Philosophy Now Forum

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 2:11 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 1:19 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 12:35 pm

Science doesn’t “merge” with religion—it replaces the need for supernatural explanations by providing testable, coherent models of reality. The idea that modernized religion can coexist with science by invoking a god who “maintains coherence” is just repackaged deism, an unnecessary placeholder for natural laws that function without divine intervention. Science progresses by eliminating unverified assumptions, not by accommodating them.

And yes, free will has always been a tool for control—a convenient myth that shifts responsibility from systemic causes to individuals, reinforcing the illusion of moral agency where none exists.

You talk as if science is its own justification . But it's not. Science is a human activity. Humans do science in order to gain control of natural reality. Do you actually not understand that modern academic science is historical ?( please see 'scientific enlightenment' )and that its predecessor was part of religion ; religion was at one time the only medium for explaining the world.

University curriculums for the natural sciences don't have sufficient time to devote to history and philosophy of science.

Science isn’t its own justification—it’s justified by its ability to explain, predict, and manipulate reality with unparalleled accuracy. That’s the difference between a self-referential belief system and a method grounded in empirical validation. Yes, science has a history, and yes, it evolved out of earlier religious attempts to explain the world—but that’s precisely the point. It outgrew those origins because it worked, while religious explanations failed.

Acknowledging that religion was once the primary framework for understanding nature doesn’t mean it still holds any epistemic value. Alchemy preceded chemistry, astrology preceded astronomy—both were abandoned because they were wrong. The fact that science has historical roots in religious thinking doesn’t mean it’s still tethered to them. It means it replaced them.

I entirely agree , except perhaps with "because they were wrong". They were of their time and place. Some people don't believe in progress but, same as you, I do believe in progress in scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge accumulates until some novel paradigm happens (Kuhn), and even then there may still a place for the older paradigm as is the case with Newtonian physics.

Deism is accused of being a way for scientists to sound to the religious establishment as if the 'deists' still believe in God. I 'm not a deist in that sense. I'm a pantheist who believes God and nature are the same. A pantheist believes there is no supernatural order of being.

Science is search for objective truth as much as is possible for our human natures which deals with probabilities not absolutes. However it's a reasonable faith which holds nature is an entire and coherent system. As a physicist do you trust that nature is an entire and coherent system?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:18 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 2:11 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 1:19 pm
You talk as if science is its own justification . But it's not. Science is a human activity. Humans do science in order to gain control of natural reality. Do you actually not understand that modern academic science is historical ?( please see 'scientific enlightenment' )and that its predecessor was part of religion ; religion was at one time the only medium for explaining the world.

University curriculums for the natural sciences don't have sufficient time to devote to history and philosophy of science.

Science isn’t its own justification—it’s justified by its ability to explain, predict, and manipulate reality with unparalleled accuracy. That’s the difference between a self-referential belief system and a method grounded in empirical validation. Yes, science has a history, and yes, it evolved out of earlier religious attempts to explain the world—but that’s precisely the point. It outgrew those origins because it worked, while religious explanations failed.

Acknowledging that religion was once the primary framework for understanding nature doesn’t mean it still holds any epistemic value. Alchemy preceded chemistry, astrology preceded astronomy—both were abandoned because they were wrong. The fact that science has historical roots in religious thinking doesn’t mean it’s still tethered to them. It means it replaced them.

I entirely agree , except perhaps with "because they were wrong". They were of their time and place. Some people don't believe in progress but, same as you, I do believe in progress in scientific knowledge.

Deism is accused of being a way for scientists to sound as if they still believe in God. I 'm not a deist in that sense. I'm a pantheist who believes God and nature are the same. A pantheist believes there is no supernatural order of being.

Science is search for objective truth as much as is possible for our human natures which deals with probabilities not absolutes. However it's a reasonable faith which holds nature is an entire and coherent system. As a physicist do you trust that nature is an entire and coherent system?

Yes, I trust that nature is an entire and coherent system—not as an article of faith, but because all empirical evidence supports that conclusion. The coherence of natural laws is not a belief imposed onto reality; it’s an observation derived from rigorous testing and validation. The universe operates under consistent principles, and while our understanding of those principles evolves, they do not contradict themselves.

