Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

I give them "grief"

As a deterministic system: it is what is is, you are as you are. You do as you must.

...or...

Becuz, as a free will, you can.

causality...means actions and ideas, including critique and debate, are themselves part of the deterministic chain.

Yes, inevitable, necessary, cannot be any other way.

My pointing out the flaws

As a deterministic system: it is what is is, you are as you are. You do as you must.

...or...

Becuz, as a free will, you can.

The religious resistance to science is causally inevitable, as is my critique of it.

Yes, full stop. They, and you do as you must. None of you have any so.

Henry, yes, it is what it is, and I do as I must—just as you do. That’s the point. Determinism doesn’t negate the significance of critique or action; it frames them as part of the causal web. My critique of religious resistance isn’t about choosing to act out of free will; it’s a response caused by my understanding of the flaws in their reasoning, shaped by my experiences and knowledge.

So, yes, everything is causally inevitable, including this conversation. But inevitability doesn’t mean purposelessness. Deterministic systems evolve, adapt, and create change through interaction. My critique isn’t an exception to determinism; it’s a demonstration of it. Full stop.

[Age]

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.

Learning, evaluating, deciding all causally inevitable. If you're a determinist, Mike, you need to accept this. If you're a compatibilist, and you are, then you need to explain how you sneak in a lil bit of free will, cuz that's what you're doing, into a deterministic system.

Henry, I fully accept that learning, evaluating, and deciding are causally inevitable. There’s no “sneaking in” free will because I reject it entirely. What you’re failing to grasp is that determinism doesn’t eliminate these processes; it explains them. Learning and deciding are deterministic processes themselves, shaped by prior causes like experience, environment, and biology.

I’m not sneaking in free will—I’m describing how deterministic systems, like brains, operate. Your attempt to equate determinism with some kind of inert, robotic stasis shows a misunderstanding. A deterministic system can adapt, learn, and change based on inputs because those inputs are also part of the causal chain. No need for "free will" to enter the picture—causality handles it all.

But, like "henry quirk", you have and hold definitions of words here that just do not even work.

Thus WHY you two are disagreeing and fighting here.

[henry quirk]

What you’re failing to grasp is that determinism doesn’t eliminate these processes

You said it yourself: 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.

[BigMike]

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.

Learning, evaluating, deciding all causally inevitable. If you're a determinist, Mike, you need to accept this. If you're a compatibilist, and you are, then you need to explain how you sneak in a lil bit of free will, cuz that's what you're doing, into a deterministic system.

Henry, I fully accept that learning, evaluating, and deciding are causally inevitable. There’s no “sneaking in” free will because I reject it entirely. What you’re failing to grasp is that determinism doesn’t eliminate these processes; it explains them. Learning and deciding are deterministic processes themselves, shaped by prior causes like experience, environment, and biology.

I’m not sneaking in free will—I’m describing how deterministic systems, like brains, operate. Your attempt to equate determinism with some kind of inert, robotic stasis shows a misunderstanding. A deterministic system can adapt, learn, and change based on inputs because those inputs are also part of the causal chain. No need for "free will" to enter the picture—causality handles it all.

But, like "henry quirk", you have and hold definitions of words here that just do not even work.

Thus WHY you two are disagreeing and fighting here.

Age, the disagreement isn’t about definitions—it’s about understanding the implications of determinism. Henry equates determinism with stasis, as though it renders systems inert or incapable of adaptation, which is categorically false. Deterministic systems, including brains, evolve and adapt dynamically within the causal framework.

This isn’t a semantic squabble; it’s about accurately representing how causality explains processes like learning, decision-making, and behavior. The only "fight" here is against misconceptions, not the definitions themselves.

[BigMike]

What you’re failing to grasp is that determinism doesn’t eliminate these processes

You said it yourself: 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.

And what's your problem with that?

[Age]

I give them "grief"

As a deterministic system: it is what is is, you are as you are. You do as you must.

...or...

Becuz, as a free will, you can.

causality...means actions and ideas, including critique and debate, are themselves part of the deterministic chain.

Yes, inevitable, necessary, cannot be any other way.

My pointing out the flaws

As a deterministic system: it is what is is, you are as you are. You do as you must.

...or...

Becuz, as a free will, you can.

