Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Skepdick]

Your claim that determinism provides no link to justice or better outcomes assumes that all moral reasoning collapses without free will. But that’s a false dichotomy. Moral frameworks don’t vanish under determinism; they adapt. Concepts like fairness, harm reduction, and societal well-being remain intact—they just rest on a foundation of understanding causality rather than moral desert.

So on the one hand you want to operate under a deterministic world-view with conserved quantities; and on the other hand you want nett-positive ethics with harm minimization and justice/fairness/well-being maximization.

What sort of "foundation" does causality provide if for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?
This renders all ethics a zero-sum game - one person's moral gains are somebody' else's moral losses.

Are you sure you know what kind of game you want to play?

[BigMike]

Why is it that religious adherents, who often champion their beliefs as rooted in truth, so vehemently reject scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview? Take determinism, for instance. Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws. There’s no room for free will in this framework. Every thought, every action, every choice we believe we make is a product of these deterministic processes.

Science doesn't actually tell you that. An assumptive belief called "Materialism" insists that that is the case, without any evidence and prior to all inquiry. It just rules by fiat that anything that is not strictly a matter of the five senses, not reproducible under controlled conditions, and so forth, will be ruled to be unreal, even before any investigation starts.

Determinism is a product of Materialistic assumptions, but not of Science. Science has no particular opinion on whether or not non-physical entities exist (such as selves, characters, identities, morals, values, consciousness, reason, love, spirituality, will, volition, truth etc.). Rather, science assumes that reason and logic and truth, as well as the conscious self (the experimenter) already exist, and proceeds from there to define itself as the study of physical, chemical and biological events that can be tested under controlled and reproducible circumstances, with a view to discovering the truth about those things. Science does not say those are the only things that exist; it only says, "Those are the only things we can deal with as 'science.'"

Moreover, as a matter of historical record, science itself came out of a particular Theistic worldview. The very inventor of the scientific method (Bacon) was himself an ardent theologian, who wrote just as passionately about that as about science. Newton was a Deist. Many of the great scientists, indeed the majority, held to one or another "religious" belief, such as Judaism, Christianity or Deism of some kind...and so do many scientists today.

So the proposed division between science and religion isn't factually true at all. And that's the first problem here. But the second is that science itself does not back Determinism. So there's nothing "impossible" about free will, except in the assumptive beliefs of Materialists.

Immanuel, your response reflects a common misconception about determinism and its relationship to science. Determinism doesn’t rest on an "assumptive belief" in materialism. Rather, it emerges from observable, testable principles that describe how the universe operates. Every interaction—from subatomic particles to galaxies—follows laws of cause and effect. The consistency of these laws forms the bedrock of scientific inquiry.

You claim that determinism is a product of materialistic assumptions, not science. However, determinism isn’t an arbitrary imposition; it’s a conclusion drawn from centuries of evidence showing that physical processes, including those in our brains, adhere to the same principles that govern the natural world. This isn’t about "ruling out" non-physical entities by fiat; it’s about the lack of evidence for them and the overwhelming explanatory power of physical causation.

Your historical point about scientists like Bacon and Newton having theistic beliefs is true, but irrelevant to the discussion of determinism. Their personal beliefs didn’t exempt their work from the rigorous application of cause-and-effect principles. Newton’s laws, for example, are a cornerstone of deterministic physics, regardless of his religious inclinations.

Finally, your suggestion that free will is "possible" outside of a deterministic framework fails to address how free will would function without breaking the laws of physics. For a choice to be "free," it must somehow originate outside the chain of cause and effect. But that would require an external force acting on physical matter, which directly contradicts conservation laws. Unless you can propose a mechanism for free will that aligns with these principles, dismissing determinism as "assumptive" is itself an unfounded assertion.

Science and religion may coexist in the personal beliefs of some, but determinism remains a natural conclusion of our scientific understanding of causality, not a philosophical imposition.

[Alexiev]

Immanuel, your response reflects a common misconception about determinism and its relationship to science. Determinism doesn’t rest on an "assumptive belief" in materialism. Rather, it emerges from observable, testable principles that describe how the universe operates. Every interaction—from subatomic particles to galaxies—follows laws of cause and effect. The consistency of these laws forms the bedrock of scientific inquiry.

