Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

But by understanding this, we can deliberately expose ourselves to inputs today (like learning, practice, or guidance from others) that influence and shape what we want or focus on tomorrow. It’s not "free will," but it’s how change happens.

We can't "deliberately expose ourselves" if we don't want to. And the want is not in our control.

Exactly. That’s why I find Schopenhauer’s framing—“a man can do what he wills, but not will what he wills”—helpful but incomplete. I prefer to say, you can’t do what you want; you want what you do. What we "want" in any given moment arises from prior causes: experiences, environmental inputs, even random molecular processes.

And while it’s true that we can’t deliberately expose ourselves to something we don’t want to, the exposure itself—whether by chance, circumstance, or external influence—can shape future wants. For instance, repeated nudges from a teacher or mentor might not immediately create the desire to study Euclid, but over time, those exposures alter neural connections in a way that makes wanting and doing converge. In the deterministic framework, it's not about "control" but about how inputs inevitably shape outputs.

[Atla]

Jumping into this discussion—because it’s fascinating—I’d like to challenge the framing of “choice” and bring in some neurobiology. Specifically, the idea that at the exact moment of executing a decision or action, free choice as traditionally understood is an illusion. But this doesn’t mean behavior is immutable; in fact, it’s quite the opposite when we consider how learning and memory operate at the biological level.

Here’s how it works: repeated exposure to external events, such as practicing guitar or studying Euclid's Elements, engages neuronal activity that strengthens specific synaptic connections in your brain. Over time, this repeated stimulation increases the likelihood of "choice" pathways becoming more accessible. Let’s break it down:

1. The Molecular Basis of Learning: When you experience something repeatedly—like strumming a chord or solving a geometric proof—it triggers cascades of molecular events in your neurons. For instance, activity-dependent activation of protein kinase A (PKA) can cause catalytic subunits to break off and diffuse through the cell. By Brownian motion, these subunits eventually (by chance) reach the soma (the neuron's cell body) and activate genes that lead to structural changes, like the growth of new axon terminals. This, in essence, is how the brain physically encodes memories.

2. Memory as a Deterministic Shaper of Future Behavior: These new axon terminals strengthen synaptic connections, making it more likely that certain neural pathways will fire in the future. So, while your "decision" to practice guitar today was deterministic—shaped by prior experiences, your teacher’s influence, and whatever other external causes—it also alters your brain in a way that changes your future behavior. In other words, today’s deterministic actions create tomorrow’s deterministic options.

3. Practical Implications: This means that while you cannot freely decide to suddenly master geometry today, if your teacher repeatedly exposes you to the idea that studying Euclid could improve your understanding of geometry—and if this exposure influences you deeply enough to start reading—you’re reshaping your brain to make “future-you” more inclined to engage with geometry. The same principle applies to all skill acquisition: practice lays the groundwork for better performance, not because free will is at play, but because repetition rewires your neural circuits.

4. The Key Insight: If it doesn’t occur to you today that studying Euclid is beneficial, you simply won’t pick up the book—because your current state of mind is determined by everything that has shaped you up until now. But if someone repeatedly makes you aware of the benefits, they’re effectively changing the deterministic forces acting on you by altering your synaptic structure. Eventually, this might “tip the scales” and lead to what looks like a decision to engage with geometry. It’s not free will, but it’s a highly adaptive and malleable system that gives us some influence over how we act tomorrow, based on what we learn and practice today.

So, this understanding gives us a profound tool: determinism doesn’t eliminate change; it merely shifts the locus of control to the forces shaping us. Want to change your future behavior? Focus on reshaping your inputs and experiences today. It’s the mechanism behind why practice truly does make perfect.

Okay the guy seems to be genuinely nuts. Normal people can of course "suddenly" choose to study anything, without external input. It's just not a very rational thing to do.

[BigMike]

Jumping into this discussion—because it’s fascinating—I’d like to challenge the framing of “choice” and bring in some neurobiology. Specifically, the idea that at the exact moment of executing a decision or action, free choice as traditionally understood is an illusion. But this doesn’t mean behavior is immutable; in fact, it’s quite the opposite when we consider how learning and memory operate at the biological level.

