Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Skepdick]

Perhaps when they just can't stand to see any more more your moronic drivel?

The moronic drivel of Big Mike is unsurpassed, and he's committed to a monopoly.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Perhaps those who disagreed with materialist determinism could be "ignored".

We could have the opposite of an Ayn Rand novel germinating.

It must be my own established “doctrines felt as facts” and my own philosophical tenets but I cannot imagine a novel scenario where the truth and value of a deterministic philosophy is presented and “proved”.

OTOH there are countless possibilities for dramatic transformation when a protagonist wakes up to those currents in the fabric of his life (conditioning, social restraint, stifling intellectual or emotional environment) that led him to unhappiness, failure, disaster and destruction. Then there is growth (realization, awareness) and the possibility of change. I.e. choosing a different path. Something must occur that is a trigger for the transformation and the story hang on that. In 1984 Winston falls in love. Darkly ironical, the love leads to the ultimate disaster: the tortures of the State apparatus and the destruction of a viable self.

I am supposing at this point, given that BigMike began to share his doctrines in the political of the forum, that his perspectives must align with socialist and also Marxian-materialist ideology. I cannot see how it could be different: it is ultimately an absolutist ultra-materialist doctrine that would necessarily have to be imposed by a powerful state through the education system. It is solely a philosophy for social engineering. BM seeks to improve the verbal presentation of it (he uses prose “mathematically”) and to tighten it up rhetorically so that it is irrefutable. His exposition mimics a computer generated prose and a common tone and style in much expository writing.

As far as literary models go — again I cannot conceive of any but an opposing relationship to BM’s doctrines — I thought of John the Savage and Brave New World (John being the only man left born of a mother, not in a conditioning vat) who rebels against the State enterprise and develops a love of Shakespeare.

[henry quirk]

Because I don't think he can.

Can't see why that matters.

If Mike were a paraplegic who wanted to rape children, well, we both know he'll never do it. He friggin' can't. His obvious inability to rape doesn't mean I'll entertain his fantasies and instruct him in how he might indulge himself.

So, Mike is a free will who promotes a cockeye'd version of determinism (really a compatibilism) and we both know he has zero change of ever succeeding. Sure as shit I'm not gonna entertain his fantasies by instructing him on how best to present his recipe for hell on Earth.

Thing is, as shithouse rat crazy as Mike is, as unworkable as his kinder, gentler meat machine world is, as hackneyed as his writing is, there's somebody out there who'll take it as gospel.

Look at Marx's scribblings. Who in their right mind takes that crap seriously? No one. Too bad not everyone is in their right mind.

So, don't help Mike. He can promote his horse manure (have at it, Mike!) but don't help him do it.

[Immanuel Can]

...much of philosophy is nothing more than a huge landfill of bunk.

Then why are you here?

...but the point, I repeat, is that whether determinist or free will exponent, nothing changes for either party.

It seems to change for Mike. He says it makes him want to be a Socialist. Now, that may be totally irrational of him, and I don't doubt that it is; but it's certainly a "change" of sorts.

In this connection, Mike is willing to give us all over to the elite social-engineers, who will then determine for the masses what they are allowed to have, to know, or to do. And he thinks -- or claims to think -- this would conduce to a better society, rather than the dystopian nightmares to which it's always led historically. So he's arguing, essentially, for a change in governance and a change in personal freedoms, as well.

And this appeals to the lazy and irresponsible, of course. If big government will "take care of me," then I have no more obligations to work, to serve others, or to contribute at all to society. I will be nanny-stated from womb to tomb, goes the belief...free provision of everything -- food, clothing, jobs, health care, welfare, basic possessions, etc., and no more anxiety about how I'm using my talents and opportunities, since all are simply dictated for me.

