that operate without the need for divine intervention. This is the determinism I align with as an atheist.

Your assertion that "what necessarily happens is the core meaning of 'God'" seems to redefine God in a way that strips the term of its traditional theological significance. If God is merely a synonym for nature or the deterministic unfolding of events, then it ceases to be a "being" in any meaningful sense and becomes a metaphor. That’s fine, but it also makes atheism and determinism perfectly compatible. One can fully accept that the universe operates deterministically without invoking a deity.

As for the miraculous: belief in miracles contradicts determinism because miracles, by definition, are violations of natural laws. If God occasionally “lays aside His own laws of nature,” then we are no longer in a deterministic universe; we are in one governed by arbitrary whims. This makes the miraculous incompatible with both determinism and the scientific understanding of natural processes.

Ultimately, determinism as a philosophical and scientific framework explains the observable world without recourse to supernatural explanations. The "God" you describe, as an embodiment of necessity or nature, is interesting but unnecessary for determinism to hold. It’s a poetic interpretation, perhaps, but one that offers no additional explanatory power over a purely naturalistic account of causality.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 2:31 pm ...

Every time you try and spread those little brown-shirted wings, I'm going to clip them. But beyond that I am not interested in hijacking Mike's thread to re-litigate your failings.

.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 3:53 pmUltimately, determinism as a philosophical and scientific framework explains the observable world

But it doesn't, Mike. Determinism, for all its explanatory power, doesn't explain us. Any attempt to explain us, by way of materialism/physicalism/determinism, falls flat (is just plain wrong).

We, persons, are not reducible to particles and the interplay of particles.