Here’s how it works: repeated exposure to external events, such as practicing guitar or studying Euclid's Elements, engages neuronal activity that strengthens specific synaptic connections in your brain. Over time, this repeated stimulation increases the likelihood of "choice" pathways becoming more accessible. Let’s break it down:

1. The Molecular Basis of Learning: When you experience something repeatedly—like strumming a chord or solving a geometric proof—it triggers cascades of molecular events in your neurons. For instance, activity-dependent activation of protein kinase A (PKA) can cause catalytic subunits to break off and diffuse through the cell. By Brownian motion, these subunits eventually (by chance) reach the soma (the neuron's cell body) and activate genes that lead to structural changes, like the growth of new axon terminals. This, in essence, is how the brain physically encodes memories.

2. Memory as a Deterministic Shaper of Future Behavior: These new axon terminals strengthen synaptic connections, making it more likely that certain neural pathways will fire in the future. So, while your "decision" to practice guitar today was deterministic—shaped by prior experiences, your teacher’s influence, and whatever other external causes—it also alters your brain in a way that changes your future behavior. In other words, today’s deterministic actions create tomorrow’s deterministic options.

3. Practical Implications: This means that while you cannot freely decide to suddenly master geometry today, if your teacher repeatedly exposes you to the idea that studying Euclid could improve your understanding of geometry—and if this exposure influences you deeply enough to start reading—you’re reshaping your brain to make “future-you” more inclined to engage with geometry. The same principle applies to all skill acquisition: practice lays the groundwork for better performance, not because free will is at play, but because repetition rewires your neural circuits.

4. The Key Insight: If it doesn’t occur to you today that studying Euclid is beneficial, you simply won’t pick up the book—because your current state of mind is determined by everything that has shaped you up until now. But if someone repeatedly makes you aware of the benefits, they’re effectively changing the deterministic forces acting on you by altering your synaptic structure. Eventually, this might “tip the scales” and lead to what looks like a decision to engage with geometry. It’s not free will, but it’s a highly adaptive and malleable system that gives us some influence over how we act tomorrow, based on what we learn and practice today.

So, this understanding gives us a profound tool: determinism doesn’t eliminate change; it merely shifts the locus of control to the forces shaping us. Want to change your future behavior? Focus on reshaping your inputs and experiences today. It’s the mechanism behind why practice truly does make perfect.

Okay the guy seems to be genuinely nuts. Normal people can of course "suddenly" choose to study anything, without external input. It's just not a very rational thing to do.

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed. The belief that you can simply will yourself into action without external cause is pure fantasy, the kind of self-deception reserved for fairy tales and bad philosophy.

Neuronal changes? Those happen because of external forces: repetition, exposure, feedback—not because you wished them into existence. Your "willpower" has no more ability to rewire your brain than it has to stop a hurricane or make a tree grow faster. If you think otherwise, you’re clinging to a childlike misunderstanding of how reality works.

So, let’s be clear: you don’t "suddenly" decide anything. What you think is a spontaneous choice is the inevitable result of countless prior causes. Pretending otherwise is intellectual laziness, a refusal to confront the hard, deterministic reality of your existence.

[Atla]

Jumping into this discussion—because it’s fascinating—I’d like to challenge the framing of “choice” and bring in some neurobiology. Specifically, the idea that at the exact moment of executing a decision or action, free choice as traditionally understood is an illusion. But this doesn’t mean behavior is immutable; in fact, it’s quite the opposite when we consider how learning and memory operate at the biological level.

Here’s how it works: repeated exposure to external events, such as practicing guitar or studying Euclid's Elements, engages neuronal activity that strengthens specific synaptic connections in your brain. Over time, this repeated stimulation increases the likelihood of "choice" pathways becoming more accessible. Let’s break it down:

1. The Molecular Basis of Learning: When you experience something repeatedly—like strumming a chord or solving a geometric proof—it triggers cascades of molecular events in your neurons. For instance, activity-dependent activation of protein kinase A (PKA) can cause catalytic subunits to break off and diffuse through the cell. By Brownian motion, these subunits eventually (by chance) reach the soma (the neuron's cell body) and activate genes that lead to structural changes, like the growth of new axon terminals. This, in essence, is how the brain physically encodes memories.

2. Memory as a Deterministic Shaper of Future Behavior: These new axon terminals strengthen synaptic connections, making it more likely that certain neural pathways will fire in the future. So, while your "decision" to practice guitar today was deterministic—shaped by prior experiences, your teacher’s influence, and whatever other external causes—it also alters your brain in a way that changes your future behavior. In other words, today’s deterministic actions create tomorrow’s deterministic options.