You claim that determinism is a product of materialistic assumptions, not science. However, determinism isn’t an arbitrary imposition; it’s a conclusion drawn from centuries of evidence showing that physical processes, including those in our brains, adhere to the same principles that govern the natural world. This isn’t about "ruling out" non-physical entities by fiat; it’s about the lack of evidence for them and the overwhelming explanatory power of physical causation.

Your historical point about scientists like Bacon and Newton having theistic beliefs is true, but irrelevant to the discussion of determinism. Their personal beliefs didn’t exempt their work from the rigorous application of cause-and-effect principles. Newton’s laws, for example, are a cornerstone of deterministic physics, regardless of his religious inclinations.

Finally, your suggestion that free will is "possible" outside of a deterministic framework fails to address how free will would function without breaking the laws of physics. For a choice to be "free," it must somehow originate outside the chain of cause and effect. But that would require an external force acting on physical matter, which directly contradicts conservation laws. Unless you can propose a mechanism for free will that aligns with these principles, dismissing determinism as "assumptive" is itself an unfounded assertion.

Science and religion may coexist in the personal beliefs of some, but determinism remains a natural conclusion of our scientific understanding of causality, not a philosophical imposition.

Where does that "overwhelming explanatory power of physical causation" reside? Has it helped us understand the human psyche? Has it helped us understand language, or culture, or human personality? On the contrary, reductionist explanations of culture have generally been failures. They sound scientific, but explain and predict nothing. A science like linguistics -- which studies language not as the result of physical laws, but as a cultural artifact -- has shown remarkable explanatory and predictive value.

Another problem with materialism is that it is incompatible with knowledge, and thus with science. If thought is merely the result of the mechanical firings of neurons in brains, what reason to we have to trust it? Perhaps our brains have evolved to promote descendent-leaving success, but not to perceive or analyze reality. If God is "unknowable", so, given materialism, is everything else.

Since science is dependent on logic and math, but logic and math are non-scientific, materialism alone is a dead end.

In addition, most of our "knowledge" is learned not from our own experience, but from reading or hearing the "facts" from sources we trust. I believe Barry Bonds hit more major league home runs than anyone, that Rome is the capitol of Italy and that Richard III was a hunchback. I believe these things for the perfectly good reason that sources I trust inform me they are true. That happens to be the exact same reason that Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead. We simply trust different sources. In fact, the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is probably just as robust as the evidence that Caesar said, "Et tu, Brute". Eye witness and written accounts (i.e. histories) record both incidents. Of course it's reasonable to doubt claims that strain credulity to our scientific minds. If the same person reported seeing a dragon flying down main street or a car driving down main street we might believe only the latter. But the evidence would be identical in both cases.

[BigMike]

That's simply not how the argument I gave you works. There is no 'morally correct' outcome of this plan you are selling, the link between some sort of better justice and treating people as machines is a fantasy pulled from a non-sequitur. From the premise that humans aren't moral agents you cannot derive any of this other stuff about good outcomes. Any junk argument can be attached to the premise because it does no moral work.

Your rebuttal mischaracterizes the determinist position. Determinism doesn’t declare humans "machines" in the sense of lacking value or moral consideration. It asserts that our actions are the product of causes, not independent choices. The moral work, then, shifts from assigning blame to assessing causation and outcomes.

Determinism doesn't do any moral heavy lifting at all. You are choosing to take it as some sort of inspiration to build systems you think sound more fair, other people can use it as inspiration for anything they want. Unless you are bridging the is-ought gap there is no right moral choice on account of this.

There is no reason at all why somebody shouldn't buy up your basic premise, then damn you for failing to follow it to its conclusion and go as many steps as they like past your own squeamish limits. You are in fact quite delusional if you don't assume that exact thing will happen. The history of what happens when people try to base real world politics off their present understanding of science should suggest a reason not to go that way all by itself. With agency and choice gone like that, dignity is absolutely fair game. Your imagination might not contain the argument, but you aren't in charge of anything, and somebody else will provide it. No free lunch, you open the bottle and the jinni is out.