Pantheism, as you describe it, avoids the pitfalls of supernaturalism by identifying "God" with nature itself, but at that point, what does the concept of God add? If nature is just nature, governed by physical laws, then calling it "God" seems redundant—a poetic framing rather than an explanatory one. Science already provides the framework for understanding the coherence of nature without invoking additional metaphysical constructs.

So yes, nature is coherent, and science is the best tool we have to decipher that coherence. But we don’t need to blur the line between scientific explanation and philosophical metaphor to recognize that.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:29 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:18 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 2:11 pm

Science isn’t its own justification—it’s justified by its ability to explain, predict, and manipulate reality with unparalleled accuracy. That’s the difference between a self-referential belief system and a method grounded in empirical validation. Yes, science has a history, and yes, it evolved out of earlier religious attempts to explain the world—but that’s precisely the point. It outgrew those origins because it worked, while religious explanations failed.

Acknowledging that religion was once the primary framework for understanding nature doesn’t mean it still holds any epistemic value. Alchemy preceded chemistry, astrology preceded astronomy—both were abandoned because they were wrong. The fact that science has historical roots in religious thinking doesn’t mean it’s still tethered to them. It means it replaced them.

I entirely agree , except perhaps with "because they were wrong". They were of their time and place. Some people don't believe in progress but, same as you, I do believe in progress in scientific knowledge.

Deism is accused of being a way for scientists to sound as if they still believe in God. I 'm not a deist in that sense. I'm a pantheist who believes God and nature are the same. A pantheist believes there is no supernatural order of being.

Science is search for objective truth as much as is possible for our human natures which deals with probabilities not absolutes. However it's a reasonable faith which holds nature is an entire and coherent system. As a physicist do you trust that nature is an entire and coherent system?

Yes, I trust that nature is an entire and coherent system—not as an article of faith, but because all empirical evidence supports that conclusion. The coherence of natural laws is not a belief imposed onto reality; it’s an observation derived from rigorous testing and validation. The universe operates under consistent principles, and while our understanding of those principles evolves, they do not contradict themselves.

Are you suggesting, here, that 'principles', which have arisen through 'science', have NOT changed and have NOT contradicted older or previous principles?

Also, you appear to be suggesting that the 'rigorous testing and validations' of 'yester years' are the EXACT SAME as those of 'today', when this is being written, and which WILL BE the EXACT SAME as forever long as you human beings exist for.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, could NOT BE FURTHER FROM the ACTUAL Truth of things.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:29 pm Pantheism, as you describe it, avoids the pitfalls of supernaturalism by identifying "God" with nature itself, but at that point, what does the concept of God add? If nature is just nature, governed by physical laws, then calling it "God" seems redundant—a poetic framing rather than an explanatory one.

It could EQUALLY be SAID and CLAIMED that if God is just God, governed by Its, or physical, laws, then calling it 'Nature' seems redundant - a poetic framing rather than an explanatory one.

BUT, one would HAVE TO BE OPEN, FIRST, to be ABLE TO RECOGNIZE and SEE this Fact.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:29 pm Science already provides the framework for understanding the coherence of nature without invoking additional metaphysical constructs.

ONCE AGAIN, you are the ONLY one, here, invoking additional so-called 'metaphysical constructs'.

And, you are OBVIOUSLY CREATING Falsehoods so that you, at least, have some thing to 'TRY TO' argue AGAINST, here.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:29 pm So yes, nature is coherent,

JUST LIKE God is coherent.

And, WHY are you USING the REDUNDANT, 'nature' word, here, FOR, EXACTLY?

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:29 pm and science is the best tool we have to decipher that coherence.

If you BELIEVE that 'science' ONLY is the so-called 'best tool', here, then okay.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:29 pm But we don’t need to blur the line between scientific explanation and philosophical metaphor to recognize that.

So, WHY it is ONLY you, here, "bigmike" who is ADDING so-called 'philosophical metaphors', here, FOR?

