Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[attofishpi]

Allow me to comprehend THE most important consideration I have of U and your belief.

Is it your belief that atto posting this question was ALWAYS going to exist, even if the Big Bang had all the identical parameters again (a second IDENTICAL instance of the Big Bang) ...that this question I am posing would always be posed

[Dubious]

Science hasn't proven there isn't free will.

...and nothing from the quantum level up confirms there is such a thing. In fact, the probability of free will is almost nil.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Science hasn't proven there isn't free will.

...and nothing from the quantum level up confirms there is such a thing. In fact, the probability of free will is almost nil.

You're wrong to confuse the basket with what it contains. The universe and all it's physics are the basket and how I choose to answer a question is it's contents.

[LuckyR]

Then comes the question of free will and quantum indeterminacy: Some argue that quantum randomness provides a basis for free will, but that’s not as liberating as it sounds. Randomness isn’t the same as agency. If your decisions were driven by quantum rolls of the dice, it wouldn’t feel like free will—it would feel like randomness, and that’s not satisfying philosophically or practically.

We don't need to guess how it feels, everything feels like we have Free Will. Every day everybody ponders this and that decision and "selects" this or that "choice". Exactly as if Free Will existed. It's only theorists who propose that choice is an illusion and that you were always going to choose A, never B or C. In other words that there is no real choice, meaning selecting between options that you can actually select.

[BigMike]

deny science and determinism

I don't. It's readily obvious the world is undergirded by the regularity of cause and effect. I simply deny man is a meat machine.

you’re unwilling to follow logic to its inevitable conclusion

Hypocrisy.

Define meat machine and discuss why humans are not classified as such.

[BigMike]

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.

Truths are logical conclusions, based on valid premises of empirical data, such that no one today can validate religious beliefs as being necessarily true universally. They are just beliefs, born of fear, to sooth and control those fears. I see free will as simply choices within the physical universal construct. Choices are not deterministic as soon as one sees multiple possibilities and picks one, while others pick another. There's a difference between the framework and the choices within that framework, hence freewill. Of the things we 'can' do, we 'choose' which ones we do.

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.

It's not a gift from any deity, nor does it have anything to do with morality, I'm sure no christian wants to be murdered, yet free will allows it to happen.

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.

Sin is a construct of the human mind born out of the fear of death, the will to survive. It does not exist in the universe, only in the minds of humans. Of course no one gets out of here alive, but one wants to postpone the inevitable. Anyone that believes that free will determines any specific thing is a fool, it only allows for anything humans are capable of, so it does quite the opposite, it allows anything humans can do within the physical universal construct.

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?

To me it sounds like your real problem is with free will and not your topic. Have you done something horrible and choose not to believe in free will so you can blame it on determinism? What, you didn't do it, determinism did? Seriously??? Science hasn't proven there isn't free will. If you think so, then it would seem to me, you don't really know what free will is.

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.

And finally you go back to the topic at hand. Wow!

So BigMike, how big are you???

Spheres, let’s set aside the juvenile quips and focus on the glaring intellectual missteps in your response. Your argument doesn’t just misunderstand free will and determinism—it completely sidesteps the overwhelming evidence against the existence of free will. Ironically, you’re making the very errors I highlighted: redefining concepts to fit your narrative and clinging to comforting illusions.

First off, your notion that free will is “choices within the physical universal construct” is an exercise in semantic acrobatics. What you’re describing isn’t free will—it’s determinism wearing a disguise. Yes, humans perceive options, but even that perception is dictated by prior causes: your genetics, environment, upbringing, and past experiences. The fact that you “choose” A over B doesn’t mean you exercised free will. It means deterministic factors led you to that specific choice, whether you’re aware of them or not.

Now, let’s address your claim that “science hasn’t proven there isn’t free will.” This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science operates. Science doesn’t “prove” things in the absolute sense—it disproves hypotheses and builds evidence-based frameworks by systematically eliminating ideas that don’t hold up under scrutiny. Free will, as traditionally understood, has been effectively disproven by neuroscience and physics. Studies show decisions are made in the brain milliseconds before we become consciously aware of them. Physics operates under immutable laws of causality, leaving no room for the kind of uncaused, autonomous action free will requires. Your claim that science hasn’t settled this is willfully ignorant of the evidence.