3. Practical Implications: This means that while you cannot freely decide to suddenly master geometry today, if your teacher repeatedly exposes you to the idea that studying Euclid could improve your understanding of geometry—and if this exposure influences you deeply enough to start reading—you’re reshaping your brain to make “future-you” more inclined to engage with geometry. The same principle applies to all skill acquisition: practice lays the groundwork for better performance, not because free will is at play, but because repetition rewires your neural circuits.

4. The Key Insight: If it doesn’t occur to you today that studying Euclid is beneficial, you simply won’t pick up the book—because your current state of mind is determined by everything that has shaped you up until now. But if someone repeatedly makes you aware of the benefits, they’re effectively changing the deterministic forces acting on you by altering your synaptic structure. Eventually, this might “tip the scales” and lead to what looks like a decision to engage with geometry. It’s not free will, but it’s a highly adaptive and malleable system that gives us some influence over how we act tomorrow, based on what we learn and practice today.

So, this understanding gives us a profound tool: determinism doesn’t eliminate change; it merely shifts the locus of control to the forces shaping us. Want to change your future behavior? Focus on reshaping your inputs and experiences today. It’s the mechanism behind why practice truly does make perfect.

Okay the guy seems to be genuinely nuts. Normal people can of course "suddenly" choose to study anything, without external input. It's just not a very rational thing to do.

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed. The belief that you can simply will yourself into action without external cause is pure fantasy, the kind of self-deception reserved for fairy tales and bad philosophy.

Neuronal changes? Those happen because of external forces: repetition, exposure, feedback—not because you wished them into existence. Your "willpower" has no more ability to rewire your brain than it has to stop a hurricane or make a tree grow faster. If you think otherwise, you’re clinging to a childlike misunderstanding of how reality works.

So, let’s be clear: you don’t "suddenly" decide anything. What you think is a spontaneous choice is the inevitable result of countless prior causes. Pretending otherwise is intellectual laziness, a refusal to confront the hard, deterministic reality of your existence.

Lmao you really understand nothing about humans, I wasn't just imagining it. Of course you can control your thoughts without external input, even without free will.

[BigMike]

Lmao you really understand nothing about humans, I wasn't just imagining it. Of course you can control your thoughts without external input, even without free will.

*Sigh*

[Atla]

Lmao you really understand nothing about humans, I wasn't just imagining it. Of course you can control your thoughts without external input, even without free will.

*Sigh*

You think all will/willpower is an illusion without free will?

[BigMike]

Lmao you really understand nothing about humans, I wasn't just imagining it. Of course you can control your thoughts without external input, even without free will.

*Sigh*

You think all will/willpower is an illusion without free will?

Absolutely, all willpower is an illusion in the sense that it doesn’t cause anything by itself. Your "willpower" has as much ability to affect the physical world as a ghost does to move furniture—none. It cannot push even a single atom, let alone rewire your brain or change your behavior without external inputs driving those changes. What you call “willpower” is simply the perception of a process that’s already underway, not its cause.

Your will isn’t some magical force; it’s an epiphenomenal emergent perception—a side effect of complex neural activity. It feels real, but so does the illusion of the sun rising and setting when, in reality, it’s the Earth rotating. That doesn’t make your will any more capable of initiating change than wishing for a million dollars will make it rain cash.

So no, your thoughts aren’t under your control. They’re the product of deterministic biochemical processes shaped by prior causes. Thinking otherwise is like believing a puppet can pull its own strings—it’s delusional. Willpower is just a nice story you tell yourself to feel in control, but the reality is far less flattering.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can, your response raises a thoughtful critique,

And in return, I appreciate your contributions, too.

The laws of physics, governed by conservation and executed by the four fundamental interactions, dictate all processes, including the biochemical underpinnings of cognition and memory.

Not quite. Determinism goes much farther. It does not say that these things are merely "underpinned" by physical and biochemical causality, as if something else could also play a role. That would be a form of free will thinking. Rather, it insists, with absolute adamancy, that NOTHING BUT these causes has ANY role in accounting for (what we only imagine to be) cognitive choosing.

When we talk about memory and learning in a deterministic sense, it’s not about a "gatekeeping agent" making volitional choices but rather about how repeated exposure to stimuli changes the brain's structure and behavior over time.

