Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Except for the part that determinism is true, Mike is just seriously mishandling it when it comes to everyday philosophy. I'm baffled that it is obvious to you that truth is irrelevant and only ideals matter. Why is that obvious to you?

My view (expressed earlier) is that the world and universe is certainly determined. As biological beings in that determined flow, we are “ensconced” within determined processes. Man is significantly determined by his capture in that worlding. This understanding is bedrock.

But when animal consciousness enters the picture, and man’s unique capacity for it, to man there is offered “a cubic centimeter of chance” to (say) swim against the current. Still, he is in currents but with some steering and directive capability.

I would modify BigMike’s (hi Mike!) terminology. He is really talking about conditioning and man as a conditioned creature. In my view his “social engineering” phantasies, driven by an over-zealous mood, have the tone of religious conviction and he seems to have no critical brakes.

He is interesting to me essentially insofar as he embodies and expresses an ideology that shares much with ‘mind viruses’ that infect people and also masses of people.

Where I go off the ledge of standard rational versions is in my supposition-recognition of a metaphysical realm that is ever-existent and — yes! — transcendent to “world”. Just by thinking about it :::shazzam!::: you came to its outer edge. It is invisible and intangible but yet man’s psyche has access to it.

NB: I have a cure for the 37 most common mind viruses! Please, PLEASE, consider signing up for The 13-Week Email Course where I go into it all (and check out our comprehensive Dental Plan).

[I am also working on a novel — a philosophical vanity piece with a princely character much like myself, who glides through the world distributing wisdom-bits and setting in motion radically new causal chains. There! Did you hear that?! Maybe it’s only my own latent capacities but every time I talk of my elevated nature celestial bells peal forth! ]

[attofishpi]

NB: I have a cure for the 37 most common mind viruses! Please, PLEASE, consider signing up for The 13-Week Email Course where I go into it all (and check out our comprehensive Dental Plan).

I must attest to Jacobi's Dental Plan. Having been subject to much gnashing of teeth causing all sorts of terrible noise within the household, thanks to Jacobi I now have no teeth. Yes, with his help on the Dental plan (instructions), I was able to remove all my noisy teeth and now there is only the dull smacking of gums. Nowadays I can truly say that I did succeed, just like my toothless budgie, Humphrey.

[Immanuel Can]

So, I’m working on this novel—fiction, about a third of the way through—about a homeless man who, through his journey, comes to grasp the conservation laws of physics and the concept of determinism. Along the way, he lets go of the illusion of free will and the idea of individual moral responsibility, and instead, he becomes a passionate advocate for spreading knowledge and understanding.

Now, I’m not entirely sure why I feel compelled to share this with you, but maybe it’s because I want to show that embracing determinism doesn’t strip away your humanity. If anything, it deepens it. I’ll post what I wrote yesterday in the next post—stay tuned.

That's going to be a short novel..."a physical lump of materials makes no choices, and only the inevitable happens."

In order to create any plot, you're going to be departing the terms of Determinism immediately: you're going to need an interesting protagonist, one who can choose, and some interesting choices for him to have to make, and these choices are going to have to make a difference to his outcome...

If you give him any humanity, you're not in the Land of Determinism anymore. Apes, fish and paramecia all have flesh. Humanity is largely a matter of the cognitive qualities and possibilities...the fact of having physical form is unremarkable, and would make a terribly dull subject for a novel.

By the way, do you ever think about what "novel" means? It means "new and unexpected." The world of Determinism has nothing new since the dawn of time, and nothing unexpected, because everything is merely a matter of dull determination.

Good luck selling that novel. You might need it.

[henry quirk]

Revised to properly reflect determinism...

meaningless

then...

meat makes sound

meat moves

now...

meat moves

*

Second revision...

physics

particles move

*

Third revision...

0

[Immanuel Can]

The Moment That Broke

The memory of that night returned to Jack like a jagged shard of glass, cutting into the edges of his thoughts. He was back in the kitchen, the dim overhead light casting long shadows as his voice echoed off the walls. His words, raw and unfiltered, hung in the air like a storm cloud, their weight pressing down on the small space. Even now, sitting by the river, he could hear them clearly, the anger in his voice more than just a sound—it was a force, a breaking wave that neither he nor Anna could stop....

Meeeeeeelodrama! Straight into full-on theatrics, cliche phrases ("hung in the air like a storm cloud," "dim overhead light," "a breaking wave," "raw and unfiltered," etc) No pacing, too little done indirectly, too many adjectives. Mike is trying to tell people what they are supposed to feel, instead of creating the imaginative ethos within which they will choose to feel it -- and that never works for a novelist.

Mike needs an editor...a very mean one, who will tell him the truth about that writing style and make him rein it in and get more subtle. In a novel, the point is not to "tell" so much as it is to "show." You create the ethos, and you have to know how to trust the reader to make the necessary imaginative leaps...you can't lecture them to those, or they weary and walk away.