And let’s tackle your misrepresentation of determinism. Accepting determinism doesn’t mean absolving people of accountability with an attitude of “determinism did it.” That’s not how it works. Understanding determinism means addressing the root causes of behavior and creating systems—legal, social, and educational—that are better equipped to handle those causes. It’s about progress, not excuses. On the other hand, belief in free will has been the justification for endless cruelty—punishing people as though they’re autonomous agents entirely responsible for their actions instead of products of forces beyond their control.

Finally, the irony in your response is palpable. You accuse me of dodging the topic, yet your argument is a scattershot of misconceptions, personal jabs, and philosophical hand-waving. If you truly want to engage with this subject, address the actual evidence. Explain how free will, as you claim to understand it, can exist in a universe governed by causality and demonstrated neural mechanisms.

Until then, this isn’t a meaningful debate. It’s you throwing darts in the dark, hoping something sticks, while steadfastly ignoring the spotlight of evidence shining directly on determinism.

[BigMike]

Allow me to comprehend THE most important consideration I have of U and your belief.

Is it your belief that atto posting this question was ALWAYS going to exist, even if the Big Bang had all the identical parameters again (a second IDENTICAL instance of the Big Bang) ...that this question I am posing would always be posed

Yes, Atto, that’s exactly what I’m saying. If the Big Bang, with all its initial conditions, were to play out again with identical parameters, then everything—including you posting this question—would unfold in precisely the same way. Why? Because the universe operates under deterministic laws. Every atom, every particle, every force is governed by causality. Given identical starting conditions, the same chain of events would inevitably lead to this moment, including your decision to pose this question.

Think about it like this: if you rewind a film and press play, the events don’t suddenly change. The characters don’t make new choices; the plot doesn’t shift. The film unfolds in exactly the same way every single time. The universe is no different. Every thought you think, every question you ask, is the result of the intricate interplay of countless factors—genetics, environment, past experiences, and yes, the fundamental laws of physics. And here’s the kicker: what I’m saying to you right now becomes part of your past experiences. This conversation might cause physical changes in your brain—neurons firing, new synaptic connections forming—and those changes could nudge your future behavior one way or another.

So, no, you didn’t "freely" decide to ask this question in some metaphysical, uncaused way. It was a result of a deterministic sequence of events. And if we started the universe over again, this exact conversation would still happen. That’s the beauty—and inevitability—of determinism: everything is connected, every cause has an effect, and even this dialogue between us could ripple through your future thoughts and actions.

[BigMike]

Then comes the question of free will and quantum indeterminacy: Some argue that quantum randomness provides a basis for free will, but that’s not as liberating as it sounds. Randomness isn’t the same as agency. If your decisions were driven by quantum rolls of the dice, it wouldn’t feel like free will—it would feel like randomness, and that’s not satisfying philosophically or practically.

We don't need to guess how it feels, everything feels like we have Free Will. Every day everybody ponders this and that decision and "selects" this or that "choice". Exactly as if Free Will existed. It's only theorists who propose that choice is an illusion and that you were always going to choose A, never B or C. In other words that there is no real choice, meaning selecting between options that you can actually select.

LuckyR, I get it—free will feels real. It’s intuitive, and it’s baked into the way we experience life. But the fact that something feels real doesn’t make it true. Every day, the horizon feels flat, yet we know the Earth is round. The feeling of free will is no different; it’s an illusion created by the brain to simplify the complex, deterministic processes driving our decisions.

Here’s the thing: just because you perceive yourself making choices doesn’t mean those choices are free in any metaphysical sense. The act of pondering this or that option, weighing pros and cons, and eventually "selecting" one doesn’t prove free will. It just shows how your brain processes information, integrating prior causes—genetics, experiences, environment, and even what you had for breakfast—to reach a decision. That process, while complex, is fully determined by the laws of physics and biology.