That is true...that's what they are talking about. But that's why it's irrelevant. If the external causes merely "change one's brain structure over time," then that's not a "change" in any meaningful sense at all. That's just fate playing out what fate was going to fate people to do anyway. The brain itself was only a "dumb terminal" in that process, and added nothing to it. It was just another "power cord" through which Deterministic causes happened to pass, and it contributed nothing to those processes.

...conditional inevitability...

Is like "a new antique." If it were conditional at all, then there's nothing inevitable about it. There was never any "condition" under which anything could have happened but exactly what did. Such a "condition" could never be actualized by the causal chain leading up to the event. There was only what DID happen...nothing else.

Finally, why participate in this debate under determinism? Because understanding deterministic processes—like how learning and environmental inputs shape behavior—gives us practical tools to influence outcomes.

It has to be the opposite. Determinism can't give anybody any "tools." It can only brainlessly play out the causal hand that has been dealt to it. And as part of that same dumb chain, human beings cannot use any "tools" to "change" a single thing.

harnessing the inevitability

You cannot "harness" that which cannot be turned. It's already "harnessed" to inevitability.

I suspect that under all this fascination with Determinism, many people have a much simpler wish: namely, to be able to excuse any behaviour as "inevitable" and "not their fault." That may not be your situation, or it may; but it's curious to me that so many people want to argue that they are in "the iron cage" spoken of by Max Weber. Chesterton called it, "being in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea," but it's the same thing. Determinism is iron. It does not give you back freedom, or power, or reasons, or science, or humanity, or morals, or any of the other many things it sets out to kill.

[accelafine]

Okay the guy seems to be genuinely nuts. Normal people can of course "suddenly" choose to study anything, without external input. It's just not a very rational thing to do.

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed. The belief that you can simply will yourself into action without external cause is pure fantasy, the kind of self-deception reserved for fairy tales and bad philosophy.

Neuronal changes? Those happen because of external forces: repetition, exposure, feedback—not because you wished them into existence. Your "willpower" has no more ability to rewire your brain than it has to stop a hurricane or make a tree grow faster. If you think otherwise, you’re clinging to a childlike misunderstanding of how reality works.

So, let’s be clear: you don’t "suddenly" decide anything. What you think is a spontaneous choice is the inevitable result of countless prior causes. Pretending otherwise is intellectual laziness, a refusal to confront the hard, deterministic reality of your existence.

Lmao you really understand nothing about humans, I wasn't just imagining it. Of course you can control your thoughts without external input, even without free will.

This seems to be your stock insult: that others don't 'understand humans' like you do. Please share your profound insight and wisdom on the human condition. I haven't seen any evidence of it so far.

[henry quirk]

If this...

your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed

...is true, then this...

Pretending otherwise is intellectual laziness, a refusal to confront the hard, deterministic reality of your existence.

...is false.

As you say...

The belief that you can simply will yourself into action without external cause is pure fantasy, the kind of self-deception reserved for fairy tales and bad philosophy

...so you must include pretending and being intellectually lazy and self-deception. No one, by your reckoning can choose to pretend or be intellectually lazy or self-deceive. Nor can one...

(cling) to a childlike misunderstanding of how reality works.

...as, according to you, one can't choose to do such a thing.

[Atla]

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed. The belief that you can simply will yourself into action without external cause is pure fantasy, the kind of self-deception reserved for fairy tales and bad philosophy.

Neuronal changes? Those happen because of external forces: repetition, exposure, feedback—not because you wished them into existence. Your "willpower" has no more ability to rewire your brain than it has to stop a hurricane or make a tree grow faster. If you think otherwise, you’re clinging to a childlike misunderstanding of how reality works.

So, let’s be clear: you don’t "suddenly" decide anything. What you think is a spontaneous choice is the inevitable result of countless prior causes. Pretending otherwise is intellectual laziness, a refusal to confront the hard, deterministic reality of your existence.

Lmao you really understand nothing about humans, I wasn't just imagining it. Of course you can control your thoughts without external input, even without free will.

This seems to be your stock insult: that others don't 'understand humans' like you do. Please share your profound insight and wisdom on the human condition. I haven't seen any evidence of it so far.

So what, how things seem to you and what you see evidence for have little to nothing to do with the real world.

[henry quirk]

if...

your thoughts aren’t under your control

...then how can anyone be deluded?

This...

Willpower is just a nice story you tell yourself to feel in control

...can't be true becuz, again...

your thoughts aren’t under your control

.

