Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

You can't tell the difference between what you believe you are discovering through science, and what you are just recommending because you like it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Skinner confuses “science” with terminology. He apparently believes that if he rephrases commonplace “mentalistic” expressions with terminology derived from the laboratory study of behavior, but deprived of whatever content this terminology has within this discipline, then he has achieved a scientific analysis of behavior. It would be hard to conceive of a more striking failure to comprehend even the rudiments of scientific thinking. The public may well be deceived, in view of the prestige of science and technology. It may even choose to be misled into agreeing that concern for freedom and dignity must be abandoned, perhaps out of fear and a sense of insecurity about the consequences of a serious concern for freedom and dignity. The tendencies in our society that lead toward submission to authoritarian rule may prepare individuals for a doctrine that can be interpreted as justifying it.

-- Noam Chomsky (in this 1971 article)

BigMike has fucked himself over by confusing science with his rhetorical constructs.

[Please note that I have a chapter -- alas it is in Esperanto and I've yet to translate it into English -- in Book 12 at the end of the Third Section of The Course, which goes into hieroglyphic detail about why Chomsky (:::genuflections:::) is right and why BigMike's anthropology will lead us to a despotic Communist Chinese state! and quite likely the elimination of Christmas!]

[Alexis Jacobi]

I will pay you, BigMike, US$5,000.00 if you will remove me from your 'ignore' list!

That's right, Mike, $5,000.00 smackers.

You were selected and determined, before Time began, to voluntarily accept my bribe and to imagine it was done freely.

[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.

You can't tell the difference between what you believe you are discovering through science, and what you are just recommending because you like it.

That's not accurate, Flash. Determinism isn’t a matter of personal preference—it’s a conclusion drawn from evidence in physics, neuroscience, and psychology. The recommendations follow logically from that understanding: if behavior is determined by causes, the rational response is to address those causes. It’s not about what anyone “likes”—it’s about what works to reduce harm and create a safer society. If you see a better alternative than evidence-based solutions, feel free to share it.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

You can't tell the difference between what you believe you are discovering through science, and what you are just recommending because you like it.

That's not accurate, Flash. Determinism isn’t a matter of personal preference—it’s a conclusion drawn from evidence in physics, neuroscience, and psychology.

That's the bit that you think is science

The recommendations follow logically from that understanding: if behavior is determined by causes, the rational response is to address those causes. It’s not about what anyone “likes”—it’s about what works to reduce harm and create a safer society. If you see a better alternative than evidence-based solutions, feel free to share it.

And that's the bit that is just you expressing personal preferences.

[Atla]

if behavior is determined by causes, the rational response is to address those causes. It’s not about what anyone “likes”—it’s about what works to reduce harm and create a safer society. If you see a better alternative than evidence-based solutions, feel free to share it.

I'd say that's already the practice in Europe. Not sure about the US.

[Alexiev]

As the murderer of Harvey Milk discovered, eating too many twinkles can warp your neurons into forcing you to commit murder. This has been proven by neuroscientists, who, as you can tell from merely looking at the word "neuroscience", are very, very smart.

[BigMike]

if behavior is determined by causes, the rational response is to address those causes. It’s not about what anyone “likes”—it’s about what works to reduce harm and create a safer society. If you see a better alternative than evidence-based solutions, feel free to share it.

I'd say that's already the practice in Europe. Not sure about the US.

You're right, Atla—many European countries have already embraced elements of this approach, focusing more on rehabilitation, prevention, and addressing root causes rather than pure retribution. The results speak for themselves: lower recidivism rates and safer societies. The U.S., on the other hand, often clings to a punitive model rooted in outdated notions of free will and personal blame. It’s time the U.S. caught up with evidence-based practices that prioritize reducing harm over satisfying moral outrage.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You're right, Atla—many European countries have already embraced elements of this approach, focusing more on rehabilitation, prevention, and addressing root causes rather than pure retribution. The results speak for themselves: lower recidivism rates and safer societies. The U.S., on the other hand, often clings to a punitive model rooted in outdated notions of free will and personal blame. It’s time the U.S. caught up with evidence-based practices that prioritize reducing harm over satisfying moral outrage.

You are confused. The “approach” is not because they are determinists, but because a different morally and ethically-based choice was made (if indeed the results you cite are genuine). If your objection is to a hard punitive model, and other approaches may work better, that does not prove determinism to the degree you suppose.

[Alexis Jacobi]

BigMike: Do you or do you not intend to eliminate Christmas?!? YES or NO?

[henry quirk]

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

If we're not free wills, then we're just meat. If we're not free wills, then we're just machines. We're Meat machines. Just aggregates of particles.

