Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[henry quirk]

there's just no mistaking the telltale signs of Chat's somewhat robotic (almost too perfect) style of grammar and wording.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious Mike supplements himself with a chatbot assist. I wonder if he writes his books that way?

despite our disagreements in the past, I nevertheless trust that you both are men of integrity who will always cite the sources of information that you are using to support your arguments.

Oh sure. AJ's good for that. Me, not so much. Though I've cited Bastiat, Locke, and Reid from time to time, I rely on my intuition a lot.

...which, in turn, makes one wonder about the value (in terms of "morality") in holding and promoting the philosophy of "determinism."

Well, as I say, I don't believe Mike believes any of it. He may wanna be a meat machine, may want all of us to be bio-automata, but he knows he, and we, aren't.

I guess what I am getting at, was it "determined" 13.8 billion years ago at the alleged beginning of the universe that the meat machine that calls itself BigMike would turn out to be dishonest?

In other words: is Mike the kinda robot that lies? If he's right about all this deterministic hoopla, then, yeah, he is.

Of course, robots can't really lie.

[Dubious]

Where truth is the tyrant, and to keep in balance, we do require periods of inebriation called fantasies. The consistent kneeling before truth is no fun at all. Occasionally the mind requires a holiday...a truth of its own often eliciting others in its wake.

A reasonable measure of entertainment and relaxation is good. But to seize the day without any personal responsibility for tomorrow is bad.

That goes without saying! The ancient Greeks had it figured out.

[henry quirk]

I think the crux of the issue is that metaphysics needs to be grounded in evidence.

What's acceptable scientific evidence of courage, or integrity, or love, or compassion, or resolve?

What's the formal scientific measure for cowardice, or subterfuge, or hatred, or derision, or poor character?

Metaphysics is the reality that is only measured subjectively.

A series of agitated synapses may indicate reason or intuition in progress, but only the person himself can tell you what he's reasonin' or intuitin'. If he chooses not to, no science, today or tomorrow, will reveal his interior.

[henry quirk]

If the soul is immaterial, how exactly does it interact with the material brain?

How do AJ's words -- symbols place-holding for immaterial ideas and meanings -- move you, nuthin' but meat, to respond?

Where, in the meat that is Mike, is his understanding, his disagreement, his disappointment, his anger? Where in Mike's meat is his defensiveness, his idealism, his certainty, his pedantry?

[BigMike]

If the soul is immaterial, how exactly does it interact with the material brain?

How do AJ's words -- symbols place-holding for immaterial ideas and meanings -- move you, nuthin' but meat, to respond?

Where, in the meat that is Mike, is his understanding, his disagreement, his disappointment, his anger? Where in Mike's meat is his defensiveness, his idealism, his certainty, his pedantry?

Ah, Henry, the classic category error dressed up as profundity. Words are symbols, yes. They represent meanings, which are processed by neural activity in the brain—an entirely material system. Nothing immaterial is required to explain the process of comprehension, reaction, or even the emotional responses that follow. The electrical impulses firing in my brain, the neurotransmitters transmitting signals, the networks of neurons forming connections—all of these are physical processes, thoroughly studied and mapped. There is no mystery here that requires invoking some ghostly, non-material essence.

But you, like Alexis, want to sneak the immaterial in through the back door, hoping no one will notice the switch. You take an abstract concept—thought, meaning, understanding—and pretend that its non-physical representation must imply a non-physical origin. But that’s like arguing that because a book conveys an idea, the book itself must be conscious. No, Henry, the words on the page are encoded information, and it is the brain, the physical substrate, that decodes and assigns meaning to them.

So let’s answer your question plainly: my understanding, my disagreement, my anger, my pedantry—all exist in the brain, in the electrochemical processes that shape perception, memory, and cognition. They are not floating in some ethereal realm, waiting for a soul to pluck them out of the void. They are products of neurons firing, synapses strengthening, patterns emerging from material interactions.

