Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Age]

Henry, your argument conflates determinism with fatalism, a fundamental misunderstanding. Determinism says that all events, including human actions, are caused by preceding factors. Fatalism, on the other hand, is the belief that outcomes are fixed regardless of our actions. These are not the same. Determinism recognizes that our actions, thoughts, and decisions are part of the causal chain and thus influence future outcomes.

Take learning and memory, for example. Both are physical processes governed by neural changes—strengthening synapses, forming connections, encoding experiences. These processes enable us to evaluate how our current actions will influence the future and make decisions that align with desired outcomes. While our choices are determined by prior causes, they are also informed by our capacity to predict consequences and adapt. This is why reforming the justice system or critiquing harmful beliefs is entirely compatible with determinism: these actions are themselves causes within the system, shaping better outcomes.

Blame, in the traditional moral sense, may be meaningless in a deterministic framework, but accountability isn’t. Justice can shift from retribution to prevention and rehabilitation, focusing on reducing harm and addressing root causes. My arguments for reform are part of this causal chain, aiming to influence future conditions. They’re not futile; they’re how determinism works in practice. Dismissing efforts to improve as "impossible" misunderstands that change is caused by actions in the present, which are themselves part of the deterministic web.

Now you are just playing with words. Determinism is scientific. 'Fatalism' is emotional/religious. They shouldn't be used as an 'either/or'. No one said we can't learn, it's just that what we learn is predetermined.

Accelafine, I’m not “playing with words”—I’m clarifying an essential distinction that seems lost in your response. Determinism and fatalism are entirely different concepts, and conflating them muddies the discussion. Determinism is rooted in cause and effect, where actions and outcomes are shaped by preceding events. Fatalism, by contrast, implies inevitability regardless of intervening causes. This is not an emotional or religious distinction; it’s a conceptual one with profound implications.

Yes, what we learn is shaped by prior causes, but the process of learning itself—analyzing, adapting, and applying knowledge—is also part of the deterministic chain. This is why reform and progress are possible: the deterministic web includes the capacity for change through action.

Yet this one is the one SHOWING and PROVING HOW, exactly, reform, progress, and change are NOT actually possible, while one is holding onto ASSUMPTIONS or BELIEFS.

Your attempt to blur the lines between determinism and fatalism is not a rebuttal; it’s a failure to engage with the mechanics of how deterministic systems actually operate. If you can’t see the difference, perhaps it’s time to step back and examine the argument more carefully.

[Age]

Accelafine, I’m not “playing with words”—I’m clarifying an essential distinction that seems lost in your response. Determinism and fatalism are entirely different concepts, and conflating them muddies the discussion. Determinism is rooted in cause and effect, where actions and outcomes are shaped by preceding events. Fatalism, by contrast, implies inevitability regardless of intervening causes. This is not an emotional or religious distinction; it’s a conceptual one with profound implications.

Yes, what we learn is shaped by prior causes, but the process of learning itself—analyzing, adapting, and applying knowledge—is also part of the deterministic chain. This is why reform and progress are possible: the deterministic web includes the capacity for change through action.

Your attempt to blur the lines between determinism and fatalism is not a rebuttal; it’s a failure to engage with the mechanics of how deterministic systems actually operate. If you can’t see the difference, perhaps it’s time to step back and examine the argument more carefully.

Yep. Just what I said...The rest is you coninuing to contradict your own position.

Accelafine, if you believe I’m contradicting my position, then point out the specific contradiction instead of vaguely asserting it. My position remains consistent: determinism explains how learning, adaptation, and action arise within a causal framework.

'Determinins', 'cause and effect', or 'causality' PARTLY explains how just about EVERY thing arises, or comes-into-being. While also SHOWING and PROVING how the Universe, Itself, IS ETERNAL.

It does not equate to fatalism, nor does it imply inaction or inevitability devoid of influence.

If you’re unwilling or unable to articulate where you think my argument falters, this conversation becomes little more than hand-waving.

This one has ALREADY been SHOWN WHERE its argument FALTERS. it, however, has just REFUSED to 'look at it', 'see it', 'hear it', 'recognize it', and to even just 'acknowledge it'.

Dismissive one-liners don’t cut it—engage with the ideas or move on.

Or, you can do what "big mike" does and just IGNORE them, COMPLETELY.

[Alexis Jacobi]

$10,000.00 is my FINAL offer, BigMike! for every philosopher freed from the Prison of Ignore!

[Age]

Accelafine, if you believe I’m contradicting my position, then point out the specific contradiction instead of vaguely asserting it. My position remains consistent: determinism explains how learning, adaptation, and action arise within a causal framework. It does not equate to fatalism, nor does it imply inaction or inevitability devoid of influence.

If you’re unwilling or unable to articulate where you think my argument falters, this conversation becomes little more than hand-waving. Dismissive one-liners don’t cut it—engage with the ideas or move on.