Your description of personhood is mechanized with zero room for anything else. We're going to be using words like "robot", "machine" and "delusional meat unit 647-Sigma" to discuss this sort of thing because that's just natural...

But your own vision of all this still just amounts to distinction without difference. You don't seem to have any basis for any laws or anything tangible at all to actually be different.

Flash, your response highlights a crucial misunderstanding of what determinism implies for moral and legal systems. You argue that determinism doesn’t provide moral guidance, leaving room for arbitrary or extreme interpretations. But determinism isn’t about prescribing morality directly; it’s about reframing how we approach questions of responsibility and justice in light of causation.

Under a deterministic framework, the aim isn’t to abandon ethics but to ground it in outcomes that align with societal well-being. Concepts like rehabilitation, deterrence, and harm reduction become central—not as arbitrary values but as empirically justifiable approaches to maintaining social order and improving lives. The deterministic lens doesn’t discard dignity or agency; it redefines them within the reality of causal processes.

Your concern about determinism being "used" to justify extremes, like mechanized views of personhood or barbaric policies, is fair but misplaced. These are risks of any ideology misapplied, not determinism itself. The ethical application of determinism is no more prone to abuse than the concept of free will, which has historically been used to justify everything from harsh retributive justice to religious persecution.

Determinism challenges us to move beyond punitive approaches rooted in outdated notions of free will. It doesn’t mean abandoning humanity, dignity, or moral reasoning—it means anchoring these values in evidence and cause-and-effect logic. If someone twists determinism to justify dehumanization, they’re not following determinism’s implications; they’re ignoring its emphasis on understanding causation to improve societal outcomes.

You ask why laws or systems would change under determinism. The tangible difference lies in replacing retribution with effectiveness: justice that prevents harm, addresses root causes, and promotes rehabilitation. This isn’t utopian; it’s a practical shift that aligns with what we know about behavior and causality. Far from being a distinction without difference, it’s a call to make our systems more humane and evidence-based.

[Immanuel Can]

Why is it that religious adherents, who often champion their beliefs as rooted in truth, so vehemently reject scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview? Take determinism, for instance. Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws. There’s no room for free will in this framework. Every thought, every action, every choice we believe we make is a product of these deterministic processes.

Science doesn't actually tell you that. An assumptive belief called "Materialism" insists that that is the case, without any evidence and prior to all inquiry. It just rules by fiat that anything that is not strictly a matter of the five senses, not reproducible under controlled conditions, and so forth, will be ruled to be unreal, even before any investigation starts.

Determinism is a product of Materialistic assumptions, but not of Science. Science has no particular opinion on whether or not non-physical entities exist (such as selves, characters, identities, morals, values, consciousness, reason, love, spirituality, will, volition, truth etc.). Rather, science assumes that reason and logic and truth, as well as the conscious self (the experimenter) already exist, and proceeds from there to define itself as the study of physical, chemical and biological events that can be tested under controlled and reproducible circumstances, with a view to discovering the truth about those things. Science does not say those are the only things that exist; it only says, "Those are the only things we can deal with as 'science.'"

Moreover, as a matter of historical record, science itself came out of a particular Theistic worldview. The very inventor of the scientific method (Bacon) was himself an ardent theologian, who wrote just as passionately about that as about science. Newton was a Deist. Many of the great scientists, indeed the majority, held to one or another "religious" belief, such as Judaism, Christianity or Deism of some kind...and so do many scientists today.

So the proposed division between science and religion isn't factually true at all. And that's the first problem here. But the second is that science itself does not back Determinism. So there's nothing "impossible" about free will, except in the assumptive beliefs of Materialists.

Immanuel, your response reflects a common misconception about determinism and its relationship to science.

There isn't one. Determinism is a product of Materialist presumptions, not science.

Determinism doesn’t rest on an "assumptive belief" in materialism. Rather, it emerges from observable, testable principles that describe how the universe operates. Every interaction—from subatomic particles to galaxies—follows laws of cause and effect. The consistency of these laws forms the bedrock of scientific inquiry.

You don't know what a "scientific law" is, obviously. https://www.livescience.com/21457-what- ... c-law.html. It's just a description of an observed general regularity: it's not some kind of cosmic fiat about what is and isn't possible, far less what is and isn't real.