You’re reaching, Henry. But the gap you’re reaching across isn’t a mystery—it’s just the space where supernatural explanations go to die.

[Age]

If the soul is immaterial, how exactly does it interact with the material brain?

How do AJ's words -- symbols place-holding for immaterial ideas and meanings -- move you, nuthin' but meat, to respond?

Where, in the meat that is Mike, is his understanding, his disagreement, his disappointment, his anger? Where in Mike's meat is his defensiveness, his idealism, his certainty, his pedantry?

How do you KNOW, FOR SURE, that ideas and/or meanings are 'immaterial'?

[henry quirk]

Mike, referencing electro-chemical reactions is not an explanation or answer.

If you want me to accept ideas as material, then you must explain how, for example, justice (as a concept, an ideal, an idea) is material.

You can't just say electrical impulses firing in my brain, the neurotransmitters transmitting signals, the networks of neurons forming connections or the electrochemical processes that shape perception, memory, and cognition and leave it there, as though all that explains anything.

You see this, yes?

[Age]

If the soul is immaterial, how exactly does it interact with the material brain?

How do AJ's words -- symbols place-holding for immaterial ideas and meanings -- move you, nuthin' but meat, to respond?

Where, in the meat that is Mike, is his understanding, his disagreement, his disappointment, his anger? Where in Mike's meat is his defensiveness, his idealism, his certainty, his pedantry?

Ah, Henry, the classic category error dressed up as profundity. Words are symbols, yes. They represent meanings, which are processed by neural activity in the brain—an entirely material system. Nothing immaterial is required to explain the process of comprehension, reaction, or even the emotional responses that follow.

But, how do you KNOW, FOR SURE, that comprehension, itself, IS NOT 'immaterial'?

The electrical impulses firing in my brain, the neurotransmitters transmitting signals, the networks of neurons forming connections—all of these are physical processes, thoroughly studied and mapped. There is no mystery here that requires invoking some ghostly, non-material essence.

It is this kind of CLOSEDNESS, and thus type of STUPIDITY, WHY these people TOOK SO, SO LONG TO MOVE ALONG, and THUS TO PROGRESS, here.

'This one's and "henry quirk" CONTINUALLY ARGUING AGAINST each other OVER there OBVIOUSLY UNVERIFIED BELIEFS IS WHY they NEVER LEARNED ANY thing NEW nor MORE, here. Thus, WHY they NEVER MOVED ALONG nore PROGRESSED AT ALL, here.

What is ALSO VERY OBVIOUS and CLEAR, here, is that they WILL NOT SHOW ANY CURIOUSITY NOR INTEREST, AT ALL, in what I just SAID, and ASKED, and so they, literally, can NOT BECOME ANY WISER, here.

They BOTH much prefer to just KEEP ARGUING and KEEP FIGHTING AGAINST each over OVER what they both BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, is true.

But you, like Alexis, want to sneak the immaterial in through the back door, hoping no one will notice the switch.

Whereas, you much prefer to KEEP INSISTING and KEEP BELIEVING, ABSOLUTELY, that there is NO 'immateriality', absolutely anywhere, here, AT ALL. Although you do NOT have a shred of evidence for this, let alone ANY ACTUAL PROOF AT ALL.

You take an abstract concept—thought, meaning, understanding—and pretend that its non-physical representation must imply a non-physical origin.

While you, conversely, pretend that those things are physical, and therefore MUST BE physical.

But that’s like arguing that because a book conveys an idea, the book itself must be conscious. No, Henry, the words on the page are encoded information, and it is the brain, the physical substrate, that decodes and assigns meaning to them.

AGAIN, HOW do you KNOW this, FOR ABSOLUTELY SURE, EXACTLY?

So let’s answer your question plainly: my understanding, my disagreement, my anger, my pedantry—all exist in the brain, in the electrochemical processes that shape perception, memory, and cognition.