I can't very well do that when you insist on misrepresenting my position and making silly assumptions. I thought my succinct comment was sufficient. I'm not even arguing with you. I have always instinctively felt that free will doesn't exist, even before I knew people argued about it or why, or that there was science behind it. You just lose me when you rabbit on about changing the legal system and prevention. That's where your logical, sound arguments turn into mush.

If you instinctively feel that free will doesn’t exist, then you already grasp the core premise that human actions are causally determined. But what you seem to miss is that changing the legal system and focusing on prevention are not contradictions to determinism—they are applications of it.

How could some thing be a so-called 'application' of something else, which is claimed to be what causes ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing any way?

In a deterministic framework, reforming the justice system isn’t about assigning metaphysical blame; it’s about understanding the causes of harmful behavior and intervening to prevent it from recurring.

What this one KEEPS ABSOLUTELY MISSING is that it would not matter one iota LEARNING and UNDERSTANDING what causes ANY mis/behavior BECAUSE NO one could CHANGE what the VERY THING that CAUSES EVERY thing, INCLUDING WHEN they are CAPABLE of MAKING CHANGE.

Prevention and rehabilitation are just as causally inevitable as the actions they aim to address. Far from being "mush," this approach aligns with the understanding that our actions, as determined as they are, can still shape future outcomes.

This one is ABSOLUTELY BLIND that what it calls 'human being's actions' can ONLY CHANGE, for the better, when the PRE-DETERMINED CAUSES 'line up' or are Right.

LOL This one BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that just because it 'now' BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that there is NO 'free will' and ONLY 'determinism', then it and other can MAGICALLY CHANGE the 'past events', which have and are CAUSING it, and others, to do the Wrong that it CONTINUES TO DO, here-now.

ONCE AGAIN, one can ONLY CHANGE, for the better, when they, FREELY, WANT TO CHANGE, and CHOOSE TO CHANGE, FIRST.

If you find this part of the argument unclear or unconvincing, then explain where the logic breaks down instead of dismissing it outright.

This one has ALREADY HAD EXPLAINED WHERE, and WHEN, its so-called argument is NOT sound and valid. But, BECAUSE while it continues to BELIEVE otherwise, it can NOT SEE 'it'.

Otherwise, it seems you’re mistaking discomfort with the implications for flaws in the reasoning.

[Immanuel Can]

What is it about "new" that makes a causal chain bad?

First of all, you make it sound like cause is a linear chain instead of a network.

No, I said none of that. But don't confuse yourself: even a network has to have a starting point. There's no such thing as an infinite regression of causes, whatever model we adopt.

The wife cannot have initiated a causal chain by taking 3 of the 5 dollars socked in the drawer.

It depends which "chain" you're referring to.

Part of the cause of here doing that would be you putting the 5 there in the first place, something prior to her making that decision.

Well, nobody said she was part of the causal chain that put the $5 there. It doesn't even make sense to suggest anybody would think that. And nobody is silly enough to imagine that the $5 being there "caused" the woman to take it, either.

So we're talking about the intersection of two different causal chains, but which upset the regular causal expectation of causal chain 1, and thus create the inauthentic appearance of mathematics having failed.

They didn't. No "law" was broken. The causal chain that put the $5 in the drawer was simply interrupted by the causal chain of the woman wanting to find some change. That's all.

[Age]

What is it about "new" that makes a causal chain bad?

First of all, you make it sound like cause is a linear chain instead of a network.

No, I said none of that. But don't confuse yourself: even a network has to have a starting point. There's no such thing as an infinite regression of causes, whatever model we adopt.

And, LAUGHINGLY, to "Immanuel can" a male-gendered Being/Entity has ALWAYS EXISTED, which, 'one day', decided to and just did create a 'whole Universe', where, only when human beings DIE, some will live eternally more in peace while some will not.

So, to "immanuel can" there is no such thing as an infinite regression of causes, whatever model you adopt, because just BELIEVING what "immanuel can" does here SOLVES ALL of this. It does not matter one iota how ABSOLUTELY Truly ILLOGICAL, ABSURD, NONSENSICAL, RIDICULOUS nor IMPOSSIBLE "immanuel can's" perspective and BELIEF IS, it is still the ONLY RIGHT and TRUE one. And, to VERIFY and CONFIRM this all ANY one has to do is, LAUGHINGLY, just ask "immanuel can".

The wife cannot have initiated a causal chain by taking 3 of the 5 dollars socked in the drawer.

It depends which "chain" you're referring to.

Part of the cause of here doing that would be you putting the 5 there in the first place, something prior to her making that decision.

Well, nobody said she was part of the causal chain that put the $5 there. It doesn't even make sense to suggest anybody would think that.

LOL "immanuel can" is the ONLY one who thought this. Absolutely NO one suggested what "immanuel can" thought here.

And nobody is silly enough to imagine that the $5 being there "caused" the woman to take it, either.

