Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2025 5:11 pm
Talk about this. What do you mean and why?
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Talk about this. What do you mean and why?
You don't possess the same background education as I do. I wouldn't know where to start explaining it to you.
If that is what you think, then that is what you think. There's no point in me arguing with what I consider to be a devil's advocate who has turned into a zealot.
Science, reality, evidence? Pfft, that's just some pre-Trumpian era rubbish. Someone hasn't been following the news lately.BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 4:31 pm Is there, anywhere in the vast reaches of the internet, a philosophy forum where arguments based on observable, repeatable facts don’t get dismissed as “utter one-sidedness” and “ridiculous, ignorant, barking certitude”? Where citing conservation laws and fundamental interactions isn’t met with theatrical hand-wringing about metaphysical mysteries? Where “skepticism” doesn’t mean throwing up vague appeals to intuition and whining that science doesn’t coddle one’s cherished illusions?
Because if such a place exists, I’d love to hear about it. A place where people actually engage with reality instead of wailing about how cruel and reductive it is to point out that causal chains don’t just poof into existence because someone finds determinism emotionally inconvenient.
Frankly, the sheer cowardice of it all is exhausting. The perpetual dance of “Well, we can never really know” followed immediately by “But I know determinism can’t be true” is the kind of dishonest nonsense that makes productive discussion impossible. If there’s a forum where people don’t flinch at the idea that reality doesn’t care about their feelings, where arguments are built on evidence rather than evasions, please—point the way. Because I’m tired of wasting time on people who are more interested in defending their own discomfort than in actually understanding anything.
The only "pictures" I'm interested in are real ones, not "metaphysical" ones.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 5:46 pm I am less interested in “arguing” specifics and much more interested in laying out a general, broader picture.
What does the word “metaphysics” refer to when you use it?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 5:46 pmThe only "pictures" I'm interested in are real ones, not "metaphysical" ones.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 5:46 pm I am less interested in “arguing” specifics and much more interested in laying out a general, broader picture.
"Metaphysics" is essentially an instrument or lense of interpretation. It's not physical fact or evidence. If you think I have "metaphysical" beliefs, then you are welcome to point out exactly what those beliefs are. I will consider if I need to revise them if you give me evidence of why they should be revised.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 5:49 pmWhat does the word “metaphysics” refer to when you use it?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 5:46 pmThe only "pictures" I'm interested in are real ones, not "metaphysical" ones.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 5:46 pm I am less interested in “arguing” specifics and much more interested in laying out a general, broader picture.
As I openly said I am constrained in discussing needs for racial or ethnic purity. If you believe that metaphysical belief is wrong, then what evidence suggests that it is wrong?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 6:02 pm It is not my object or rôle to decipher your metaphysics or to explain you to you, but it is important to point out that the realism you would seem to profess is a rationalized false-front. You — you especially — seem driven, even determined, by a sort of metaphysics insofar as you are constrained by that structure of interpretation that you mention.