Then there's a bonus for science, too...though there's a terrible loss on the backlash. The loss, of course, is the coherence of science itself; but if I give that up, then, as an agent of science or of social science, I get a bonus: in principle, science can do anything it wants in the project of manipulating, engineering or even transforming human beings, and there is no larger meaning to human life that I, as a scientist, must respect. Human beings have no essence, no integrity, no inherent dignity -- no more than a rock, a tree or a bug -- and they become a standing reserve for whatever I decide I want to do with them. So science loses its rational basis, yes; but if I ignore that, and just carry on as if it makes no difference, then science gets total liberty to do anything it can conceive to do.

Also, I can kill as many as I want. As Marxists have long reminded us, History is "a wasteful process." In its "advance," many people die. So what? They're bugs. Anyway, it's not us that's killing them, according to the myth: it's History (capital "H") that does that. Millions may die for the cause of "progress": but so what?

But there are other things that"change," too: one of the big ones is anthropology. If human beings, and all their apparent choices, are purely products some force out there in the universe, then they're mere robots. They cannot do otherwise than they do. This, then, affects other things: how much can we either praise or blame somebody for being a good person or a bad person, when he/she had no choice whatsoever about being what they were?

And this brings us to a third, and the one that, I think, most appeals to Determinists: the end of moral responsibility. If I can't help what I am or what I do, I cannot be responsible, either. I'm not a "bad" person if I mistreat you...I have no other choice. And you're not a better person than me for being what you are, then...you don't deserve credit for your morality. We all get to be amoral. Well, with the bad side that everybody else also gets to be amoral to us.

No one pre-calculates their decisions based on whether they're predicated on free will or through the control of fixed laws.

Mike seems to have. He says he has. Do you disbelieve him?

[Immanuel Can]

Look at Marx's scribblings. Who in their right mind takes that crap seriously? No one. Too bad not everyone is in their right mind.

That's a "for sure."

Also, one would wish that all of Marx's admirers would read his biographies. They don't know what kind of demonic wretch the man was personally, or they might be more willing to wonder if it was all fresh water spewing out of that polluted fountain. The guy was a vicious hater of mankind, a vile person even to his friends, a shiftless sponge who longed most for one thing: a free meal ticket for life, a horrendous father who led two daughters to suicide and abandoned his own bastard son, a foul person who would not even wash his body, and so was vexed with horrendous boils all his adult life -- and these were his better qualities.

These things are not secrets: even the laudatory biographies mention them. They just insist they didn't really matter, or weren't quite as bad as they sound, or don't affect what Marx wrote...that last one is the usual excuse.

And Marx was wrong about practically everything, too. We know that now. History is not class struggle, Marxism is the opiate of the masses, human beings do not self-actualize through praxis, Dialectical Materialism is not the road to progress but to perpetual destruction, Socialism is nothing close to scientific, etc.

If all that were not enough, one would think that people would look at the history of what happens when Marxism meets the real world. In every single case, two things always happen: economic disaster and piles and piles of corpses. It's literally never been any other way.

And yet, people still want to have another go with Marx's program. And they say human nature is good...

[henry quirk]

No one pre-calculates their decisions based on whether they're predicated on free will or through the control of fixed laws.

But that's exactly what Mike is tryin' to do: he wants folks to formally reject free will and see themselves as meat machines. That's what he was doin' back in '22 in the compatibilism thread when I first tussled with him (and got sent to his penalty box) and it's what he's doin' today across several threads. He wants you, dubious, to calculate yourself into actin' as automation.

So sayin' nothing changes is dumb. Like I say: you convince a person he's just meat, that his fellows are just meat, and atrocity will follow.

[henry quirk]

I’m not promoting anything other than our scientific understanding of how the universe operates

You're promotin' hell on Earth. Mebbe you're a naive idiot or mebbe you're an evil man. I don't give a sparrow's fart either way. What you promote is wrong-headed and anti-human.

[henry quirk]

So, you get why Mike ought not get an assist.

[Immanuel Can]

So, you get why Mike ought not get an assist.

He's really not. But I can afford to give him honest feedback, because I'm so certain he's going nowhere.