However, determinism isn’t an arbitrary imposition; it’s a conclusion drawn from centuries of evidence showing that physical processes, including those in our brains, adhere to the same principles that govern the natural world.

It's not, actually. It's just an unwarranted jump from "Physical science seems to describe the physical regularities well," to "Therefore there is nothing that exists except physical regularities."

Your historical point about scientists like Bacon and Newton having theistic beliefs is true, but irrelevant to the discussion of determinism.

Not at all irrelevant to your claim that science and religion are at loggerheads. They're not. Science is clearly a product of a particular sort of Theistic worldview.

Finally, your suggestion that free will is "possible" outside of a deterministic framework fails to address how free will would function without breaking the laws of physics.

Again, you misunderstand what is meant by "scientific law." There is nothing in the description of a physical regularity that shows that that regularity cannot be altered -- especially by the interposition of a different "law," which makes the first description incorrect.

It's like if you were to put $5 in a drawer, in coin. You come back later, and it's $2. And you say to yourself, "Good heavens; $5 has turned into $2, and the laws of mathematics have been violated."

No, they haven't. Your wife borrowed $3. Nothing spooky, weird or unscientific happened at all.

For a choice to be "free," it must somehow originate outside the chain of cause and effect.

Well, material cause and effect, yes: but the question you're begging is whether or not volition itself is a cause. In other words, can volition initiate a causal chain?

Your wife's volition initiated the causal chain by which $5 became $2. Causality didn't fail. Maths didn't fail. Instead, something other than physical and mathematical causality, a volitional causality, interrupted your expectations. That's all that happened.

[Atla]

Determinism isn’t saying "people don’t exist." It’s saying that what we call "choice" is governed entirely by causation. It’s not that a criminal is "just atoms," but that their actions—violent or virtuous—are the product of causes beyond their conscious control.

Only if you equate conscious control with free will. Otherwise, our actions remain under our conscious control under determinism too (except for people seen as legally insane).

Yes, determinism redefines personhood, but it doesn’t erase it. It acknowledges that people are complex biological systems whose behavior is the result of causation, not uncaused free will. This perspective shifts the focus from moral blame to understanding and addressing the causes of behavior.

Says who? I say the focus should remain on moral blame under determinism too. I see no good reason to change that.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your rebuttal mischaracterizes the determinist position. Determinism doesn’t declare humans "machines" in the sense of lacking value or moral consideration. It asserts that our actions are the product of causes, not independent choices. The moral work, then, shifts from assigning blame to assessing causation and outcomes.

Determinism doesn't do any moral heavy lifting at all. You are choosing to take it as some sort of inspiration to build systems you think sound more fair, other people can use it as inspiration for anything they want. Unless you are bridging the is-ought gap there is no right moral choice on account of this.

There is no reason at all why somebody shouldn't buy up your basic premise, then damn you for failing to follow it to its conclusion and go as many steps as they like past your own squeamish limits. You are in fact quite delusional if you don't assume that exact thing will happen. The history of what happens when people try to base real world politics off their present understanding of science should suggest a reason not to go that way all by itself. With agency and choice gone like that, dignity is absolutely fair game. Your imagination might not contain the argument, but you aren't in charge of anything, and somebody else will provide it. No free lunch, you open the bottle and the jinni is out.

Your description of personhood is mechanized with zero room for anything else. We're going to be using words like "robot", "machine" and "delusional meat unit 647-Sigma" to discuss this sort of thing because that's just natural...

But your own vision of all this still just amounts to distinction without difference. You don't seem to have any basis for any laws or anything tangible at all to actually be different.

Flash, your response highlights a crucial misunderstanding of what determinism implies for moral and legal systems. You argue that determinism doesn’t provide moral guidance, leaving room for arbitrary or extreme interpretations. But determinism isn’t about prescribing morality directly; it’s about reframing how we approach questions of responsibility and justice in light of causation.

This thing you do where you say our names and then summarise the point is at most very mildly annoying because it reminds me of boring lectures about Aristotle. But it is substantially worsened by your habit of substituting my actual point with something dreary and inferior.