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:29 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:18 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 2:11 pm

Science isn’t its own justification—it’s justified by its ability to explain, predict, and manipulate reality with unparalleled accuracy. That’s the difference between a self-referential belief system and a method grounded in empirical validation. Yes, science has a history, and yes, it evolved out of earlier religious attempts to explain the world—but that’s precisely the point. It outgrew those origins because it worked, while religious explanations failed.

Acknowledging that religion was once the primary framework for understanding nature doesn’t mean it still holds any epistemic value. Alchemy preceded chemistry, astrology preceded astronomy—both were abandoned because they were wrong. The fact that science has historical roots in religious thinking doesn’t mean it’s still tethered to them. It means it replaced them.

I entirely agree , except perhaps with "because they were wrong". They were of their time and place. Some people don't believe in progress but, same as you, I do believe in progress in scientific knowledge.

Deism is accused of being a way for scientists to sound as if they still believe in God. I 'm not a deist in that sense. I'm a pantheist who believes God and nature are the same. A pantheist believes there is no supernatural order of being.

Science is search for objective truth as much as is possible for our human natures which deals with probabilities not absolutes. However it's a reasonable faith which holds nature is an entire and coherent system. As a physicist do you trust that nature is an entire and coherent system?

Yes, I trust that nature is an entire and coherent system—not as an article of faith, but because all empirical evidence supports that conclusion. The coherence of natural laws is not a belief imposed onto reality; it’s an observation derived from rigorous testing and validation. The universe operates under consistent principles, and while our understanding of those principles evolves, they do not contradict themselves.

Pantheism, as you describe it, avoids the pitfalls of supernaturalism by identifying "God" with nature itself, but at that point, what does the concept of God add? If nature is just nature, governed by physical laws, then calling it "God" seems redundant—a poetic framing rather than an explanatory one. Science already provides the framework for understanding the coherence of nature without invoking additional metaphysical constructs.

So yes, nature is coherent, and science is the best tool we have to decipher that coherence. But we don’t need to blur the line between scientific explanation and philosophical metaphor to recognize that.

Because 'God' means something slightly different for every individual. And what each holds most earnestly is her deity. The use of calling a clear belief a deity is that then one may worthship the deity alongside others of the same mind or similar. It's hard to work for sustainability or simply going out and cleaning up the roadside verges if one is all by oneself. I suppose proper scientists feel a little complacent in the present climate in which scientists are held in high esteem. But wait till Trump and Co get their way and academic scientists will be endangered.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:53 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:29 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:18 pm

I entirely agree , except perhaps with "because they were wrong". They were of their time and place. Some people don't believe in progress but, same as you, I do believe in progress in scientific knowledge.

Deism is accused of being a way for scientists to sound as if they still believe in God. I 'm not a deist in that sense. I'm a pantheist who believes God and nature are the same. A pantheist believes there is no supernatural order of being.

Science is search for objective truth as much as is possible for our human natures which deals with probabilities not absolutes. However it's a reasonable faith which holds nature is an entire and coherent system. As a physicist do you trust that nature is an entire and coherent system?

Yes, I trust that nature is an entire and coherent system—not as an article of faith, but because all empirical evidence supports that conclusion. The coherence of natural laws is not a belief imposed onto reality; it’s an observation derived from rigorous testing and validation. The universe operates under consistent principles, and while our understanding of those principles evolves, they do not contradict themselves.

Pantheism, as you describe it, avoids the pitfalls of supernaturalism by identifying "God" with nature itself, but at that point, what does the concept of God add? If nature is just nature, governed by physical laws, then calling it "God" seems redundant—a poetic framing rather than an explanatory one. Science already provides the framework for understanding the coherence of nature without invoking additional metaphysical constructs.

So yes, nature is coherent, and science is the best tool we have to decipher that coherence. But we don’t need to blur the line between scientific explanation and philosophical metaphor to recognize that.

Because 'God' means something slightly different for every individual. And what each holds most earnestly is her deity. The use of calling a clear belief a deity is that then one may worthship the deity alongside others of the same mind or similar. It's hard to work for sustainability or simply going out and cleaning up the roadside verges if one is all by oneself. I suppose proper scientists feel a little complacent in the present climate in which scientists are held in high esteem. But wait till Trump and Co get their way and academic scientists will be endangered.