[Atla]

*Sigh*

You think all will/willpower is an illusion without free will?

Absolutely, all willpower is an illusion in the sense that it doesn’t cause anything by itself. Your "willpower" has as much ability to affect the physical world as a ghost does to move furniture—none. It cannot push even a single atom, let alone rewire your brain or change your behavior without external inputs driving those changes. What you call “willpower” is simply the perception of a process that’s already underway, not its cause.

Your will isn’t some magical force; it’s an epiphenomenological emergent perception—a side effect of complex neural activity. It feels real, but so does the illusion of the sun rising and setting when, in reality, it’s the Earth rotating. That doesn’t make your will any more capable of initiating change than wishing for a million dollars will make it rain cash.

So no, your thoughts aren’t under your control. They’re the product of deterministic biochemical processes shaped by prior causes. Thinking otherwise is like believing a puppet can pull its own strings—it’s delusional. Willpower is just a nice story you tell yourself to feel in control, but the reality is far less flattering.

You don't perceive that humans have deterministic biochemical willpower, which is a serious condition.

[BigMike]

If this...

your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed

...is true, then this...

Pretending otherwise is intellectual laziness, a refusal to confront the hard, deterministic reality of your existence.

...is false.

As you say...

The belief that you can simply will yourself into action without external cause is pure fantasy, the kind of self-deception reserved for fairy tales and bad philosophy

...so you must include pretending and being intellectually lazy and self-deception. No one, by your reckoning can choose to pretend or be intellectually lazy or self-deceive. Nor can one...

(cling) to a childlike misunderstanding of how reality works.

...as, according to you, one can't choose to do such a thing.

Henry, you’ve put your finger on a fascinating aspect of this discussion, so let’s address it head-on: yes, even the acts of “pretending,” “intellectual laziness,” or “self-deception” are deterministic. No one chooses these behaviors in the way traditional free will narratives would have us believe. But that doesn’t mean they’re exempt from description, critique, or causal analysis.

When I describe intellectual laziness or self-deception, I’m not claiming these are volitional acts. They are the products of deterministic processes—patterns of thought and behavior shaped by past experiences, biological predispositions, and external inputs. Critiquing them is not about assigning moral blame but about calling attention to their deterministic causes and pointing toward potential interventions. For example, education, exposure to new ideas, or even direct challenges can disrupt the causal chain leading to intellectual complacency, fostering more constructive patterns of thought.

So, when I say “pretending” or “clinging to a misunderstanding,” I’m describing deterministic outcomes, not freely chosen acts. And when I call out these behaviors, the intent is not to wag a finger at someone's supposed "choice," but to illuminate the deterministic conditions that produced them—and to suggest ways we might alter those conditions.

In short: determinism doesn’t nullify critique. It redefines its purpose—from blame to understanding and from condemnation to causal redirection.

[Immanuel Can]

It seems rather clear, actually.

...you have a big tendency to make up your own alternate definitions for words that are clearly defined.

And yet, in this case, it's you doing that. But on we go.

Using the standard definitions, your arguments don't make sense at all. For example, 'determinism', 'choice' and 'volition': You seem to assume completely different meanings to these words:

Actually, I provided three of the standard definitions, from credible sources. Rather, it seems to be others who are twisting hard to avoid the implications...not me.

Determinism applies only to the pool ball interpretation.

Not at all.

If I am the victim of forces beyond my control, and have no freedom, then what difference does it make to me whether my jailor in the iron cage is called "physical causality" or "quantum events"? None at all, really...except that I might even be in a worse situation in the latter case, because at least in the former I might hope to find some logic in what was controlling me; but in the latter, I can have no hope at all of ever knowing the plans my jailor has for me.

Volition: From oxford: "the faculty or power of using one's will".

Your definition is from a mere non-technical dictionary, of course. Oxford Standard is for all people, regardless of their knowledge level. Sometimes, thus, its definitions can be a little thin: they can't employ terms which only specialists in a given field have understanding of. But in this case, it's not bad, though a little begging of the question; so on we go.

This requires a connection between will and the means to use it, which almost always involves motor response.

Sure. But just because you want to have "will" and "means" doesn't mean you do. Determinism says you have no will that can do anything, and no means to change anything.

Naturalism explains volition very well since only a spine is required to connect the two.