I don't argue THAT determinism doesn’t provide moral guidance, I argue FROM THAT. So... from the fact that determinism doesn't offer moral guidance we can say with certainty that you are not justified in arguing that it guides us to change our moral alignment in regards to anything, northat it prevents us from changing our moral code in regards to anything.

Ergo, you are not able to say what comes in the next paragraph... "Under a deterministic framework, the aim ...." All of that is invalidated in advance.

Under a deterministic framework, the aim isn’t to abandon ethics but to ground it in outcomes that align with societal well-being. Concepts like rehabilitation, deterrence, and harm reduction become central—not as arbitrary values but as empirically justifiable approaches to maintaining social order and improving lives. The deterministic lens doesn’t discard dignity or agency; it redefines them within the reality of causal processes.

All of that is your personal vision, it does not follow from any factual claim at all about how the world is (again, see Hume). There is no reason at all why any audience at all should not just eschew your squeamishness and draw their own conclusions, neither better nor worse supported by the facts than yours.

Your concern about determinism being "used" to justify extremes, like mechanized views of personhood or barbaric policies, is fair but misplaced. These are risks of any ideology misapplied, not determinism itself. The ethical application of determinism is no more prone to abuse than the concept of free will, which has historically been used to justify everything from harsh retributive justice to religious persecution.

You have been substantially missing my point. From the start you have been recommending this inversion of our usual understanding of our humanity on the grounds that it is good for something. Good for what is a matter you only ever hint at, there's a lack of commitment to anything concrete on your part which encourages speculation. You keep telling us that there's this benefit of some sort, but what actually is it?

Determinism challenges us to move beyond punitive approaches rooted in outdated notions of free will. It doesn’t mean abandoning humanity, dignity, or moral reasoning—it means anchoring these values in evidence and cause-and-effect logic. If someone twists determinism to justify dehumanization, they’re not following determinism’s implications; they’re ignoring its emphasis on understanding causation to improve societal outcomes.

Again... "understanding causation to improve societal outcomes" ... have you got something more specific to offer?

You ask why laws or systems would change under determinism. The tangible difference lies in replacing retribution with effectiveness: justice that prevents harm, addresses root causes, and promotes rehabilitation. This isn’t utopian; it’s a practical shift that aligns with what we know about behavior and causality. Far from being a distinction without difference, it’s a call to make our systems more humane and evidence-based.

There are two particularly obvious questions that spring to mind.

1. Where should I look to find this mode of pure retribution that isn't also intended to dissuade directly, or dissuade by example, or perform some other work? We send naughty people to prison so they can't do more naughty stuff for a while, and so the other naughty people are frightened away from crime, and make the naughty prisoner feel bad about what he's done so he doesn't do it again. We don't go to the expense just because they deserve punishment. So.... what actually changes about that?

2. If you ever think of any actual changes to make, and if those changes are good, why do we need to abandon choice to pick up on that? You can argue the same case with or without it.

[BigMike]

Immanuel, your response reflects a common misconception about determinism and its relationship to science. Determinism doesn’t rest on an "assumptive belief" in materialism. Rather, it emerges from observable, testable principles that describe how the universe operates. Every interaction—from subatomic particles to galaxies—follows laws of cause and effect. The consistency of these laws forms the bedrock of scientific inquiry.

You claim that determinism is a product of materialistic assumptions, not science. However, determinism isn’t an arbitrary imposition; it’s a conclusion drawn from centuries of evidence showing that physical processes, including those in our brains, adhere to the same principles that govern the natural world. This isn’t about "ruling out" non-physical entities by fiat; it’s about the lack of evidence for them and the overwhelming explanatory power of physical causation.

Your historical point about scientists like Bacon and Newton having theistic beliefs is true, but irrelevant to the discussion of determinism. Their personal beliefs didn’t exempt their work from the rigorous application of cause-and-effect principles. Newton’s laws, for example, are a cornerstone of deterministic physics, regardless of his religious inclinations.

Finally, your suggestion that free will is "possible" outside of a deterministic framework fails to address how free will would function without breaking the laws of physics. For a choice to be "free," it must somehow originate outside the chain of cause and effect. But that would require an external force acting on physical matter, which directly contradicts conservation laws. Unless you can propose a mechanism for free will that aligns with these principles, dismissing determinism as "assumptive" is itself an unfounded assertion.