What I'm really doing is pointing out what he would have to do to write a real novel, rather than a propaganda piece. But he doesn't want to write a real novel; he wants to write a propaganda piece. So I'm pretty sure he won't ever finish that novel, and he'll get no editor to publish it, and if he did, nobody would want to read it. So I think we're quite fine there.

I also don't believe one can write a Deterministic novel. The basic requirements of story, plot, interest-generating, conflict, suspense, and so forth would have to be dispensed with entirely. I'd kind of like to see him try: it would be bound to be criticizable, boring and bad, because immediately he would have to draw on narrative elements quite alien to Determinism, or his project would just be stillborn.

I'm curious what sort of disaster he would generate if he really disciplined himself to the task he thinks he can achieve, too. He's chosen a medium totally unsuited to the task he has in mind...a medium that depends utterly on belief in human choice. I'm curious to see what sort of monstrous festival of boredom and preachment such a novel would be bound to be. That start he's given us shows us the several ways (as I've already been able to point out) that that is going to happen: overwrought, underwritten, didactic chatter. He's got characters we have no reason to like, cavilling over issues we're bound not to care about, in language that is wearying and lecture-laden. It's bound to sell like lead shoes.

But hey, if he wants to try, then I'm not afraid to let him. The results are bound to be amusing.

[Alexiev]

And poor Henry can only write one sentence at a time, three if he really, really tries, but they tend to be lacking numerous parts of speech and large spaces are needed (so we can fill in the blanks?). Unfortunately the Big Bang determined that he would be illiterate

It's a pleasure to know that I appear to be off accelafine's "ignore" list. Thanks. Some advice that can improve your writing: use the active case. Write "lack" instead of "be lacking". Also, there's no reason to write "numerous" when "many" is more direct. "Only write" should be "write only", unless you mean to imply that Henry does nothing but write.

Keep the amusing insults, though. They're so "you".

[Alexiev]

Perhaps those who disagreed with materialist determinism could be "ignored".

We could have the opposite of an Ayn Rand novel germinating.

It must be my own established “doctrines felt as facts” and my own philosophical tenets but I cannot imagine a novel scenario where the truth and value of a deterministic philosophy is presented and “proved”.

OTOH there are countless possibilities for dramatic transformation when a protagonist wakes up to those currents in the fabric of his life (conditioning, social restraint, stifling intellectual or emotional environment) that led him to unhappiness, failure, disaster and destruction. Then there is growth (realization, awareness) and the possibility of change. I.e. choosing a different path. Something must occur that is a trigger for the transformation and the story hang on that. In 1984 Winston falls in love. Darkly ironical, the love leads to the ultimate disaster: the tortures of the State apparatus and the destruction of a viable self.

I am supposing at this point, given that BigMike began to share his doctrines in the political of the forum, that his perspectives must align with socialist and also Marxian-materialist ideology. I cannot see how it could be different: it is ultimately an absolutist ultra-materialist doctrine that would necessarily have to be imposed by a powerful state through the education system. It is solely a philosophy for social engineering. BM seeks to improve the verbal presentation of it (he uses prose “mathematically”) and to tighten it up rhetorically so that it is irrefutable. His exposition mimics a computer generated prose and a common tone and style in much expository writing.

As far as literary models go — again I cannot conceive of any but an opposing relationship to BM’s doctrines — I thought of John the Savage and Brave New World (John being the only man left born of a mother, not in a conditioning vat) who rebels against the State enterprise and develops a love of Shakespeare.

Anthony Burgess' "Clockwork Orange" demonstrates the legal methods Mike advocates.

[BigMike]

Perhaps those who disagreed with materialist determinism could be "ignored".

We could have the opposite of an Ayn Rand novel germinating.

It must be my own established “doctrines felt as facts” and my own philosophical tenets but I cannot imagine a novel scenario where the truth and value of a deterministic philosophy is presented and “proved”.

