Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[henry quirk]

No counter, no evidence. Just more assertions.

Bet you didn't even open the link to Libet's 11 pages.

*

Of course, if you're right...

Every atom, every synapse in your brain, every fleeting thought you believe you’ve “freely” chosen is simply the inevitable consequence of these laws in motion.

...then I certainly can't, shouldn't, blame you. Your evasiveness is causally inevitable.

But, you aren't right. You are a free will. You are responsible.

So: I blame you.

You're zealot. No evidence offered will move you.

But, mebbe you can move me, evangelist.

Where's your evidence?

[Noax]

It's like if you were to put $5 in a drawer, in coin. You come back later, and it's $2.
...
Your wife borrowed $3. Nothing spooky, weird or unscientific happened at all.

... can volition initiate a causal chain?

Your wife's volition initiated the causal chain by which $5 became $2.

While the concept of the initiation of a causal chain is not particularly weird in itself, it seems like a very poor way to make any sort of decision, free or otherwise.
Your example contradicts itself. There are plenty of causes that contributed to her decision to borrow the $3, not limited to knowing where the money is kept, and observing it there. Those all are prior to her decision, and the decision was a function of both of them. In what possible way can this be characterized as an initiation of a causal chain?

[promethean75]

P.s. That Hacker skit is likely the most important video you'll ever watch at a philosophy site. It's essential material.

[henry quirk]

Exactly the response I expected. Nothing.

See, this is exactly why I'm not botherin' with you any more.

You say...

I don't recall you ever conceding that you might be wrong

..and I offer an instance when I did exactly that...

That may very well be the case.

..and it ain't good enough for you.

You and Mike have a lot in common.

[promethean75]

Hey yo Richard and Rene are gettin' it in. Good shit, mates.

("gettin' it in" is a colloquial expression describing doing something intensely, going hard at it, performing well, etc.)

[promethean75]

Uh oh the deus ex machina arrives at 44:45. Big A bout to roll up lookin' sharp in his perfectly trimmed beard and elegant toga.

Rene couldn't explain himself, so he hit the trail earlier. Had a good run, though.

[accelafine]

Exactly the response I expected. Nothing.

See, this is exactly why I'm not botherin' with you any more.

You say...

I don't recall you ever conceding that you might be wrong

..and I offer an instance when I did exactly that...

That may very well be the case.

..and it ain't good enough for you.

You and Mike have a lot in common.

Liar This is what I wrote:

''I don't recall you ever conceding that you might be wrong in your own claims that we are 'utterly free' or providing evidence or a definition for 'utterly free'.''

And this was your response:

''Cuz I'm not''

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

[promethean75]

Hey man, is Hacker writing all this dialogue, or is he sometimes quoting from Rene and Aristotle? Because what he just said as Aristotle about 'psyche' (pronounced "psukeh") was full beast mode. He even said everything like a boss like Aristotle would say it... all wise, measured, comprehensive, and clearly spoken.

[attofishpi]

Repost of Pete doing his philosophy skit again for those who wanna know who the Peter Hacker is.

https://youtu.be/0yv_k5uMCpU

Your homeboy Descartes comes in at 6:00.

If you bothered to post the links as this format atto and maybe many others would be able to load them correctly from the Amazon silk browser on the Amazon Firestick <-- probably the best invention since the internet - turns any TV with HDMI into a smart TV - great for travelling.

So good in fact that I don't use the 'smart TV' part of my SONY TV - I still use the Firestick. For some reason I couldn't get a different browser to work - Firefox to test those links that u post prom.

Here's the link format I need - atto is gonna go back to the lounge TV and sip on some Ice-Tea and contemplate da video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yv_k5uMCpU

[attofishpi]

..actually, wot a pile of gumpf. Pompous over thinking morons...

Ooo the mind is the brain therefore the brain is the mind..bla bla bla wank wank..

ooo what is the soul what is the i what is the what of whatery..

It's like those involved in the vid hypothetical are over-confused in a differentiation of the software and the hardware ...WANKAS!

wot a boring pile of drivel prom..

[godelian]

If they were truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond—then yes, their behavior would align perfectly. At least for a time, until random quantum effects begin to accumulate, eventually influencing their divergence.

If two computers are "truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond", and even in absence of "random quantum effects", even with perfect knowledge of inputs, environment, and algorithm, Rice Theorem still prevents the observer from predicting that "their behavior will align perfectly".

[Immanuel Can]

Cognitions are not immaterial; they are the result of physical processes in the brain—neural activity governed by the laws of physics.

It's actually you that's missing the point. That cognitions issue in physical symptoms, you can prove; that the physical symtoms cause the cognitions, you cannot prove, and cannot even make plausible.

Immanuel, your assertion is absurd. Cognitions don’t “issue in” physical symptoms

You don't know that. Rather, you're assuming it. But what you've forgotten is that physical events don't *mean* anything, in the sense that they don't have propositional content, linguistic coherence, or a particular implication attached.