If we're free wills, then we're sumthin' more than just meat. If we're free wills, then we're sumthin' more than machines. We're persons. Hylomorphs.

if we are determined, as Mike sez (but doesn't actually believe [cuz what he describes as determinism is really compatibilism]), then we are nuthin' but machines made of meat. And what is meat? It's the substance of an animal, it's flesh, organs, viscera, etc. And, yes, in the great bloody world of nature, meat is eaten.

If we are not free wills, then, like all other life, we are just meat for some other animal's gullet.

Meat Machines.

[Atla]

if behavior is determined by causes, the rational response is to address those causes. It’s not about what anyone “likes”—it’s about what works to reduce harm and create a safer society. If you see a better alternative than evidence-based solutions, feel free to share it.

I'd say that's already the practice in Europe. Not sure about the US.

You're right, Atla—many European countries have already embraced elements of this approach, focusing more on rehabilitation, prevention, and addressing root causes rather than pure retribution. The results speak for themselves: lower recidivism rates and safer societies. The U.S., on the other hand, often clings to a punitive model rooted in outdated notions of free will and personal blame. It’s time the U.S. caught up with evidence-based practices that prioritize reducing harm over satisfying moral outrage.

You can use evidence-based practices to reduce harm and satisfy moral outrage at the same time. People who aren't "legally insane" should be personally blamed under determinism too.

[BigMike]

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

If we're not free wills, then we're just meat. If we're not free wills, then we're just machines. We're Meat machines. Just aggregates of particles.

If we're free wills, then we're sumthin' more than just meat. If we're free wills, then we're sumthin' more than machines. We're persons. Hylomorphs.

if we are determined, as Mike sez (but doesn't actually believe [cuz what he describes as determinism is really compatibilism]), then we are nuthin' but machines made of meat. And what is meat? It's the substance of an animal, it's flesh, organs, viscera, etc. And, yes, in the great bloody world of nature, meat is eaten.

If we are not free wills, then, like all other life, we are just meat for some other animal's gullet.

Meat Machines.

Henry, the term "meat machine" is a reductive caricature that misses the nuance of what determinism actually entails. Yes, humans are physical beings—biological systems governed by the laws of nature—but calling us "meat machines" ignores the incredible complexity of those systems. Determinism doesn’t diminish humanity; it illuminates the intricate web of interactions—genetics, environment, culture, and biology—that make us who we are.

Your insistence that free will makes us “more” than physical beings is appealing, but it’s not supported by evidence. There’s no scientific basis for the claim that we are hylomorphic “persons” in a metaphysical sense. What you’re doing is dressing up wishful thinking as a philosophical argument.

Humans are not "just meat" or "just machines." We are conscious beings capable of learning, empathy, and innovation—not because of some mystical "free will," but because of the complex deterministic processes that enable these traits. Determinism doesn’t rob us of meaning or personhood; it provides a framework to understand and appreciate the physical reality that makes our existence possible. Let’s engage with the science, not devalue it with strawman terminology.

[BigMike]

You can use evidence-based practices to reduce harm and satisfy moral outrage at the same time. People who aren't "legally insane" should be personally blamed under determinism too.

Atla, under determinism, the concept of "personal blame" doesn’t hold up the way it does in a free-will framework. Blame implies moral fault for actions as if the individual could have chosen differently in the same circumstances, which determinism explicitly denies. Instead of blame, the focus shifts to accountability in a practical sense—addressing harmful actions and ensuring the safety of others while working to understand and mitigate the root causes.

You’re right that evidence-based practices can address harm and moral outrage simultaneously, but the difference lies in motivation. Determinism emphasizes reducing harm through prevention and rehabilitation, not moralistic punishment for its own sake. Holding someone accountable under determinism isn’t about personal blame—it’s about addressing the deterministic factors that led to their actions and ensuring they don’t harm again. It’s a more compassionate and effective approach, even if it challenges traditional notions of justice.

[FlashDangerpants]

if behavior is determined by causes, the rational response is to address those causes. It’s not about what anyone “likes”—it’s about what works to reduce harm and create a safer society. If you see a better alternative than evidence-based solutions, feel free to share it.

I'd say that's already the practice in Europe. Not sure about the US.

You're right, Atla—many European countries have already embraced elements of this approach, focusing more on rehabilitation, prevention, and addressing root causes rather than pure retribution.

Are you insinuating that Euros are less inclined towards a a common-sense psychological view that humans are choosing agents than Americans are, or are you accidentally admitting that there is no need to change views on this matter to follow these more caring approaches?

There's still no sign that this change your are promoting makes any actual difference.