Putting a melodramatic story in service of lecturing out a point to people never works. Let me offer you the best possible advice from a master novelist, Thomas Hardy. In his intro to Tess, he wrote, "a novel is not an argument; it is an impression." Boy, if you can grasp that one, Mike, you'll go much farther.

So Mike needs an editor...and a better philosophy. But he might seek out neither, possibly.

[accelafine]

Revised to properly reflect determinism...

meaningless

then...

meat makes sound

meat moves

now...

meat moves

*

Second revision...

physics

particles move

*

Third revision...

0

So IC has proselytised you to the nth degree. Got it.

[Immanuel Can]

So IC has proselytised you to the nth degree. Got it.

I've tried so hard with Henry...[ sniff] But he just won't take the programming.

[henry quirk]

So IC has proselytised you to the nth degree. Got it.

I've tried so hard with Henry...[ sniff] But he just won't take the programming.

Cuz I'm a free will...

[Alexiev]

So, I’m working on this novel—fiction, about a third of the way through—about a homeless man who, through his journey, comes to grasp the conservation laws of physics and the concept of determinism. Along the way, he lets go of the illusion of free will and the idea of individual moral responsibility, and instead, he becomes a passionate advocate for spreading knowledge and understanding.

Now, I’m not entirely sure why I feel compelled to share this with you, but maybe it’s because I want to show that embracing determinism doesn’t strip away your humanity. If anything, it deepens it. I’ll post what I wrote yesterday in the next post—stay tuned.

That's going to be a short novel..."a physical lump of materials makes no choices, and only the inevitable happens."

In order to create any plot, you're going to be departing the terms of Determinism immediately: you're going to need an interesting protagonist, one who can choose, and some interesting choices for him to have to make, and these choices are going to have to make a difference to his outcome...

If you give him any humanity, you're not in the Land of Determinism anymore. Apes, fish and paramecia all have flesh. Humanity is largely a matter of the cognitive qualities and possibilities...the fact of having physical form is unremarkable, and would make a terribly dull subject for a novel.

By the way, do you ever think about what "novel" means? It means "new and unexpected." The world of Determinism has nothing new since the dawn of time, and nothing unexpected, because everything is merely a matter of dull determination.

Good luck selling that novel. You might need it.

"Beware the Ides of March." "You will kill your father and marry your mother." Fate plays an important part in a great many works of fiction.

Of course the protagonist must rail against his fate -- fruitlessly.

[Immanuel Can]

"Beware the Ides of March." "You will kill your father and marry your mother." Fate plays an important part in a great many works of fiction.

Of course the protagonist must rail against his fate -- fruitlessly.

It's because the characters do have volition that it manages to be tragic. But nobody has any good reason to suppose that the fatalism of the Stoics or the Existentialists was realistic. It was always merely speculative...stuff of drama, if well-written, but not the stuff of life.

Here's what Aristotle thought constituted tragedy...

In Chapter Eight of Aristotle’s Poetics, a true tragic hero must possess the following qualities:

Nobility: The character must be from a high-born family or has achieved greatness somehow. With a “great” character, there is farther to “fall.”
Morality: The character must be essentially a good person, but not perfect so that the audience can empathize. (Remember that ancient Greece was a pragmatic and often brutal society, so the idea of morality is likely different for modern audiences.)
Hamartia: The character possesses a fatal flaw or weakness that leads to the character’s downfall. (Again, this is a moral person, so the hamartia should not be wicked or depraved.)
Anagnorisis: The character experiences a moment of comprehension and realizes that the downfall was self-inflicted, usually unintentionally.
Peripeteia: The character’s hamartia causes a dramatic reversal of fortune. Since the character is moral, the “punishment” is often accepted readily.
Catharsis: The character’s outcome elicits pity from the audience. (Source: ancientliterature.com)

He used Oedipus Rex as his key example. But you'll notice that all of the above require a) distinct person, not merely a robot, b) the ability to make choices and decisions, and c) imperfections in the main character, who, though noble, is also capable of some kind of failure. The "it could have been otherwise" element is essential to tragedy, in fact. Nobody feels association with or pity for a character that was not an individual, made no choices, and could not have done other than what happened.

[FlashDangerpants]

Mike needs an editor...a very mean one

Harsh but fair. His writing style would work very well for a bodice-ripping journey of erotic discovery such as those published by the yard at Mills and Boon, but won't suffice for a delicate investigation of existential crisis.

[Immanuel Can]

Mike needs an editor...a very mean one

Harsh but fair. His writing style would work very well for a bodice-ripping journey of erotic discovery such as those published by the yard at Mills and Boon, but won't suffice for a delicate investigation of existential crisis.