OTOH there are countless possibilities for dramatic transformation when a protagonist wakes up to those currents in the fabric of his life (conditioning, social restraint, stifling intellectual or emotional environment) that led him to unhappiness, failure, disaster and destruction. Then there is growth (realization, awareness) and the possibility of change. I.e. choosing a different path. Something must occur that is a trigger for the transformation and the story hang on that. In 1984 Winston falls in love. Darkly ironical, the love leads to the ultimate disaster: the tortures of the State apparatus and the destruction of a viable self.

I am supposing at this point, given that BigMike began to share his doctrines in the political of the forum, that his perspectives must align with socialist and also Marxian-materialist ideology. I cannot see how it could be different: it is ultimately an absolutist ultra-materialist doctrine that would necessarily have to be imposed by a powerful state through the education system. It is solely a philosophy for social engineering. BM seeks to improve the verbal presentation of it (he uses prose “mathematically”) and to tighten it up rhetorically so that it is irrefutable. His exposition mimics a computer generated prose and a common tone and style in much expository writing.

As far as literary models go — again I cannot conceive of any but an opposing relationship to BM’s doctrines — I thought of John the Savage and Brave New World (John being the only man left born of a mother, not in a conditioning vat) who rebels against the State enterprise and develops a love of Shakespeare.

Anthony Burgess' "Clockwork Orange" demonstrates the legal methods Mike advocates.

Every change in the universe is a transfer of momentum, energy, charge, or similar properties, all governed by the unchanging laws of physics. This includes human thoughts and actions, which are not "free" in the sense many assume when they speak of free will, free choice, religious freedom as a matter of conscious decision, or even free voting. Everything is caused—every single thing.

I want to make something clear: I’m not here to debate the facts of this unless someone has evidence that challenges the claim. What I’m offering, instead, is a discussion about how we respond to these facts. This is, after all, a Political Philosophy forum, and the implications for how we shape policies and social systems are immense. For instance, does it make sense to hold individuals personally responsible for actions determined by factors beyond their control? Or would it be more rational to focus on changing the external causes—the ones we can influence—to improve outcomes for everyone?

[Immanuel Can]

I want to make something clear: I’m not here to debate the facts of this unless someone has evidence that challenges the claim.

What he means is "even when." "Even when" people have evidence, he's not interested. He won't even accept the evidence of reason, or the evidence of his own actions. He doesn't believe Determinism is true: a Determinist would have absolutely no motive for arguing for it, because according to Determinism, minds are "made up for us" by prior causes, not "made up by us," through deliberation, cognition and choice.

So Mike's just blowing smoke. Even he doesn't think Determinism is real. He just wants it to be. But you can see from all his expectations concerning Determinism, he's not at all prepared to give up consciousness, choice, debate, what he calls "humanity," social justice, and all the other things that strict Determinism would tell him are sheer nonsense. He can't live like a Determinist, and nobody can. There's the empirical argument and the evidence he needs...but he won't even acknowledge the problem.

[Alexiev]

the universe is a transfer of momentum, energy, charge, or similar properties, all governed by the unchanging laws of physics. This includes human thoughts and actions, which are not "free" in the sense many assume when they speak of free will, free choice, religious freedom as a matter of conscious decision, or even free voting. Everything is caused—every single thing.

I want to make something clear: I’m not here to debate the facts of this unless someone has evidence that challenges the claim. What I’m offering, instead, is a discussion about how we respond to these facts. This is, after all, a Political Philosophy forum, and the implications for how we shape policies and social systems are immense. For instance, does it make sense to hold individuals personally responsible for actions determined by factors beyond their control? Or would it be more rational to focus on changing the external causes—the ones we can influence—to improve outcomes for everyone?

You appear never to read any of my posts. The "unchanging laws of physics" are human inventions. In normal usage "free" does not imply the ability to ignore or subvert physical laws. Instead, it suggests being unconstrained by other people (slaves are not free). Choices involve being "faced with alternatives", which is possible even if the alternative that will be chosen is predetermined.

Why should people who choose criminal activities be held blameless just because their choices were predetermined? Once they have committed crimes, of course their criminal activity is unalterable.