You say, "Exactly as if free will existed." But that’s the point—it feels like free will, but when we dig deeper into the science, we see the illusion for what it is. Neuroscience shows that decisions are made in the brain before we’re even conscious of them. Physics operates under causality, where every effect has a cause. And quantum indeterminacy, for those clinging to it as a loophole, doesn’t save free will—it just adds randomness, which is no better for agency.

The crux of your argument seems to be that if we feel like we have free will, that’s good enough. But that’s like saying the Sun moves across the sky, so the Earth must be stationary. Intuition isn’t evidence. If we’re serious about understanding reality, we have to look past what “feels” true and follow the evidence—even when it’s uncomfortable. The fact that you experience life as if free will exists doesn’t prove its existence; it just underscores how compelling the illusion can be.

[accelafine]

I'd like to know how changing the legal system is going to change anything. Changing it would be preordained anyway. What's the point in even thinking about it? Should we just let child-killers roam free because they had no choice in the matter? It's odd, but knowing they can't help it (I never thought they could) doesn't make them any more likeable or any less dangerous. We can't very well go back to the big bang and alter the chain of events that led to serial killers and rapists etc.

At best it might make us less hard on ourselves, accepting rather than agonising over stupid decisions we might have made over the years. But that would be preordained too...

[BigMike]

I'd like to know how changing the legal system is going to change anything. Changing it would be preordained anyway. What's the point in even thinking about it? Should we just let child-killers roam free because they had no choice in the matter? It's odd, but knowing they can't help it (I never thought they could) doesn't make them any more likeable or any less dangerous. We can't very well go back to the big bang and alter the chain of events that led to serial killers and rapists etc.

Accelafine, this kind of thinking entirely misses the point of applying a deterministic perspective to our legal system. The question isn’t whether we should “let child-killers roam free”—of course we shouldn’t. It’s about how we respond to such behavior in a way that actually reduces harm and prevents it from happening again.

The deterministic view doesn’t excuse harmful actions; it explains them. When we understand that people’s actions are the result of complex chains of cause and effect—genetics, environment, neurological conditions—we can design a legal system that addresses those causes. Punishment for punishment’s sake is pointless if it doesn’t change behavior or reduce recidivism. A deterministic approach would prioritize rehabilitation, mental health treatment, and preventive measures over the archaic idea of retributive justice.

Your argument about not being able to "go back to the big bang" is a bit of a straw man. Of course we can’t rewrite the past, but we can use our understanding of determinism to shape a future where fewer people become serial killers or rapists in the first place. Blaming and punishing someone as though they freely chose their actions does nothing to address the underlying causes that made those actions inevitable.

So yes, thinking about these issues matters. If we don’t, we’ll stay locked in the same ineffective cycle of retribution and moral outrage, rather than building a society that actually works to reduce suffering and protect people. Determinism isn’t about inaction—it’s about taking smarter, evidence-based actions that align with reality instead of clinging to outdated notions of free will.

[accelafine]

So not determinism then How can you prevent someone from becoming a serial killer if they are preordained to be that way? There's no way of knowing which past event 'caused' it. You can't 'rehabilitate' someone like Ted Bundy. The idea is preposterous, and you can only know that people are serial killers after they have serial killed. They could be the result of some anomaly that occurred in the wave function--an 'off key note' perhaps.

[BigMike]

So not determinism then How can you prevent someone from becoming a serial killer if they are preordained to be that way? There's no way of knowing which past event 'caused' it. You can't 'rehabilitate' someone like Ted Bundy. The idea is preposterous, and you can only know that people are serial killers after they have serial killed. They could be the result of some anomaly that occurred in the wave function--an 'off key note' perhaps.

It’s not about rewriting someone's destiny; it’s about understanding the causes and working to mitigate them before they manifest. Determinism doesn’t mean sitting back and doing nothing—it means identifying risk factors like childhood trauma, mental health issues, or environmental influences and addressing them early. Rehabilitation isn’t about “fixing” Ted Bundy after the fact—it’s about creating a society where fewer Ted Bundys emerge in the first place. Determinism gives us the tools to focus on prevention and smarter interventions, not excuses for inaction.