The religious resistance to science is causally inevitable, as is my critique of it.

Yes, full stop. They, and you do as you must. None of you have any so.

Henry, yes, it is what it is, and I do as I must—just as you do. That’s the point. Determinism doesn’t negate the significance of critique or action; it frames them as part of the causal web. My critique of religious resistance isn’t about choosing to act out of free will; it’s a response caused by my understanding of the flaws in their reasoning, shaped by my experiences and knowledge.

And, obviously, your past experiences have not shaped you into recognizing and seeing your own flaws in your reasoning, correct?

So, yes, everything is causally inevitable, including this conversation. But inevitability doesn’t mean purposelessness. Deterministic systems evolve, adapt, and create change through interaction. My critique isn’t an exception to determinism; it’s a demonstration of it. Full stop.

And your faulty reasoning here is a demonstration of your non perfect past, just as your non perfect past shows up here in your faulty reasoning.

Also, the reason you will not seek out any clarity at all over where and what is your faulty reasoning is here is solely due to your non perfect past, right?

Just like if I posted examples of where and when your faulty reasoning is and you do not even recognize and see it, then this demonstrates determinism also, right?

In fact the very reason WHY you 'currently' BELIEVE that you do not have any faulty reasoning here, at all, is because of determinism, itself, correct?

[BigMike]

As a deterministic system: it is what is is, you are as you are. You do as you must.

...or...

Becuz, as a free will, you can.



Yes, inevitable, necessary, cannot be any other way.



As a deterministic system: it is what is is, you are as you are. You do as you must.

...or...

Becuz, as a free will, you can.



Yes, full stop. They, and you do as you must. None of you have any so.

Henry, yes, it is what it is, and I do as I must—just as you do. That’s the point. Determinism doesn’t negate the significance of critique or action; it frames them as part of the causal web. My critique of religious resistance isn’t about choosing to act out of free will; it’s a response caused by my understanding of the flaws in their reasoning, shaped by my experiences and knowledge.

And, obviously, your past experiences have not shaped you into recognizing and seeing your own flaws in your reasoning, correct?

So, yes, everything is causally inevitable, including this conversation. But inevitability doesn’t mean purposelessness. Deterministic systems evolve, adapt, and create change through interaction. My critique isn’t an exception to determinism; it’s a demonstration of it. Full stop.

And your faulty reasoning here is a demonstration of your non perfect past, just as your non perfect past shows up here in your faulty reasoning.

Also, the reason you will not seek out any clarity at all over where and what is your faulty reasoning is here is solely due to your non perfect past, right?

Just like if I posted examples of where and when your faulty reasoning is and you do not even recognize and see it, then this demonstrates determinism also, right?

In fact the very reason WHY you 'currently' BELIEVE that you do not have any faulty reasoning here, at all, is because of determinism, itself, correct?

Age, if my reasoning contains flaws, those flaws too are causally inevitable, as is the process of refining or correcting them over time. That’s the beauty of determinism—it accounts for the iterative nature of understanding and growth. If you can point out specific examples of faulty reasoning, I welcome it, as part of the deterministic process that shapes our interaction and my development.

Yes, my belief that my reasoning is sound at this moment is the result of my past experiences, knowledge, and interactions. If I am wrong, then exposing that error would also be part of the causal web, contributing to the evolution of my understanding. So by all means, present your examples, and let’s see how causality unfolds from there.

[Skepdick]

Age, if my reasoning contains flaws, those flaws too are causally inevitable, as is the process of refining or correcting them over time. That’s the beauty of determinism—it accounts for the iterative nature of understanding and growth. If you can point out specific examples of faulty reasoning, I welcome it, as part of the deterministic process that shapes our interaction and my development.

Yes, my belief that my reasoning is sound at this moment is the result of my past experiences, knowledge, and interactions. If I am wrong, then exposing that error would also be part of the causal web, contributing to the evolution of my understanding. So by all means, present your examples, and let’s see how causality unfolds from there.

And the beauty of non-determinism is choosing to stop making the same errors over and over.

You don't seem to have access to this function.

[henry quirk]

And what's your problem with that?

Obviously, my problem with it is: it's a false statement, one neither of us believes.

Anyway...