His writing style would certainly work for that. But his philosophy won't. Imagine a "bodice ripper" in which there are no individuals, no desires that are not simply the products of causality, no decisions to be made, no way to overcome the fatalistic obstacles, and no moral values to disrupt. Instead, everybody just plays out whatever hand fate dealt them, because it's all predetermined anyway.

That would be the least-enticing "bodice ripper" ever written, would it not? Zzzzzzzzzzz.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In BigMike’s big philosophical novel his protagonist and proponent will require at least one antagonist who opposes his Master Plan of social renovation according to Determinist Doctrines.

I assume that this antagonist or perhaps an antagonist community would necessarily be presented as being unhappy, unsatisfied, unsuccessful types who too much believe in the illusion of free choice and constantly fail as a result. All this could be “shown” without any authorial dissertation. Certainly people who believe in retributive justice.

The Hero would, naturally, have a sciency background and, at the start, be shown to fail (personally, professionally, in business, in love?) until the Doctrine of Determinism lands on him and effectively hatches a New Man — cognizant of the chains, wheels and currents of the Causal Web. But how to show that the New Doctrines change and transform him? From what to what? There might be some crisis, an accident? that presents him with the Inexorable tendency in our determined world.

Perhaps he crosses paths with a woman ( is always a good subtext for a novel) who lives an utterly determined life — like a victim of abuse who channels her rage into a career as a Ninja-like assassin (specialist in poisons). She comes under his influence and, without thought, without moral self-struggle, simply walks away from her bag of venomous concoctions one day and becomes an enlightened organic farmer …

Just some initial thoughts …

[BigMike]

So, I’m working on this novel—fiction, about a third of the way through—about a homeless man who, through his journey, comes to grasp the conservation laws of physics and the concept of determinism. Along the way, he lets go of the illusion of free will and the idea of individual moral responsibility, and instead, he becomes a passionate advocate for spreading knowledge and understanding.

Now, I’m not entirely sure why I feel compelled to share this with you, but maybe it’s because I want to show that embracing determinism doesn’t strip away your humanity. If anything, it deepens it. I’ll post what I wrote yesterday in the next post—stay tuned.

That's going to be a short novel..."a physical lump of materials makes no choices, and only the inevitable happens."

In order to create any plot, you're going to be departing the terms of Determinism immediately: you're going to need an interesting protagonist, one who can choose, and some interesting choices for him to have to make, and these choices are going to have to make a difference to his outcome...

If you give him any humanity, you're not in the Land of Determinism anymore. Apes, fish and paramecia all have flesh. Humanity is largely a matter of the cognitive qualities and possibilities...the fact of having physical form is unremarkable, and would make a terribly dull subject for a novel.

By the way, do you ever think about what "novel" means? It means "new and unexpected." The world of Determinism has nothing new since the dawn of time, and nothing unexpected, because everything is merely a matter of dull determination.

Good luck selling that novel. You might need it.

"Beware the Ides of March." "You will kill your father and marry your mother." Fate plays an important part in a great many works of fiction.

Of course the protagonist must rail against his fate -- fruitlessly.

This is actually my first attempt at writing fiction, and to be clear, I wasn’t really looking for literary critiques based on a single random page from the first 100 or so pages. Honestly, the book—if I ever finish it—might not even be published. My goal isn’t to craft a literary masterpiece, but to explore something deeper: to challenge the idea that determinism strips away our humanity. I believe it does the opposite—it enriches and enhances it.

What I hoped to show through this story, and particularly through my fictional character Jack, is that understanding determinism leads to compassion, purpose, and a greater sense of connection to others. Interestingly, some of the behavior I’ve seen from staunch anti-determinists in this forum often seems to lack the humanity I’m trying to bring out in Jack’s journey.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Interestingly, some of the behavior I’ve seen from staunch anti-determinists in this forum often seems to lack the humanity I’m trying to bring out in Jack’s journey.

Obviously, this attack is directed to me!
____________

But I’m trying to help!

Consider the Nouveau Roman and Robbe-Grillet:

Alain Robbe-Grillet (born Aug. 18, 1922, Brest, France—died Feb. 18, 2008, Caen) was a representative writer and leading theoretician of the nouveau roman (“new novel”), the French “anti-novel” that emerged in the 1950s. He was also a screenwriter and film director.

Robbe-Grillet was trained as a statistician and agronomist. He claimed to write novels for his time, especially attentive “to the ties that exist between objects, gestures, and situations, avoiding all psychological and ideological ‘commentary’ on the actions of the characters” (Pour un nouveau roman, 1963; Toward a New Novel; Essays on Fiction). Robbe-Grillet’s world is neither meaningful nor absurd; it merely exists. Omnipresent is the object—hard, polished, with only the measurable characteristics of pounds, inches, and wavelengths of reflected light. It overshadows and eliminates plot and character. The story is composed of recurring images, either actually recorded by an objective eye or drawn from reminiscences and dreams.