[Dubious]

Science hasn't proven there isn't free will.

...and nothing from the quantum level up confirms there is such a thing. In fact, the probability of free will is almost nil.

You're wrong to confuse the basket with what it contains. The universe and all it's physics are the basket and how I choose to answer a question is it's contents.

So the universe is like a bag of groceries only bigger. There's the universe (the bag) that being separate from what's in the bag. Ingenious! That technique makes it much easier to explain the universe's equivalent of toilet-paper and how if the universe had an ass to wipe, we'd be among the first to get flushed.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Free will, as traditionally understood, has been effectively disproven by neuroscience and physics. Studies show decisions are made in the brain milliseconds before we become consciously aware of them. Physics operates under immutable laws of causality, leaving no room for the kind of uncaused, autonomous action free will requires. Your claim that science hasn’t settled this is willfully ignorant of the evidence.

If your case against *free will* and a man's capability to make decisive ethical choices hinges on the notion that in some tests that choices seem to be made by subconscious influences, then your case is weak indeed in respect to the most important issues. We definitely know that men make impulsive choices and the science of advertising bases its techniques and strategies on this. There surely is an unconscious, semi-conscious or subconscious component in our makeup. This is problematical for any thinking person who is concerned for his sovereign freedom. But when a man knows that he is influenceable through those methods, or that he is inclined to choose what desire and appetite incline him to choose, it is right there that he has genuine choices. He can, in this sense, turn against himself. The question involves consciousness, understanding, self-knowledge and self-reflection.

Still, whatever he does takes place within his *locality*. And his locality is the world and within the biological structure that is part-and-parcel of the world. So the issue of determinism can be seen as being true insofar as man is ensconced in the world, submerged in it. This is why I first mentioned to you that man has a *cubic centimeter* of choice. How small it is, or how large it is, depends on qualities or capabilities that that man possesses.

In your school of thought, you do not see man as an actor or agent capable of making choices. You state it yourself: that "science' proves that when he choses something, something else makes that decision. You apply this fallacious view to all choice when it is actually that some choices (likely based on appetite, desire, prejudice and also previous conditioning) are made in such a spontaneous manner. But a man with *self-consciousness* and the capability of reflection can learn to see and understand this dynamic and act against it.

And let’s tackle your misrepresentation of determinism. Accepting determinism doesn’t mean absolving people of accountability with an attitude of “determinism did it.” That’s not how it works. Understanding determinism means addressing the root causes of behavior and creating systems—legal, social, and educational—that are better equipped to handle those causes. It’s about progress, not excuses. On the other hand, belief in free will has been the justification for endless cruelty—punishing people as though they’re autonomous agents entirely responsible for their actions instead of products of forces beyond their control.

This is where your *self-deception* shows itself quite clearly. In fact you are saying that factors, other than a man's choice, determine what he does. So your version of determinism, when restated, is restated fairly. You actually say that a man is unaccountable for his choices. And where you actually are going with your *philosophy* is in the direction of some sort of social and cultural arrangement which you alluded to in an adjacent thread where you (seemed to) locate yourself in the American Democrat camp. Your language about equity and perhaps also inclusion (you did not use that word as far as I know) is part-and-parcel of a developing political and social ideology which you do not fill out adequately. There are, I think, more fundamental reasons why people (here) resist your odd philosophical constructions.

Understanding determinism means addressing the root causes of behavior and creating systems—legal, social, and educational—that are better equipped to handle those causes.

It is a restatement of BF Skinner if I perceive aright:

Behaviorists are strong believers in hard determinism. Their most forthright and articulate spokesman has been B. F. Skinner. Concepts like “free will” and “motivation” are dismissed as illusions that disguise the real causes of human behavior.

"I did not direct my life. I didn't design it. I never made decisions. Things always came up and made them for me. That's what life is.

-- BF Skinner

As I say you have to see to what your *philosophy* inclines...