I see what you’re getting at—framing a belief as "God" provides a sense of shared meaning, a rallying point for collective action. But while that may work as a psychological or social tool, it comes with a cost: the blurring of distinctions between metaphor and reality. If "God" can mean anything to anyone, it ultimately means nothing concrete. And when vague definitions mix with real-world decision-making, that’s where the trouble starts.

As for science, you’re absolutely right that its standing in society is fragile. Reverence for science is conditional—it thrives in periods of reason and progress but is always at risk when ignorance, superstition, or political convenience take over. The resurgence of anti-intellectualism under Trump (who just announced a new task force to 'eradicate anti-Christian bias') and others like him is a prime example. When power depends on manipulating people rather than informing them, truth becomes a liability, and science—the systematic pursuit of truth—becomes a target.

This is why clarity matters. When people start treating science as "just another belief system" rather than a methodology, it becomes easier to dismiss. And when scientific facts are seen as ideological opinions, they become subject to political whims. That’s how we end up with climate denial, vaccine skepticism, and a culture where expertise is derided rather than valued. It’s not just academic scientists who should be worried—it’s anyone who values reality over convenient fictions.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 5:06 pm

I see what you’re getting at—framing a belief as "God" provides a sense of shared meaning, a rallying point for collective action. But while that may work as a psychological or social tool, it comes with a cost: the blurring of distinctions between metaphor and reality. If "God" can mean anything to anyone, it ultimately means nothing concrete. And when vague definitions mix with real-world decision-making, that’s where the trouble starts.

As for science, you’re absolutely right that its standing in society is fragile. Reverence for science is conditional—it thrives in periods of reason and progress but is always at risk when ignorance, superstition, or political convenience take over. The resurgence of anti-intellectualism under Trump (who just announced a new task force to 'eradicate anti-Christian bias') and others like him is a prime example. When power depends on manipulating people rather than informing them, truth becomes a liability, and science—the systematic pursuit of truth—becomes a target.

This is why clarity matters. When people start treating science as "just another belief system" rather than a methodology, it becomes easier to dismiss. And when scientific facts are seen as ideological opinions, they become subject to political whims. That’s how we end up with climate denial, vaccine skepticism, and a culture where expertise is derided rather than valued. It’s not just academic scientists who should be worried—it’s anyone who values reality over convenient fictions.

Blame yourself and your fellow travelers, Mike. You are the one promoting Materialism as a "belief system rather than a methodology". If you and your cohort would look at science more rationally, the problem might disappear.

Also, why should we value reality over fiction? Perhaps we should recognize the distinction, but surely we can determine for ourselves which we value more. I have nothing against reality -- but I have a healthy respect for fiction, too.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 5:06 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:53 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:29 pm

Yes, I trust that nature is an entire and coherent system—not as an article of faith, but because all empirical evidence supports that conclusion. The coherence of natural laws is not a belief imposed onto reality; it’s an observation derived from rigorous testing and validation. The universe operates under consistent principles, and while our understanding of those principles evolves, they do not contradict themselves.

Pantheism, as you describe it, avoids the pitfalls of supernaturalism by identifying "God" with nature itself, but at that point, what does the concept of God add? If nature is just nature, governed by physical laws, then calling it "God" seems redundant—a poetic framing rather than an explanatory one. Science already provides the framework for understanding the coherence of nature without invoking additional metaphysical constructs.

So yes, nature is coherent, and science is the best tool we have to decipher that coherence. But we don’t need to blur the line between scientific explanation and philosophical metaphor to recognize that.

Because 'God' means something slightly different for every individual. And what each holds most earnestly is her deity. The use of calling a clear belief a deity is that then one may worthship the deity alongside others of the same mind or similar. It's hard to work for sustainability or simply going out and cleaning up the roadside verges if one is all by oneself. I suppose proper scientists feel a little complacent in the present climate in which scientists are held in high esteem. But wait till Trump and Co get their way and academic scientists will be endangered.