We been on retread mode for a while, Mike, sayin' the same things over and over, so I'll step out for a bit. Mebbe if you actually undergird your claims, I'll step back in.

Till then, this is my close...

A series of physical and material events, when no *consciousness* enters in, can only be purely deterministic (again if I understand aright). An object in motion cannot make a choice to behave differently. It has no volition.

In the determinism Mike claims to promote, it matters not one jot if consciousness enters becuz consciousness is causally inevitable. Consciousness is just another result, another event. Mike, however, is a compatibilist. In his view consciousness, which can be educated, which can evaluate, which can decide, does matter. Somehow this educable, evaluating, deciding consciousness exercises control over itself. It self-directs.

Sounds a lot like some kind of free will to me.

[Age]

Henry, I fully accept that learning, evaluating, and deciding are causally inevitable. There’s no “sneaking in” free will because I reject it entirely. What you’re failing to grasp is that determinism doesn’t eliminate these processes; it explains them. Learning and deciding are deterministic processes themselves, shaped by prior causes like experience, environment, and biology.

I’m not sneaking in free will—I’m describing how deterministic systems, like brains, operate. Your attempt to equate determinism with some kind of inert, robotic stasis shows a misunderstanding. A deterministic system can adapt, learn, and change based on inputs because those inputs are also part of the causal chain. No need for "free will" to enter the picture—causality handles it all.

But, like "henry quirk", you have and hold definitions of words here that just do not even work.

Thus WHY you two are disagreeing and fighting here.

Age, the disagreement isn’t about definitions

I know that this is what you 'currently' BELIEVE, See your BELIEFS here are the result of determniisn, which you obviously could NEVER even just disagree with, let alone could ever refute.

Also, and by the way, the reason the disagreement among you two here is not, yet, about definitions is because you two have never even stopped to just discuss what different definitions you two both have and are using here. Which, by the way, is actually what is causing the disagreement, and confusion, here, among you two

—it’s about understanding the implications of determinism. Henry equates determinism with stasis, as though it renders systems inert or incapable of adaptation, which is categorically false.

But what you equate 'determinism', and 'free will', with could NEVER EVER be categorically false, correct?

Deterministic systems, including brains, evolve and adapt dynamically within the causal framework.

This isn’t a semantic squabble; it’s about accurately representing how causality explains processes like learning, decision-making, and behavior.

So when are you going to start accurately representing the thing that explains the processes that led up to 'free will'.

How come the process that have led you up to you BELIEVING, absolutely, that you can accurately describe the processes here for determinism and free will, you believe, can not be the exact same processes that led "henry quirk" and every other one of you human beings to all have all of the different views and BELIEFS that you all have, but which also have led all you to BELIEVE, absolutely, that your own personal and opposing views, beliefs, and versions are the true.and right ones?

The only "fight" here is against misconceptions, not the definitions themselves.

And, would I be right in saying that you BELIEVE that you do NOT have any misconceptions, here?

And, that it is 'your job', here, to inform others of 'their misconceptions', and of what is true and right, as well?

By the way you would not even if the 'fight' is against definitions or not BECAUSE you have not even STOPPED to just CONSIDER what 'the other's' definitions even are, exactly. On fact if I was to question both of you for CLARIFICATION of your OWN definitions you would, and have in the past, STRUGGLED, greatly, here.

By the way where do you think misconceptions come from if not through faulty, Wrong, or unworkable definitions?

So, as it appears, you, "yourself", have not yet understood, fully, the implications of 'determinism', itself.

[BigMike]

And what's your problem with that?

Obviously, my problem with it is: it's a false statement, one neither of us believes.

Anyway...

We been on retread mode for a while, Mike, sayin' the same things over and over, so I'll step out for a bit. Mebbe if you actually undergird your claims, I'll step back in.

Till then, this is my close...

A series of physical and material events, when no *consciousness* enters in, can only be purely deterministic (again if I understand aright). An object in motion cannot make a choice to behave differently. It has no volition.

In the determinism Mike claims to promote, it matters not one jot if consciousness enters becuz consciousness is causally inevitable. Consciousness is just another result, another event. Mike, however, is a compatibilist. In his view consciousness, which can be educated, which can evaluate, which can decide, does matter. Somehow this educable, evaluating, deciding consciousness exercises control over itself. It self-directs.