That's like saying "a cord explains why I'm mowing my lawn." In Determinism, all the "power" comes from previous physical or quantum causes, and all the action happens as an inevitable result. The cord is me. I have no input of my own, in that sequence: I'm just a conduit of the cause-effect chain, like an electrical cord is the conduit of the power to my lawn mower.

Focus on this term does your stance little good because volition has never been explained in it.

Volition is not a real thing, according to Determinism. So nobody can "account for" it.

But that raises a very interesting question, which so far, nobody has been bold to take up: why or how would impersonal causal precursors coming from my environment instill within me a belief in something that is utterly false? Why would the impersonal and unthinking cosmos generate a being (me, that is) who believes in "volition," a thing that has never existed and never will?

How does the Determinist have an answer to that one?

Choice: You seem to use the term 'choice' in a way that is in no way distinct from 'free choice'.

I don't, actually. They are synonyms. But sometimes people zing off the adjective "free," and try to claim that we are speaking of some sort of impossible unconditional freedom: and that just fogs the discussion with stupidity, so I sometimes drop the adjective so I don't prime their pump.

It being determined does not mean there is no will.

Yes, it does.

We can add to the list another begging definition then. Not at all. It's manifestly true. If predetermination by causality explains everything, then there's no window for the word "will" to mean anything else but "a delusion that, for some inexplicable reason, predetermined creatures seem to have."

Determinism is not empirically falsifiable...which is not to say it's true, but that it's not subject to scientific test. It's a faith belief.

Nothing in science is proved...

I didn't use that word. Rather, I pointed out that there are no possible conditions under which you can show Determinism to be false, and therefore, none under which you can know it to be true. But Mike, in the OP, seems to think that Determinism is such a certainty that anybody who doesn't believe in it is "rejecting science." Quite the opposite is true, of course.

Determinism would give a huge and insoluble problem to all science. Since Determinism requires that science is not a case of human beings "knowing" things, but rather only of causal forces generating a belief in particular things, how can we trust what science tells us? There's nothing inherent in the impersonal action of causality that should give us any reason to suppose our beliefs are true at all. Impersonal causality may have randomly "caused" us to believe untrue and silly things...of which science might end up being one...and how would we confirm that it wasn't?

...but faith is a belief in absence of evidence...

You alleged I "made up" definitions. Here, you clearly have. Well, no...you didn't "make it up," because I've seen it many times before. You're merely repeating an absurdly wrong definition popular among the skeptics, because it makes their job very, very easy. But their faith that we won't catch them at it is really ill-founded.

I know of nobody -- and I know many people of faith, and am one -- who would accept that definition.

But even the people who claim they have faith in it insist on acting like Determinism isn't true.

This implies that there is a more correct way to act if determinism is true. [/quote] There is, of course. To act consistently with one's beliefs, stop speaking as if those beliefs are false. Every time the Determinist uses a word like "will," "volition," "agent," "choice," "rationality," and so on, he is appealing to cognitive characteristics that he himself has debunked through Determinism.

That's self-contradiction. And self-contradiction is the incorrect way to defend one's views. It's irrational.

I would agree that a belief in fatalism would ironically cause one to behave differently.

"Behave" and "differently" are also no part of the furniture of a self-consistent Determinist's explanation. "Behave" means only "do what causal forces made you do," and "differently" makes no sense at all, since all outcomes are inevitable.

But then, even the word "explanation" makes no sense in that world: why "explain," when "explaining" doesn't "change" anything?

Let me quote Big Mike, just to show you that at least here, your view is in the minority and the "definitions" upon which I've been relying are, at least as far as Mike himself is concerned, quite orthodox:

Absolutely, all willpower is an illusion in the sense that it doesn’t cause anything by itself. Your "willpower" has as much ability to affect the physical world as a ghost does to move furniture—none. It cannot push even a single atom, let alone rewire your brain or change your behavior without external inputs driving those changes. What you call “willpower” is simply the perception of a process that’s already underway, not its cause.

Your will isn’t some magical force; it’s an epiphenomenological emergent perception—a side effect of complex neural activity. It feels real, but so does the illusion of the sun rising and setting when, in reality, it’s the Earth rotating. That doesn’t make your will any more capable of initiating change than wishing for a million dollars will make it rain cash.

So no, your thoughts aren’t under your control. They’re the product of deterministic biochemical processes shaped by prior causes. Thinking otherwise is like believing a puppet can pull its own strings—it’s delusional. Willpower is just a nice story you tell yourself to feel in control, but the reality is far less flattering.