I see what you’re getting at—framing a belief as "God" provides a sense of shared meaning, a rallying point for collective action. But while that may work as a psychological or social tool, it comes with a cost: the blurring of distinctions between metaphor and reality. If "God" can mean anything to anyone, it ultimately means nothing concrete. And when vague definitions mix with real-world decision-making, that’s where the trouble starts.

There IS A GREAT POINT in this last sentence, here.

And, when FULLY UNDERSTOOD EXPLAINS WHY 'these humans' BACK when this was being written, were IN A GREAT DEAL OF 'trouble'.

They, LITERALLY, did NOT even KNOW 'the definition' for the words 'they SAID, WROTE, and USED', let alone KNEW 'the definitions' that others were USING, and MEANING.

What can be VERY CLEARLY NOTICED, thoughtout this forum is WHEN 'I' ASKED 'these people' for their EXACT DEFINITIONS, if ANY were given and provide, which was just about NEARLY NEVER, then what was PROVIDED were just VERY VAGUE and NON AGREED UPON definitions.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 5:06 pm As for science, you’re absolutely right that its standing in society is fragile. Reverence for science is conditional—it thrives in periods of reason and progress but is always at risk when ignorance, superstition, or political convenience take over.

LOL The VERY REASON WHY 'science', or more correctly "scientists", 'stance' IS FRAGILE is BECAUSE they KEEP MAKING COMPLETELY STUPID CLAIMS, like for example, 'In the early Universe'.

These so-called "scientists" HAVE, and HOLD ONTO, 'their BELIEFS' just AS STRONGLY AS 'theologians' DO. And, DO SO based upon sometimes LESS ACTUAL EVIDENCE, and NO PROOF AT ALL.

BELIEVING ANY THING IS TRUE, besides BEING RIDICULOUS in and of itself, on its OWN, is MORE RIDICULOUS when there is NOT a SHRED OF ACTUAL PROOF FOR 'it'. Which is WHAT so-called "scientists" ACTUALLY DO, AS WELL.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 5:06 pm The resurgence of anti-intellectualism under Trump (who just announced a new task force to 'eradicate anti-Christian bias') and others like him is a prime example. When power depends on manipulating people rather than informing them, truth becomes a liability, and science—the systematic pursuit of truth—becomes a target.

This is why clarity matters.

YET 'these people', here, would INSIST ON ASSUMING things AND INSIST ON BELIEVING things, WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL CLARITY, AT ALL.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 5:06 pm When people start treating science as "just another belief system" rather than a methodology, it becomes easier to dismiss.

LOL 'Science', itself, being just the STUDY OF 'things', is one thing. But, LOL, are you REALLY 'TRYING TO', here, CLAIM that so-called "scientists" do NOT BELIEVE things TO BE TRUE?

There IS the 'belief-system' WITHIN so-called "scientists" JUST AS MUCH AS there IS WITHIN other human beings.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 5:06 pm And when scientific facts are seen as ideological opinions, they become subject to political whims.

LOL What is the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'scientific facts' AND 'just facts'?

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 5:06 pm That’s how we end up with climate denial, vaccine skepticism, and a culture where expertise is derided rather than valued. It’s not just academic scientists who should be worried—it’s anyone who values reality over convenient fictions.

LOL YET here IS "bigmike" SPREADING and SHARING its OWN 'convenient fictions'.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 5:06 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:53 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 4:29 pm

Yes, I trust that nature is an entire and coherent system—not as an article of faith, but because all empirical evidence supports that conclusion. The coherence of natural laws is not a belief imposed onto reality; it’s an observation derived from rigorous testing and validation. The universe operates under consistent principles, and while our understanding of those principles evolves, they do not contradict themselves.

Pantheism, as you describe it, avoids the pitfalls of supernaturalism by identifying "God" with nature itself, but at that point, what does the concept of God add? If nature is just nature, governed by physical laws, then calling it "God" seems redundant—a poetic framing rather than an explanatory one. Science already provides the framework for understanding the coherence of nature without invoking additional metaphysical constructs.

So yes, nature is coherent, and science is the best tool we have to decipher that coherence. But we don’t need to blur the line between scientific explanation and philosophical metaphor to recognize that.