Sounds a lot like some kind of free will to me.

Henry, your persistent claim that determinism and free will are somehow being conflated in my argument is tiring and misguided. Consciousness is a deterministic phenomenon. Its ability to "evaluate" and "decide" doesn’t invoke free will; it’s the deterministic result of prior causes—experiences, genetic predispositions, environmental stimuli, and so on. Decisions arise from a web of causality, not some mystical, uncaused agency.

If you see that as "sounding like free will," then you’ve misunderstood determinism entirely. The capability of a system to process information, adapt, and respond is a product of deterministic causation—not an opening for metaphysical free will. So no, I’m not sneaking in "some kind of free will." I reject it outright. Stop misrepresenting determinism as though it’s compatible with magical thinking. If you’ve got a meaningful critique, bring it—otherwise, this loop of willful misinterpretation is getting tedious.

[Age]

Henry, yes, it is what it is, and I do as I must—just as you do. That’s the point. Determinism doesn’t negate the significance of critique or action; it frames them as part of the causal web. My critique of religious resistance isn’t about choosing to act out of free will; it’s a response caused by my understanding of the flaws in their reasoning, shaped by my experiences and knowledge.

And, obviously, your past experiences have not shaped you into recognizing and seeing your own flaws in your reasoning, correct?

So, yes, everything is causally inevitable, including this conversation. But inevitability doesn’t mean purposelessness. Deterministic systems evolve, adapt, and create change through interaction. My critique isn’t an exception to determinism; it’s a demonstration of it. Full stop.

And your faulty reasoning here is a demonstration of your non perfect past, just as your non perfect past shows up here in your faulty reasoning.

Also, the reason you will not seek out any clarity at all over where and what is your faulty reasoning is here is solely due to your non perfect past, right?

Just like if I posted examples of where and when your faulty reasoning is and you do not even recognize and see it, then this demonstrates determinism also, right?

In fact the very reason WHY you 'currently' BELIEVE that you do not have any faulty reasoning here, at all, is because of determinism, itself, correct?

Age, if my reasoning contains flaws, those flaws too are causally inevitable, as is the process of refining or correcting them over time. That’s the beauty of determinism—it accounts for the iterative nature of understanding and growth. If you can point out specific examples of faulty reasoning, I welcome it, as part of the deterministic process that shapes our interaction and my development.

But, ONCE AGAIN, and as I have done so in the past, when I pointed out specific examples of your faulty reasoning you are, and were, NOT able to see, recognize, and admit them, and AGAIN this is because of determinism, itself, or in other words, because of your own personal past experiences.

Yes, my belief that my reasoning is sound at this moment is the result of my past experiences, knowledge, and interactions.

And so to is your INABILITY to 'look at' and 'see' things, FULLY, here, is the result of your past experience, knowledge, and interactions.

WHY do you think is the reason WHY you human beings, in the days when this is being written, have NOT YET, also, caught up with what the actual irrefutable Truth of things are, AS WELL?

The answer is BECAUSE of your own personal 'past experiences', OBVIOUSLY.

Also, and by the way, even though I KEEP INFORMING you people that while you KEEP BELIEVING and PRE/ASSUMING things, that doing so will PREVENT and even STOP you from learning and seeing what the actual Truths are, in Life, you, still, INSIST on having BELIEFS.

However, BECAUSE I ALREADY KNOW WHY ALL of you human beings are 'the way' that you ALL are, and thus KNOW WHY you olde ones will just NOT LISTEN, then ALL is WELL, and GOOD.

If I am wrong, then exposing that error would also be part of the causal web, contributing to the evolution of my understanding.

LOL I have ALREADY exposed some of your errors, but, AGAIN, you were just NOT 'looking' and 'seeing', and this is BECAUSE you do NOT want to 'see' the error in, and of, 'your ways'.

Which explains WHY you have not been 'LISTENING', here.

Even a very quick 'look' above here one can VERY CLEARLY 'SEE' that you will NOT use the word 'my' on front of the words 'error' or 'faulty reasoning'. And this is because of an 'underlying BELIEF', here, which, AGAIN, is due SOLELY to your own personal 'past experiences', or what I call your pre-determining factors, which some might know as 'determinism', itself.