Talk about MISSING the POINT, ONCE AGAIN.

So we're talking about the intersection of two different causal chains, but which upset the regular causal expectation of causal chain 1, and thus create the inauthentic appearance of mathematics having failed.

They didn't. No "law" was broken. The causal chain that put the $5 in the drawer was simply interrupted by the causal chain of the woman wanting to find some change. That's all.

Talk about another PRIME EXAMPLE of people 'looking for' and 'using', hopefully, words that could and will back up and support their 'current' BELIEF/S.

But which, OBVIOUSLY, did NOT do AT ALL.

[Dubious]

As resolved within the deterministic, the choices available are restricted to the mental spectrum of the thinking machine in question, be it a dog, cat or human, etc. It's only humans who think that such elections amount to an exercise of free will. It's the "conditional" at any moment in time, which restricts the options available, inculcating the feeling that it's US who decided.

In that respect, free will, as usually denoted, relates to nothing more than a function of metaphysics.

[Age]

As resolved within the deterministic, the choices available are restricted to the mental spectrum of the thinking machine in question, be it a dog, cat or human, etc. It's only humans who think that such elections amount to an exercise of free will. It's the "conditional" at any moment in time, which restricts the options available, inculcating the feeling that it's US who decided.

In that respect, free will, as usually denoted, relates to nothing more than a function of metaphysics.

What is 'metaphysics', to you, exactly?

If 'free will', as usually denoted, is denoted in some way that it could never even actually exist, then the so-claimed 'usual denotation' might need 'revisiting' and/or 'changing'.

The term or phrase 'free will' refers to some thing that actually exists, then 'free will', actually, exists, and conversely, if the term or phrase 'free will' refers to some thing that does not exist, then 'free will', actually, does not exist.

I am not sure how I could make this more simpler nor more easy to understand, for you human beings, here.

[Noax]

Well, nobody said she was part of the causal chain that put the $5 there.

What was claimed (by me)is that the $5 being put there is part of the cause of her deciding to borrow 3 of it. That was done prior to the decision, thus the decision was not an initiation of new cause.

And nobody is silly enough to imagine that the $5 being there "caused" the woman to take it, either.

Part of the cause is what is being claimed, an essential part at that. Had it not happened, the decision to take 3 would not have happened.

So we're talking about the intersection of two different causal chains

No such thing. One network, all connected. Hence my comment that you seem to think of them as nice neat little linear chains.

[BigMike]

As resolved within the deterministic, the choices available are restricted to the mental spectrum of the thinking machine in question, be it a dog, cat or human, etc. It's only humans who think that such elections amount to an exercise of free will. It's the "conditional" at any moment in time, which restricts the options available, inculcating the feeling that it's US who decided.

In that respect, free will, as usually denoted, relates to nothing more than a function of metaphysics.

Dubious, congratulations—you've successfully condensed determinism into the most digestible "user manual for life."

[Immanuel Can]

Well, nobody said she was part of the causal chain that put the $5 there.

What was claimed (by me)is that the $5 being put there is part of the cause of her deciding to borrow 3 of it.

That doesn't work. It doesn't "cause" her to make any choice. She could as easily have said to herself, "That's probably my husband's," and left it there. Nothing compels that choice.

[Skepdick]

No, I said none of that. But don't confuse yourself: even a network has to have a starting point. There's no such thing as an infinite regression of causes, whatever model we adopt.

1. I can imagine such a chain. It's not even that hard with basic Mathematical knowledge.
2. God's greater than anything imaginable.

So infinite regress is a child's play on a theistic worldview.

Unless the God you believe in is scared of infinities.

[Skepdick]

What was claimed (by me)is that the $5 being put there is part of the cause of her deciding to borrow 3 of it. That was done prior to the decision, thus the decision was not an initiation of new cause.

So you know your wife borrows money and you left it for her exactly where she looks for it?

And knowing she likes to pretend being modest while spending other people's money you put $5 knowing she won't take all of it.

[Gary Childress]

If it is an indisputable fact that everything is pre-determined--as BigMike seems to postulate--then what? Does that change ANYTHING about us? And if it does change something about us, what exactly does it change?

Talk about absurd debates...

[Noax]

What was claimed (by me)is that the $5 being put there is part of the cause of her deciding to borrow 3 of it.

That doesn't work. It doesn't "cause" her to make any choice.

I didn't say it did. I also never suggested 'compel'. There's still a choice to be made, and whether it is free or not is 1) dependent on definitions and how things really are, and 2) irrelevant to the point that the $5 being there is part of the cause of the decision. More clearly illustrated in the street crossing example, the traffic is presumably a significant part of the cause of whenever the person freely (or not) decides to make the crossing. At no point is the person compelled to not step in front of the bus, or to cross just because there's a gap in the traffic. One does not cross the street via initiating cause (with no prior cause). That would result in a free willed corpse.