Because 'God' means something slightly different for every individual. And what each holds most earnestly is her deity. The use of calling a clear belief a deity is that then one may worthship the deity alongside others of the same mind or similar. It's hard to work for sustainability or simply going out and cleaning up the roadside verges if one is all by oneself. I suppose proper scientists feel a little complacent in the present climate in which scientists are held in high esteem. But wait till Trump and Co get their way and academic scientists will be endangered.

I see what you’re getting at—framing a belief as "God" provides a sense of shared meaning, a rallying point for collective action. But while that may work as a psychological or social tool, it comes with a cost: the blurring of distinctions between metaphor and reality. If "God" can mean anything to anyone, it ultimately means nothing concrete. And when vague definitions mix with real-world decision-making, that’s where the trouble starts.

As for science, you’re absolutely right that its standing in society is fragile. Reverence for science is conditional—it thrives in periods of reason and progress but is always at risk when ignorance, superstition, or political convenience take over. The resurgence of anti-intellectualism under Trump (who just announced a new task force to 'eradicate anti-Christian bias') and others like him is a prime example. When power depends on manipulating people rather than informing them, truth becomes a liability, and science—the systematic pursuit of truth—becomes a target.

This is why clarity matters. When people start treating science as "just another belief system" rather than a methodology, it becomes easier to dismiss. And when scientific facts are seen as ideological opinions, they become subject to political whims. That’s how we end up with climate denial, vaccine skepticism, and a culture where expertise is derided rather than valued. It’s not just academic scientists who should be worried—it’s anyone who values reality over convenient fictions.

I do recognise that cost---that 'God' means nothing except a rallying call. But wait a minute! There is a continuous thread of meaning that binds together all the various interpretations. In Christianity that continuous icon is the man Jesus whose image moves according to trends and needs but whose historical reality and message are constant.

Education should enable students to evaluate scientific theories and methods. Authoritarian regimes don't require students to evaluate: they require students to comply with their dogmas. What happened to American freedom? Trump is a cult.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 5:28 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 5:06 pm

I see what you’re getting at—framing a belief as "God" provides a sense of shared meaning, a rallying point for collective action. But while that may work as a psychological or social tool, it comes with a cost: the blurring of distinctions between metaphor and reality. If "God" can mean anything to anyone, it ultimately means nothing concrete. And when vague definitions mix with real-world decision-making, that’s where the trouble starts.

As for science, you’re absolutely right that its standing in society is fragile. Reverence for science is conditional—it thrives in periods of reason and progress but is always at risk when ignorance, superstition, or political convenience take over. The resurgence of anti-intellectualism under Trump (who just announced a new task force to 'eradicate anti-Christian bias') and others like him is a prime example. When power depends on manipulating people rather than informing them, truth becomes a liability, and science—the systematic pursuit of truth—becomes a target.

This is why clarity matters. When people start treating science as "just another belief system" rather than a methodology, it becomes easier to dismiss. And when scientific facts are seen as ideological opinions, they become subject to political whims. That’s how we end up with climate denial, vaccine skepticism, and a culture where expertise is derided rather than valued. It’s not just academic scientists who should be worried—it’s anyone who values reality over convenient fictions.

Also, why should we value reality over fiction

...because reality - often stranger than fiction - is what keeps you alive and orders your existence, while fiction keeps you entertained.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 8:28 pm
...because reality - often stranger than fiction - is what keeps you alive and orders your existence, while fiction keeps you entertained.

Reality also kills us, does it not?

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 8:41 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 8:28 pm
...because reality - often stranger than fiction - is what keeps you alive and orders your existence, while fiction keeps you entertained.

Reality also kills us, does it not?

Yes! That's the nature of reality. There can be no creation without destruction, which applies to everything, including the universe itself. If you prefer to believe in a fictional immortality that's your choice but it changes nothing.

Also, it wasn't fiction that created you.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 8:50 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 8:41 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 8:28 pm
...because reality - often stranger than fiction - is what keeps you alive and orders your existence, while fiction keeps you entertained.

Reality also kills us, does it not?

Yes! That's the nature of reality. There can be no creation without destruction, which applies to everything, including the universe itself. If you prefer to believe in a fictional immortality that's your choice but it changes nothing.