WE already focus on "external causes", to the extent that we are able. Doubtless we could do a better job. But there is no reason to avoid blaming evil behavior. Who cares if it is the result of physical laws? The perpetrators are evil whatever the causes. In addition, blame and punishment may very well be factors that "cause" behaviors.

[BigMike]

the universe is a transfer of momentum, energy, charge, or similar properties, all governed by the unchanging laws of physics. This includes human thoughts and actions, which are not "free" in the sense many assume when they speak of free will, free choice, religious freedom as a matter of conscious decision, or even free voting. Everything is caused—every single thing.

I want to make something clear: I’m not here to debate the facts of this unless someone has evidence that challenges the claim. What I’m offering, instead, is a discussion about how we respond to these facts. This is, after all, a Political Philosophy forum, and the implications for how we shape policies and social systems are immense. For instance, does it make sense to hold individuals personally responsible for actions determined by factors beyond their control? Or would it be more rational to focus on changing the external causes—the ones we can influence—to improve outcomes for everyone?

You appear never to read any of my posts. The "unchanging laws of physics" are human inventions. In normal usage "free" does not imply the ability to ignore or subvert physical laws. Instead, it suggests being unconstrained by other people (slaves are not free). Choices involve being "faced with alternatives", which is possible even if the alternative that will be chosen is predetermined.

Why should people who choose criminal activities be held blameless just because their choices were predetermined? Once they have committed crimes, of course their criminal activity is unalterable.

WE already focus on "external causes", to the extent that we are able. Doubtless we could do a better job. But there is no reason to avoid blaming evil behavior. Who cares if it is the result of physical laws? The perpetrators are evil whatever the causes. In addition, blame and punishment may very well be factors that "cause" behaviors.

Alexiev, I appreciate your engagement here. Let me address your points one by one because there’s a lot to unpack, and I think clarity is key when we’re dealing with such fundamental ideas.

First, you mention that the "unchanging laws of physics" are human inventions. I’d argue that while the description of these laws—our equations, theories, and terminology—are indeed human constructs, what they describe exists independently of us. Gravity doesn’t stop working because humans didn’t invent calculus until Newton came along. The same applies to the laws governing energy transfer, momentum, and causation. Our understanding is imperfect, sure, but the underlying principles operate regardless of our perception.

Now, about the use of the word "free"—you're absolutely right that in everyday language, freedom often refers to being unconstrained by other people or external circumstances, such as the state of being enslaved. But the philosophical and political discussions around "freedom" and "free will" often conflate this with the idea of being able to act independently of causation, which is where the disagreement lies. I’m saying that even when someone feels free, their actions are still fully caused by preceding conditions—biological, environmental, and yes, physical.

As for why we should avoid blaming individuals for actions predetermined by causes beyond their control, here’s the heart of the matter: blame assumes moral responsibility rooted in some sort of free agency. If someone had no ultimate control over their actions, punishing them as though they did is, at best, misdirected and, at worst, harmful. This doesn’t mean we let harmful actions go unchecked. Far from it. We should respond, but in ways that address the root causes to prevent future harm, rather than perpetuating cycles of retribution.

You point out that society already focuses on external causes to some degree, and I agree. Public health initiatives, education reforms, and rehabilitation programs are examples of this. But the persistent belief in blame as a moral necessity limits how far we take these efforts. When we cling to blame, we often fail to address systemic issues that perpetuate harm, because it’s easier to scapegoat individuals than to overhaul institutions or environments.

Finally, on "evil" behavior—this is where I’d encourage us to shift perspective. Rather than labeling people as "evil," which carries a lot of emotional and moral weight, it’s more productive to examine the conditions that led to their actions. Yes, punishment may sometimes serve as a deterrent, but we should be asking whether there are better, more effective tools for shaping behavior. If we know punishment alone often fails to rehabilitate or deter long-term, why not focus on creating conditions that minimize the likelihood of harmful actions occurring in the first place?

I hope this clarifies where I’m coming from. Let’s continue this conversation—I think it gets at the core of what political philosophy should be about: figuring out how to organize society in the most just, effective way possible.