The VERY REASON WHY you do NOT 'see' your own faulty reasoning is because pre-determined 'past experiences' have NOT allowed you to BELIEVE that you have.

But this was just a common occurrence among you adult human beings, anyway. And, AGAIN, this is just because of your, common, past experiences. Being taught to 'debate' was just a huge contributing factor which led up towards this kind of, very common, faulty reasoning among you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written.

So by all means, present your examples, and let’s see how causality unfolds from there.

your own personal definition of the 'free will' words, which has obviously come from your own personal pre-determined 'past experiences', is NOT one that could even fit in with nor work with what is actually True, in Life. Therefore, your own personal conclusion and, absolute, BELIEF, that 'free will' does NOT exist is absolutely True, and Right, but from your OWN perspective, ONLY.

However, because your perspective, view, and/or BELIEF, here, does NOT align with what is actually True, and Right, in Life, or with 'Reality', Itself, then your view/s, here, are 'FAULTY', because they are based on 'faulty reasoning'.

BUT, let 'us' NOT forget that this is NEVER ABOUT 'you', "yourself", but ABOUT 'your past experiences' and 'your past learnings and teachings'. That is; what 'you' have been 'taught', and thus 'learned', was Wrong. Whereas, 'you', "yourself", NEVER could be nor NEVER were Wrong.

[BigMike]

And, obviously, your past experiences have not shaped you into recognizing and seeing your own flaws in your reasoning, correct?


And your faulty reasoning here is a demonstration of your non perfect past, just as your non perfect past shows up here in your faulty reasoning.

Also, the reason you will not seek out any clarity at all over where and what is your faulty reasoning is here is solely due to your non perfect past, right?

Just like if I posted examples of where and when your faulty reasoning is and you do not even recognize and see it, then this demonstrates determinism also, right?

In fact the very reason WHY you 'currently' BELIEVE that you do not have any faulty reasoning here, at all, is because of determinism, itself, correct?

Age, if my reasoning contains flaws, those flaws too are causally inevitable, as is the process of refining or correcting them over time. That’s the beauty of determinism—it accounts for the iterative nature of understanding and growth. If you can point out specific examples of faulty reasoning, I welcome it, as part of the deterministic process that shapes our interaction and my development.

But, ONCE AGAIN, and as I have done so in the past, when I pointed out specific examples of your faulty reasoning you are, and were, NOT able to see, recognize, and admit them, and AGAIN this is because of determinism, itself, or in other words, because of your own personal past experiences.

Yes, my belief that my reasoning is sound at this moment is the result of my past experiences, knowledge, and interactions.

And so to is your INABILITY to 'look at' and 'see' things, FULLY, here, is the result of your past experience, knowledge, and interactions.

WHY do you think is the reason WHY you human beings, in the days when this is being written, have NOT YET, also, caught up with what the actual irrefutable Truth of things are, AS WELL?

The answer is BECAUSE of your own personal 'past experiences', OBVIOUSLY.

Also, and by the way, even though I KEEP INFORMING you people that while you KEEP BELIEVING and PRE/ASSUMING things, that doing so will PREVENT and even STOP you from learning and seeing what the actual Truths are, in Life, you, still, INSIST on having BELIEFS.

However, BECAUSE I ALREADY KNOW WHY ALL of you human beings are 'the way' that you ALL are, and thus KNOW WHY you olde ones will just NOT LISTEN, then ALL is WELL, and GOOD.

If I am wrong, then exposing that error would also be part of the causal web, contributing to the evolution of my understanding.

LOL I have ALREADY exposed some of your errors, but, AGAIN, you were just NOT 'looking' and 'seeing', and this is BECAUSE you do NOT want to 'see' the error in, and of, 'your ways'.

Which explains WHY you have not been 'LISTENING', here.

Even a very quick 'look' above here one can VERY CLEARLY 'SEE' that you will NOT use the word 'my' on front of the words 'error' or 'faulty reasoning'. And this is because of an 'underlying BELIEF', here, which, AGAIN, is due SOLELY to your own personal 'past experiences', or what I call your pre-determining factors, which some might know as 'determinism', itself.

The VERY REASON WHY you do NOT 'see' your own faulty reasoning is because pre-determined 'past experiences' have NOT allowed you to BELIEVE that you have.