Let 'us' go through this ONCE MORE, How do you KNOW this, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT AT ALL, FOR SURE, EXACTLY?

They are not floating in some ethereal realm, waiting for a soul to pluck them out of the void. They are products of neurons firing, synapses strengthening, patterns emerging from material interactions.

If 'they' are PRODUCTS OF 'neurons firing', then 'they' are OBVIOUSLY NOT 'neurons firing', right?

You’re reaching, Henry. But the gap you’re reaching across isn’t a mystery—it’s just the space where supernatural explanations go to die.

AGAIN, you are 'TRYING' your HARDEST, here, "bigmike", but WHY are you NOT SUCCEEDING?

"bigmike" started a WHOLE thread of CRITICIZING those who reject science while embarrassing the impossible, which IS, EXACTLY, what "bigmike", "itself", is DOING, here.

There is NOTHING in 'science' that has PROVED that comprehension, meaning, understanding, et cetera ARE 'material'. On the CONTRARY IN FACT. So, "bigmike" is REJECTING 'science', here. "bigmike" is ALSO EMBRACING what might well BE the IMPOSSIBLE, AS WELL.

And, "bigmike" HAS TO DO BOTH of these, here, BECAUSE if it did NOT, then what it BELIEVES IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE would FALTER and CRUMBLE AWAY.

So, STARTING A THREAD, TO CRITICIZE and/or RIDICULE others, in the HOPE TO BOLSTER one's OWN UNSUPPORTED, UNSUBSTANTIATED, and UNVERFIED BELIEF, here, is NOT WORKING OUT TO GOOD FOR "bigmike", here, AT ALL.

[Age]

Mike, referencing electro-chemical reactions is not an explanation or answer.

THANK YOU.

If you want me to accept ideas as material, then you must explain how, for example, justice (as a concept, an ideal, an idea) is material.

You can't just say electrical impulses firing in my brain, the neurotransmitters transmitting signals, the networks of neurons forming connections or the electrochemical processes that shape perception, memory, and cognition and leave it there, as though all that explains anything.

Obviously, 'that' does NOT EXPLAIN NOR ANSWER the question ABOUT 'material' OR 'immaterial'.

You see this, yes?

Do you ALSO see that just SAYING and/or just CLAIMING that 'they' are 'immaterial', and leaving it there, as though that explains anything ABOUT 'material' OR 'immaterial' is ALSO NOT?

ONCE AGAIN, I WILL SUGGEST that you two BOTH LOOK AT and SPEAK the ACTUAL Truth, ONLY, AND STOP LOOKING AT and SEEING things FROM your OWN OPPOSING BELIEFS, ONLY.

[BigMike]

Mike, referencing electro-chemical reactions is not an explanation or answer.

If you want me to accept ideas as material, then you must explain how, for example, justice (as a concept, an ideal, an idea) is material.

You can't just say electrical impulses firing in my brain, the neurotransmitters transmitting signals, the networks of neurons forming connections or the electrochemical processes that shape perception, memory, and cognition and leave it there, as though all that explains anything.

You see this, yes?

Oh, Henry, I see it—I see it as yet another attempt to smuggle in the immaterial by playing semantic games. But let’s break this down so even you can see where the sleight of hand happens.

Justice, as a concept, does not float around in some immaterial realm waiting to be grasped by an ethereal soul. It is an emergent property of human cognition, encoded in the physical structure of the brain and shaped by social interactions. Justice, like any idea, exists as neural patterns—configurations of electrical and chemical activity that correlate with our ability to think, reason, and communicate. These patterns can be reinforced, shared, debated, and modified—all through physical means.

Now, you seem to think that because justice is an abstract concept, it must be something other than physical. But this is just a category mistake. The concept of justice is represented in neural activity, just like the concept of "triangle" or "freedom" or "Henry's refusal to understand basic neuroscience." Abstract doesn’t mean immaterial—it just means it exists in a different way than, say, a rock or a chair. But its existence is still grounded in physical processes.