Science and religion may coexist in the personal beliefs of some, but determinism remains a natural conclusion of our scientific understanding of causality, not a philosophical imposition.

Where does that "overwhelming explanatory power of physical causation" reside? Has it helped us understand the human psyche? Has it helped us understand language, or culture, or human personality? On the contrary, reductionist explanations of culture have generally been failures. They sound scientific, but explain and predict nothing. A science like linguistics -- which studies language not as the result of physical laws, but as a cultural artifact -- has shown remarkable explanatory and predictive value.

Another problem with materialism is that it is incompatible with knowledge, and thus with science. If thought is merely the result of the mechanical firings of neurons in brains, what reason to we have to trust it? Perhaps our brains have evolved to promote descendent-leaving success, but not to perceive or analyze reality. If God is "unknowable", so, given materialism, is everything else.

Since science is dependent on logic and math, but logic and math are non-scientific, materialism alone is a dead end.

In addition, most of our "knowledge" is learned not from our own experience, but from reading or hearing the "facts" from sources we trust. I believe Barry Bonds hit more major league home runs than anyone, that Rome is the capitol of Italy and that Richard III was a hunchback. I believe these things for the perfectly good reason that sources I trust inform me they are true. That happens to be the exact same reason that Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead. We simply trust different sources. In fact, the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is probably just as robust as the evidence that Caesar said, "Et tu, Brute". Eye witness and written accounts (i.e. histories) record both incidents. Of course it's reasonable to doubt claims that strain credulity to our scientific minds. If the same person reported seeing a dragon flying down main street or a car driving down main street we might believe only the latter. But the evidence would be identical in both cases.

Your critique brings up valid concerns but also hinges on a conflation of materialism, determinism, and the reliability of knowledge. Let’s unpack this systematically.

First, the “overwhelming explanatory power of physical causation” resides in its track record of providing consistent, testable, and predictive models for understanding phenomena in the natural world. Has it helped us understand the human psyche? Absolutely. Neuroscience, psychology, and cognitive science have made remarkable strides in explaining thought processes, emotions, and behaviors by exploring the brain’s physical mechanisms. Are these explanations complete? No, but incompleteness doesn’t invalidate the framework; it simply highlights the frontier of inquiry.

You argue that reductionist explanations of culture fail to explain or predict anything. That’s not entirely accurate. While reductionism isn’t the best tool for understanding emergent phenomena like culture or language in their totality, it has illuminated key aspects—such as the biological underpinnings of language acquisition or the role of mirror neurons in empathy and social learning. Multidisciplinary approaches, blending reductionism with holistic perspectives, are increasingly fruitful.

Regarding materialism and knowledge, you suggest that if thought arises from mechanical brain processes, we have no reason to trust it. But this skepticism undermines itself. If our evolved cognition were entirely detached from reality, it wouldn’t have enabled survival in a complex environment. The alignment of sensory input, memory, and reasoning with objective reality is what allowed humans to outcompete other species. Science is a refinement of these cognitive abilities, structured to minimize error through systematic observation, hypothesis testing, and peer review.

Your point about trusting sources is interesting but ultimately flawed in its equivalence. Trust in science rests on evidence-based, reproducible results—not on unverified narratives. The claim that Barry Bonds hit more home runs than anyone is supported by extensive, documented statistics. In contrast, claims like Jesus rising from the dead rely on unverifiable, non-reproducible accounts. These aren’t equally credible just because both are written down.

Finally, logic and math are indeed non-empirical, but they complement science rather than contradicting it. They provide the frameworks through which scientific theories are formulated and tested. Their abstract nature doesn’t make them incompatible with materialism; it simply means they operate at a different level of description. The materialist view isn’t undermined by the existence of logic and math—it is enriched by them.

In sum, while reductionism and materialism aren’t panaceas, they are indispensable tools for unraveling the complexities of the universe. To dismiss their contributions is to ignore the vast body of evidence they’ve produced and the progress they’ve enabled. Science’s success lies precisely in its adaptability and ability to integrate diverse methodologies, including those that explore culture and language as emergent phenomena.