But this was just a common occurrence among you adult human beings, anyway. And, AGAIN, this is just because of your, common, past experiences. Being taught to 'debate' was just a huge contributing factor which led up towards this kind of, very common, faulty reasoning among you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written.

So by all means, present your examples, and let’s see how causality unfolds from there.

your own personal definition of the 'free will' words, which has obviously come from your own personal pre-determined 'past experiences', is NOT one that could even fit in with nor work with what is actually True, in Life. Therefore, your own personal conclusion and, absolute, BELIEF, that 'free will' does NOT exist is absolutely True, and Right, but from your OWN perspective, ONLY.

However, because your perspective, view, and/or BELIEF, here, does NOT align with what is actually True, and Right, in Life, or with 'Reality', Itself, then your view/s, here, are 'FAULTY', because they are based on 'faulty reasoning'.

BUT, let 'us' NOT forget that this is NEVER ABOUT 'you', "yourself", but ABOUT 'your past experiences' and 'your past learnings and teachings'. That is; what 'you' have been 'taught', and thus 'learned', was Wrong. Whereas, 'you', "yourself", NEVER could be nor NEVER were Wrong.

Age, if you have specific examples of what you believe are flaws in my reasoning or definitions, present them clearly and concisely. Your lengthy digressions on "faulty reasoning" and personal experiences have yet to demonstrate where my argument breaks down.

If you claim that my perspective is shaped by pre-determined factors, I agree—that’s the premise of determinism. However, pointing out that I might be shaped by causality doesn’t refute my argument; it supports it. The question is whether your criticism provides new evidence or logical reasoning to challenge my stance. If not, then this is just rhetoric, not substantive critique.

So, let’s skip the philosophical theatrics. If you believe you have evidence or a coherent argument, state it directly, without unnecessary tangents.

[Age]

Age, if my reasoning contains flaws, those flaws too are causally inevitable, as is the process of refining or correcting them over time. That’s the beauty of determinism—it accounts for the iterative nature of understanding and growth. If you can point out specific examples of faulty reasoning, I welcome it, as part of the deterministic process that shapes our interaction and my development.

Yes, my belief that my reasoning is sound at this moment is the result of my past experiences, knowledge, and interactions. If I am wrong, then exposing that error would also be part of the causal web, contributing to the evolution of my understanding. So by all means, present your examples, and let’s see how causality unfolds from there.

And the beauty of non-determinism is choosing to stop making the same errors over and over.

Thank you

You don't seem to have access to this function.

Obviously, while one is BELIEVING that they can NOT do some thing, then 'the ABILITY' to do that thing is PREVENTED or STOPPED from ALLOWED to happen.

Although 'the ACCESS', and thus 'the ABILITY', is ALWAYS 't/here', through BELIEF, or DISBELIEF as well, 'the ABILITY' just becomes 'DIS-ABLED', only, temporally, and only for time DIS/BELIEF exists for.

[Alexis Jacobi]

determinism, in philosophy and science, [is] the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.

free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.

If, say, I spend my time contemplating what the proper course of action is (in my family, in society, etc.) and after great expenditure of energy and time then make a decision, of course one will say “No other choice was possible!” since that choice is now, as it were, set in stone, woven into the fabric of reality.

But all the choices I made that prepared me for the specific choice — it is this that concerns us. Those took shape within a context, certainly, and that context is “the causal world”, but what is to be gained by asserting my moral choices do not arise in me as choice? This is what I do not get (about Big Mike’s scientisic fundamentalism).

What advantage is to be gained if l or anyone tells me: “You could have done nothing differently” and (seemingly) that I do not have significant access to agency? And that I am not to be held accountable for my choices when I face their consequences, as I and we all must face inevitably?

Now, what really messes with Mike’s head is the supposed possibility of a supernatural agency that might act in our (largely) causally determined world. That is to say that if it were possible, through appeal to a divinity or by some magical agency, interject into the causal patterns a movement that influences the flow of events as if from outside the “system”.

In the larger analysis, and with some “metaphysical distance”, this hallucinated possibility is (perhaps) what ultimately BigMike objects to.

The issue is that there is no way to describe how some such (supernatural) potency, without materiality, could act on what is material. What is the contact point?