You’re asking for some extra metaphysical ingredient when none is needed. It's like asking me to point to the physical location of "Monday" or the color blue when no one's looking at it. Concepts exist as structured information, processed by physical systems. No ghostly soul required.

So no, I don’t see your problem—I see your problem, which is the assumption that just because something is conceptual, it must be immaterial. That’s your leap, not mine.

[Alexiev]

Oh, Henry, I see it—I see it as yet another attempt to smuggle in the immaterial by playing semantic games. But let’s break this down so even you can see where the sleight of hand happens.

Justice, as a concept, does not float around in some immaterial realm waiting to be grasped by an ethereal soul. It is an emergent property of human cognition, encoded in the physical structure of the brain and shaped by social interactions. Justice, like any idea, exists as neural patterns—configurations of electrical and chemical activity that correlate with our ability to think, reason, and communicate. These patterns can be reinforced, shared, debated, and modified—all through physical means.

Now, you seem to think that because justice is an abstract concept, it must be something other than physical. But this is just a category mistake. The concept of justice is represented in neural activity, just like the concept of "triangle" or "freedom" or "Henry's refusal to understand basic neuroscience." Abstract doesn’t mean immaterial—it just means it exists in a different way than, say, a rock or a chair. But its existence is still grounded in physical processes.

You’re asking for some extra metaphysical ingredient when none is needed. It's like asking me to point to the physical location of "Monday" or the color blue when no one's looking at it. Concepts exist as structured information, processed by physical systems. No ghostly soul required.

So no, I don’t see your problem—I see your problem, which is the assumption that just because something is conceptual, it must be immaterial. That’s your leap, not mine.

As has been my position from the start, how do studying "configurations of electrical and chemical activity (in our brains)" help us understand justice? If science is as science does, the only sciences that can help us understand justice are not physics, or chemistry, or biology. INstead, they are jurisprudence, philosophy, history and anthropology (or theology for the religious). Physics is worthless in its attempts to elucidate what constitutes justice. So materialist determinism is worthless in this respect. Why bother with it? Metaphysics is called metaphysics because it's "beyond physics".

[BigMike]

Oh, Henry, I see it—I see it as yet another attempt to smuggle in the immaterial by playing semantic games. But let’s break this down so even you can see where the sleight of hand happens.

Justice, as a concept, does not float around in some immaterial realm waiting to be grasped by an ethereal soul. It is an emergent property of human cognition, encoded in the physical structure of the brain and shaped by social interactions. Justice, like any idea, exists as neural patterns—configurations of electrical and chemical activity that correlate with our ability to think, reason, and communicate. These patterns can be reinforced, shared, debated, and modified—all through physical means.

Now, you seem to think that because justice is an abstract concept, it must be something other than physical. But this is just a category mistake. The concept of justice is represented in neural activity, just like the concept of "triangle" or "freedom" or "Henry's refusal to understand basic neuroscience." Abstract doesn’t mean immaterial—it just means it exists in a different way than, say, a rock or a chair. But its existence is still grounded in physical processes.

You’re asking for some extra metaphysical ingredient when none is needed. It's like asking me to point to the physical location of "Monday" or the color blue when no one's looking at it. Concepts exist as structured information, processed by physical systems. No ghostly soul required.

So no, I don’t see your problem—I see your problem, which is the assumption that just because something is conceptual, it must be immaterial. That’s your leap, not mine.

As has been my position from the start, how do studying "configurations of electrical and chemical activity (in our brains)" help us understand justice? If science is as science does, the only sciences that can help us understand justice are not physics, or chemistry, or biology. INstead, they are jurisprudence, philosophy, history and anthropology (or theology for the religious). Physics is worthless in its attempts to elucidate what constitutes justice. So materialist determinism is worthless in this respect. Why bother with it? Metaphysics is called metaphysics because it's "beyond physics".