Also, it wasn't fiction that created you.

Ate you sure fiction didn't create me? Aren't all of us both products of biology and created by our cultures? Without language (for example) we would be different animals. We would think and act differently. Fictions are another facet of culture that molds and creates us. We emulate heroes. We derive moral precepts from novels and fairy tales and poetry. Our personalities are molded by fictions.

At least mine is.

Also, why aren't fictions "realities"? Isn't everything that exists part of reality, including imagination, dreams, novels, poems, etc.?

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 9:14 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 8:50 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 8:41 pm


Reality also kills us, does it not?

Yes! That's the nature of reality. There can be no creation without destruction, which applies to everything, including the universe itself. If you prefer to believe in a fictional immortality that's your choice but it changes nothing.

Also, it wasn't fiction that created you.

Ate you sure fiction didn't create me? Aren't all of us both products of biology and created by our cultures? Without language (for example) we would be different animals. We would think and act differently. Fictions are another facet of culture that molds and creates us. We emulate heroes. We derive moral precepts from novels and fairy tales and poetry. Our personalities are molded by fictions.

At least mine is.

Also, why aren't fictions "realities"? Isn't everything that exists part of reality, including imagination, dreams, novels, poems, etc.?

Fictions exist, but they do not create reality—they are created within reality. Stories, myths, and cultural narratives influence how people think and behave, but they do not alter the underlying laws of nature. We may be shaped by language, tradition, and stories, but those things themselves emerge from biological and physical processes, not the other way around.

Fictions are real in the sense that they exist as thoughts, texts, or shared cultural constructs, but they are not reality itself. The difference matters. A fictional hero may inspire someone, but that doesn’t mean the hero exists outside of the story. A fictional afterlife may provide comfort, but that doesn’t make it true. Reality doesn’t care about stories—it simply is, and our survival depends on how well we align our understanding with it.

So yes, fiction plays a role in shaping human experience, but when it comes to understanding the world, distinguishing between what is real and what is merely believed is crucial.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 9:14 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 8:50 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 8:41 pm


Reality also kills us, does it not?

Yes! That's the nature of reality. There can be no creation without destruction, which applies to everything, including the universe itself. If you prefer to believe in a fictional immortality that's your choice but it changes nothing.

Also, it wasn't fiction that created you.

Ate you sure fiction didn't create me? Aren't all of us both products of biology and created by our cultures? Without language (for example) we would be different animals. We would think and act differently. Fictions are another facet of culture that molds and creates us. We emulate heroes. We derive moral precepts from novels and fairy tales and poetry. Our personalities are molded by fictions.

At least mine is.

Also, why aren't fictions "realities"? Isn't everything that exists part of reality, including imagination, dreams, novels, poems, etc.?

What does all this have to do with the fact that if there were no assignation between sperm and egg you wouldn't be here.

Once you've arrived, you can be molded by any number of fictions, i.e., beliefs, which can be very different at different times...as nicely described by you. Nothing new here!

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 9:14 pm Also, why aren't fictions "realities"? Isn't everything that exists part of reality, including imagination, dreams, novels, poems, etc.?

You might agree that so-called “fiction” (fictional novel for example) is not, in truth, fiction or fictional, but rather a sort of extraction from the world of human reality or a condensation — or perhaps amplification.

Both unreal and more-real.

BikeMike is ultimately concerned that Christianity appears solely as an enormous “fiction” — a myth, an invention, and in Mike’s understanding an errant configuration of misdirected neurons (which require sorting out).

Yet generations of men have lived not only relationally to the so-called Stories, and lived through them, but have also understood themselves to be in a relationship with metaphysical, supernatural or psychological entity.

This is not unrealness. It requires a special category.

Now, all of this — both Mike’s absolute concrete “reality” (physics facts) and everything I just mentioned — exist. It is here.

What has come into our world through the psyche provides man with all that is actually human, far more that there mere physiological instrument.

Personally, I am at a loss to decide ultimately to what I must assign genuine realness.

Yes, Mike’s “rolling rock” is tangibly more real than a molding thought. But in an ultimate and a human sense the thought is actually far more real if effect is the criterion.