“Twenty-five hundred years ago it might have been said that man understood himself as well as any other part of his world. Today he is the thing he understands least. Physics and biology have come a long way, but there has been no comparable development of anything like a science of human behavior. Greek physics and biology are now of historical interest only (no modern physicist or biologist would turn to Aristotle for help), but the dialogues of Plato are still assigned to students and cited as if they threw light on human behavior. Aristotle could not have understood a page of modern physics or biology, but Socrates and his friends would have little trouble in following most current discussions of human affairs. And as to technology, we have made immense strides in controlling the physical and biological worlds, but our practices in government, education, and much of economics, though adapted to very different conditions, have not greatly improved. We can scarcely explain this by saying that the Greeks knew all there was to know about human behavior. Certainly they knew more than they knew about the physical world, but it was still not much. Moreover, their way of thinking about human behavior must have had some fatal flaw. Whereas Greek physics and biology, no matter how crude, led eventually to modern science, Greek theories of human behavior led nowhere. If they are with us today, it is not because they possessed some kind of eternal verity, but because they did not contain the seeds of anything better.”

― B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity

In order for (those of who read here) to make sense of your zealous pronouncements, one will have to trace back the genesis of the philosophical platform of men like Skinner. But more importantly to examine in what areas his ideas have been applied and to what degree. It seems to me -- at *first blush* -- that the link is strongest if we take into consideration the tenets of so-called *wokism* but also of some socialist and communist models, deeply committed to behavior modification. You make certain allusions, naturally, but what you actually are talking about is left unexplained. Or perhaps you have not actually thought things through?

[Alexis Jacobi]

So the universe is like a bag of groceries only bigger. There's the universe (the bag) that being separate from what's in the bag. Ingenious! That technique makes it much easier to explain the universe's equivalent of toilet-paper and how if the universe had an ass to wipe, we'd be among the first to get flushed.

Over months I have expressed what I understand to be the *essence* of this idea -- which is how I have come to understand things. For example it occurred to me that when one examines Christian morality that it is a type of stance, an opposition (and one could refer to a core ressentiment) against *the way the world is*.

The natural world, the ecological world, the *real world* and the rules and structures operating in it, are simply insane and cruel when a point of possibility outside of it (theoretical, ideal) is held in the mind. It is in this sense that I can understand that *the bag* is the Universe and in this sense the cosmic manifestation. But then there is man, and then there is man influenced and moved by contrarily-operating ideas; by a willed opposition to *the way the world is*. And on that basis and out of that frame of mind man proposes, and can make, contrary choices.

As I have pronounced and intoned on numerous occasions, it is that man discovers, or has had revealed to him, that entire possibility of acting contrarily to the world in the sense I define it. If theology (this is my understanding) attempts to say that the world as it is -- a furious conflagration of competing energies and events -- is taken as representing The Mind of God, it simply cannot be done. So God is actually pictured as outside and beyond the manifest world. But this idea is so disturbing to people, like you Dubious, who have not bothered to submit themselves to my Exalted Teachings which are clearly defined, step-by-plodding-step, in The 13-Week Email Course! There, I teach with extraordinary patience and compassion that we must recur to metaphysical principles, and that through some strange configuration of circumstances (our existence here) we have been thrust into problems and conflicts that appear irreconcilable. The key is that the *metaphysical world* is in the senses most relevant to Man is realer than those cruel, deterministic laws that have Man in their grip.

BigMike -- who BTW is shrinking as each obsessive post goes up and will soon reduce himself to an agonized point and then *poof* melt back into the odd philosophical waters which evaporated him up into that disingenuous cloud of pure sophistry that has been pissing down on us all for weeks -- sees the core of metaphysics as being unreal. By that word (metaphysics) I mean a great deal. A disdain for metaphysics is the view held by 90% of those who post on this forum (If I perceive aright). It is understood to be unreal and invented.

But, it is absolutely impossible to settle on what *metaphysical principles* to bind oneself to -- that much I admit. And the entire problem which, as I understand it, arose in the 17th century and which is still being argued over, is still the essential problem that we face. It is so evident in this entire conversation. The battles rage.