Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 1:15 am
I'm pretty sure you don't...
Philosophy Now Forum
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Page 63 of 228
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 2:20 am
I honestly think he does
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:18 am
Neither of you know what love is. You have no life experience that would give you this insight. Prom hates his own mother and thinks that young girls are objects for his sexual gratification.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 2:20 amI honestly think he does
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:40 am
Whatever our other attributes, free willed or not, we are indeed meat machines easily processed into homo burgers.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 3:21 pmBut that's exactly what Mike is tryin' to do: he wants folks to formally reject free will and see themselves as meat machines.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:42 am
Oh wow that's brilliant!! My dog would sooo scoff those down in one chomp!Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:40 amWhatever our other attributes, free willed or not, we are indeed meat machines easily processed into homo burgers.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 3:21 pmBut that's exactly what Mike is tryin' to do: he wants folks to formally reject free will and see themselves as meat machines.
(there would be no free will involved)
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:43 am
Apparently 'free will' renders our flesh inedible...Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:40 amWhatever our other attributes, free willed or not, we are indeed meat machines easily processed into homo burgers.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 3:21 pmBut that's exactly what Mike is tryin' to do: he wants folks to formally reject free will and see themselves as meat machines.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:46 am
I wonder how Henry would explain King Charles' sausage fingers that are clearly designed to be tantalisingly tempting to carnivorous mammalian predators...
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:46 am
Nah, just a little tough if overcooked.accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:43 amApparently 'free will' renders our flesh inedible...Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:40 amWhatever our other attributes, free willed or not, we are indeed meat machines easily processed into homo burgers.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 3:21 pm
But that's exactly what Mike is tryin' to do: he wants folks to formally reject free will and see themselves as meat machines.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:48 am
King Charles my arse.accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:46 am I wonder how Henry would explain King Charles' sausage fingers that are clearly designed to be tantalisingly tempting to carnivorous mammalian predators...
My Mum shook his hand in the 80s. She was the personal secretary for the Director General of the Ordnance Survey - ya know, the firm that mapped the world.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 4:07 am
What do his sausages have to do with your arse?attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:48 amKing Charles my arse.accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:46 am I wonder how Henry would explain King Charles' sausage fingers that are clearly designed to be tantalisingly tempting to carnivorous mammalian predators...
My Mum shook his hand in the 80s. She was the personal secretary for the Director General of the Ordnance Survey - ya know, the firm that mapped the world.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 8:33 am
Alexiev, thanks for clarifying. We seem to agree on an important point: explanations must meet standards of coherence and causation. If an explanation contradicts causation or determinism—for instance, by invoking "first movers" or phenomena operating outside physical laws—it can be discarded outright as incoherent.Alexiev wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:36 pmThat's not what I've claimed at all. Instead, I've claimed that reductionist explanations of complex cultural phenomena have not yet been successful. Science is as science does. What good does it do to claim that some day physics may explain everything? Even popular reductionist explanations (like evolutionary psychology) fail to meet low scientific standards. Evolutionary psychology tends to restate the obvious and ignore cultural differences. It is also contaminated with logical errors, like assuming the antecedent. To examine ethical or legal systems by studying physics is unenlightening. On the other hand, if we study ethics or political systems by examining the history and development of ethics and political systems we might actually learn something.BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:56 pm You seem to suggest that the lack of a fully successful reduction so far is evidence against reducibility. I would frame it differently. The complexity of culture and politics means we need better tools and theories to bridge the gap between microscopic causes (physics) and macroscopic phenomena (social systems). But complexity doesn’t negate causality; it just makes it harder to trace.
So, if the claim is that culture and politics are somehow not caused deterministically or operate outside the bounds of physics, I’d respectfully challenge that. What’s needed isn’t the assertion that they are irreducible but a clear articulation of what makes them appear so—and whether those obstacles are practical (our current limits in understanding) or conceptual (a genuine disconnection from physical causation). If you think there’s something fundamentally "non-physical" about culture or politics, I’d be curious to hear what you think that is and how it operates.
To me, culture and politics are profound examples of how physical processes give rise to the astonishing complexity of human behavior and interaction. They don’t escape the laws of physics—they are the intricate dance of those laws playing out on a human stage. What are your thoughts? Could culture and politics have causal origins outside physical processes, or are we simply confronting their emergent complexity?
That said, complexity doesn’t negate reducibility. The lack of a fully reductionist model for culture or politics doesn’t mean they escape physical causation, but rather that we haven’t yet developed the tools to trace the connections. I agree that studying ethics and political systems within their historical and cultural contexts is essential. But rejecting reductionism outright assumes we already know its limits—something science consistently challenges by uncovering new layers of understanding.
Let’s continue exploring: where do you see coherent limits to reductionist approaches, and how do we distinguish those from areas where the complexity is just daunting?
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 8:50 am
Do you think there's a meaningful difference between dead meat on a butcher block and a living "meat machine" with consciousness, brain plasticity, and the capacity for self-reflection? If so, where do you think that difference lies?accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:43 amApparently 'free will' renders our flesh inedible...Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 3:40 amWhatever our other attributes, free willed or not, we are indeed meat machines easily processed into homo burgers.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 3:21 pm
But that's exactly what Mike is tryin' to do: he wants folks to formally reject free will and see themselves as meat machines.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:27 am
You should be asking Henry this. He's the one obsessed with meat. My comment was flippant.BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 8:50 amDo you think there's a meaningful difference between dead meat on a butcher block and a living "meat machine" with consciousness, brain plasticity, and the capacity for self-reflection? If so, where do you think that difference lies?
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:31 am
Ah, my bad—I missed that Henry was the source of the meat metaphor. Thanks for clarifying! That said, the question still stands, flippant or not: what sets a living, thinking human apart from a slab of meat? It seems like a useful point to unpack, especially in the context of free will and determinism.accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:27 amYou should be asking Henry this. He's the one obsessed with meat. My comment was flippant.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:42 am
I already pointed that out to Henry but he didn't want to know. I don't even 'get' his point when he rambles on about us being 'meat' if there's no free will. It makes no sense to me. He refuses to explain it (most likely because he can't).BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:31 amAh, my bad—I missed that Henry was the source of the meat metaphor. Thanks for clarifying! That said, the question still stands, flippant or not: what sets a living, thinking human apart from a slab of meat? It seems like a useful point to unpack, especially in the context of free will and determinism.accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:27 amYou should be asking Henry this. He's the one obsessed with meat. My comment was flippant.