So now justice just pops into your head out of nowhere, fully formed and ready for philosophical contemplation? Tell me, Alexiev, how exactly does this concept of justice materialize in your mind? Does it whisper itself into your thoughts from the cosmic ether? Does it descend from the great metaphysical beyond like divine inspiration, bypassing your neurons entirely?

Or, and stay with me here, does it form through lived experience, shaped by your interactions, cultural influences, and—oh no!—those pesky electrochemical processes in your brain? You know, the ones you just waved away as irrelevant?

You claim physics is "worthless" in understanding justice, yet you conveniently ignore that every single thought you have, every moral consideration, every philosophical musing—all of it is physically instantiated in your brain. You want justice to exist on some mystical plane, untouched by the material world, yet you rely on that very material world to think about it, articulate it, and argue about it. How delightfully self-defeating.

If metaphysics is "beyond physics," as you say, then how exactly does it interact with your brain? Because unless you have some magic wand that allows purely immaterial entities to make neurons fire, you’re left with a choice: either justice emerges from physical processes, or you’re stuck explaining how the Great Cosmic Tribunal beams moral insights directly into your head.

So tell me, Alexiev, does justice arrive via psychic transmission, or does it knock politely before stepping through the door of your frontal lobe?

[henry quirk]

You explain -- poorly -- processing mechanisms, but still refuse to explain how an idea is material.

Justice, you say, is encoded in the brain. Where? in what cluster of cells? And how?

You say justice is a neural pattern (a configuration of electrical and chemical activity). What does that mean? Do electrons, neutrons, and protons line themselves up to form the symbol JUSTICE? If I use a powerful microscope can I see the symbol etched on the side of a dendrite, with lil arrows pointing the way to other related patterns etched on the sides of other dendrites?? Can I distill JUSTICE, the material, out and bottle it or store it in a battery?

You say justice is abstract and represented in neural activity so where is the abstract bein' represented and how is an abstract material?

You say Justice is an emergent property encoded in the brain. Where? How?

[Age]

You explain -- poorly -- processing mechanisms, but still refuse to explain how an idea is material.

Justice, you say, is encoded in the brain. Where? in what cluster of cells? And how?

You say justice is a neural pattern (a configuration of electrical and chemical activity). What does that mean? Do electrons, neutrons, and protons line themselves up to form the symbol JUSTICE? If I use a powerful microscope can I see the symbol etched on the side of a dendrite, with lil arrows pointing the way to other related patterns etched on the sides of other dendrites?? Can I distill JUSTICE, the material, out and bottle it or store it in a battery?

You say justice is abstract and represented in neural activity so where is the abstract bein' represented and how is an abstract material?

You say Justice is an emergent property encoded in the brain. Where? How?

The ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth, here, is so BASIC and SIMPLE, and is so EASY TO SEE, COMPREHEND,
and UNDERSTAND. But, the REASON WHY 'this pair', here, can NOT YET SEE 'It', is, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF the, invisible, PRE-EXISTING ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, WITHIN.

[Gary Childress]

I think the crux of the issue is that metaphysics needs to be grounded in evidence.

What's acceptable scientific evidence of courage, or integrity, or love, or compassion, or resolve?

What's the formal scientific measure for cowardice, or subterfuge, or hatred, or derision, or poor character?

Metaphysics is the reality that is only measured subjectively.

A series of agitated synapses may indicate reason or intuition in progress, but only the person himself can tell you what he's reasonin' or intuitin'. If he chooses not to, no science, today or tomorrow, will reveal his interior.

Behaviors and even neurological actions accompany most human emotions, attributes and such. So, for example, if Mike believes that people being told that we are determined and not responsible for our actions leads to better overall social outcomes then stuff like that can be roughly observed and experiments or statistical analyses can be set up to measure whether his contention is the case or not. Someone just has to set up whatever conditions need to be in order to do experiments with as little margin of error as possible.