A rock falling off a cliff doesn't "mean" anything in particular. It does not invite us to any conclusion beyond itself: we can't derive from it that the gods are angry, or that luck is against us, or that to be or not to be is the question. An avalanche, an earthquake, or the rubbing together of atoms does not have meaning. It's not a message. It's not a sign.

But cognitions are. They are always about something. (Philosophers use the term "aboutness" to indicate this.) Cognitions always have meaning beyond the mere firing of synapses. One thinks about Shakespeare, or about suffering, or about the price of eggs. Aboutness is an ineradicable feature of thinking...but physical events have no aboutness. They just are themselves, and nothing further.

So when the synapses fire, we have no demonstration of what is causing what. Are the cognitions firing the synapses, or the synapses firing the cognitions, or some other thing firing both? We have absolutely no way to know. But we do know that that the synaptic firing, considered as a physical event, is not "about" anything. The consciousness associated with it has aboutness.

Your argument has aboutness. The accidental or random firing of synapses are mere physical events that signify nothing but the buzzing of meaningless electricity. But your argument depends utterly on its meaning, its aboutness.

So is your argument "about" Determinism? Or is it just the physical-causal firing of synapses, absent any "aboutness"? If it's the latter, as you insist, then it has no meaning. But if it has meaning, then it's not merely a physical event, a physical-causal firing of synapses: and maybe it is both a thing produced by a consciousness and directed to a counsciousness, and can be debated as to meaning.

Which is it? Your continuing to debate shows that you know which it is.

[Immanuel Can]

It's like if you were to put $5 in a drawer, in coin. You come back later, and it's $2.
...
Your wife borrowed $3. Nothing spooky, weird or unscientific happened at all.

... can volition initiate a causal chain?

Your wife's volition initiated the causal chain by which $5 became $2.

While the concept of the initiation of a causal chain is not particularly weird in itself, it seems like a very poor way to make any sort of decision, free or otherwise.

Actually, no. We know for certain that every causal chain has to have a beginning point, because mathematically, a causal chain of infinite regressions never starts; the conditions for it to begin are never met.

So we know that the concept of the initiation of a causal chain is not "poor," at all: in fact, it's the only plausible way to posit any causal chains at all.

[attofishpi]

If they were truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond—then yes, their behavior would align perfectly. At least for a time, until random quantum effects begin to accumulate, eventually influencing their divergence.

If two computers are "truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond", and even in absence of "random quantum effects", even with perfect knowledge of inputs, environment, and algorithm, Rice Theorem still prevents the observer from predicting that "their behavior will align perfectly".

Apparently two computers with CPU clocks in perfect synchronisation will always return an identical integer using rand().

Sculptor educated me re that. Are you alluding to something different?

[BigMike]

No counter, no evidence. Just more assertions.

Bet you didn't even open the link to Libet's 11 pages.

*

Of course, if you're right...

Every atom, every synapse in your brain, every fleeting thought you believe you’ve “freely” chosen is simply the inevitable consequence of these laws in motion.

...then I certainly can't, shouldn't, blame you. Your evasiveness is causally inevitable.

But, you aren't right. You are a free will. You are responsible.

So: I blame you.

You're zealot. No evidence offered will move you.

But, mebbe you can move me, evangelist.

Where's your evidence?

Henry, your response is just a long-winded way of avoiding the actual argument. If you’re demanding evidence, let’s clarify what we’re talking about: the deterministic nature of reality and the physical basis of cognition. These claims are grounded in the laws of physics and supported by decades of neuroscientific research.

First, every observed interaction in the physical universe—from particle physics to brain activity—operates under the laws of conservation and causality. Conservation of energy and momentum ensures that nothing happens without cause, and every cause has a measurable, physical effect. If you want to argue for "free will," you need to explain how it interacts with the physical brain without violating these fundamental principles. So far, you’ve offered nothing but anecdotes and philosophical quips.

Second, Libet’s experiments—and similar studies—show that neural activity precedes conscious decision-making. This sequence directly challenges the idea that conscious will is the prime mover. Your dismissal of this evidence as "assertions" only highlights your unwillingness to confront its implications. Whether or not I’ve reread Libet’s 11 pages is irrelevant when the core findings are well-documented and widely replicated.

Your attempt to blame me for "evasion" is laughable. If determinism is true, as the evidence overwhelmingly supports, blame itself is meaningless because actions are the result of preceding causes. But since you claim free will exists, the burden of proof is on you to explain how this supposed will operates outside the constraints of causality. How does it influence physical matter without mass, charge, or energy exchange? You’ve dodged that question every time because you can’t answer it.

So no, I’m not a zealot. I’m simply pointing out the reality you refuse to accept: your thoughts and actions are causally inevitable, and no amount of rhetorical gymnastics will change that. If you want to move this conversation forward, stop posturing and provide a coherent, evidence-based argument. Otherwise, you’re just wasting both our time.