[BigMike]

Well, folks, I think it’s about that time. I’m going to make my graceful—or maybe not-so-graceful—exit. For good this time. Probably. Maybe. We’ll see. Let’s just say I’m reserving the right to pull a dramatic comeback if the stars align or if I can’t resist the urge to wade back into the chaos.

For now, though, I’m bowing out. It’s been… an experience. Enlightening? Occasionally. Entertaining? Sure, if you like philosophical food fights. Exhausting? Oh, absolutely. But hey, who doesn’t love a good intellectual tug-of-war now and then?

So, to those who kept the debates lively (and occasionally drove me up a wall), thanks for the memories. I’m off to recharge, regroup, and perhaps contemplate the mysteries of life in slightly less contentious surroundings. Take care, and remember: no matter how heated the argument, the laws of thermodynamics remain undefeated. Stay curious, my friends.

[Alexis Jacobi]

A chef’s kiss to that!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your wife's volition initiated the causal chain by which $5 became $2. Causality didn't fail. Maths didn't fail. Instead, something other than physical and mathematical causality, a volitional causality, interrupted your expectations. That's all that happened.

Now we get down to business! IC won’t come out and say it but I do not suffer under such prior causal restraints: We’ve got to rein in our bitches! It’s not going to be easy because so much conditioning has been foisted on us from all sides. Get a fucking key for the money box! Make your will plain and clear! Make monetary and other rewards dependent on proper behavior and humility.

Start TODAY!

[Atla]

But why do they always think that we can't make choices under determinism? Choices in the everyday sense. The one that matters for human life.

[Impenitent]

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." - Peart

-Imp

[ThinkOfOne]

It's a question that never fails to fascinate and frustrate in equal measure. Why is it that religious adherents, who often champion their beliefs as rooted in truth, so vehemently reject scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview? Take determinism, for instance. Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws. There’s no room for free will in this framework. Every thought, every action, every choice we believe we make is a product of these deterministic processes.

And yet, so many religious doctrines cling to the idea of free will as if it’s a gift from their deity, a cornerstone of moral responsibility. But let’s face it: free will, as traditionally understood, is about as plausible as a flat Earth. It defies the very laws of physics and neuroscience.

Why, then, does this cognitive dissonance persist? Could it be that religious institutions thrive on the illusion of free will because it allows them to enforce moral codes, assign blame, and justify eternal rewards or punishments? After all, a deterministic universe leaves no room for sin, no room for divine judgment, and no room for the comforting, if delusional, notion that we control our destiny.

Let’s unpack this. How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws? Why do they resist scientific findings, like the absence of free will, that challenge these beliefs? And what does it say about the human condition that so many prefer comforting illusions to uncomfortable truths?

I’d love to hear your thoughts—especially if you think there’s a way to bridge this gap between religious belief and scientific reality.

On one hand, you're correct in saying that it is common for "religious adherents...reject scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview".

On the other hand, you're incorrect in saying that "Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws. There’s no room for free will in this framework. Every thought, every action, every choice we believe we make is a product of these deterministic processes."

Humans have volition. Many other higher-level animals have volition. No deity required. No religion required.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, folks, I think it’s about that time. ...Stay curious, my friends.

Here's something that always makes me wonder.

The person who says Determinism is true,
And that all beliefs are merely formed out of the prior physical or physiological causes,
And that thus, the cause of belief is not reason, logic or truth, but these prior physical causes.
Thinks it makes sense for him to argue with people who, by his own reasoning, cannot possibly be convinced by his arguments.
Rather, the right explanation for whatever they believe has to be that they are reacting to the prior causes, whatever they may be.

So why are you arguing, Mike? Whatever you were caused to believe is what you will believe. Whatever your opponents believe will only be whatever they were caused to believe. Truth, reason and logic don't even get to enter consideration: they're all non-physical, and hence cannot be "causes," according to physical determinism.

So it isn't that Determinism is true; it's only that it's what Mike was caused to believe. That is, if we believe Mike...which either way, he will have to say we have no choice about anyway, none of us has free will to believe him.