Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

You should be asking Henry this. He's the one obsessed with meat. My comment was flippant.

Ah, my bad—I missed that Henry was the source of the meat metaphor. Thanks for clarifying! That said, the question still stands, flippant or not: what sets a living, thinking human apart from a slab of meat? It seems like a useful point to unpack, especially in the context of free will and determinism.

I already pointed that out to Henry but he didn't want to know. I don't even 'get' his point when he rambles on about us being 'meat' if there's no free will. It makes no sense to me. He refuses to explain it (most likely because he can't).

If Henry insists on reducing the conversation to some juvenile obsession with "meat," then it's no surprise he can't explain his point—it’s a nonstarter. Equating a living, conscious being to a lump of flesh just because we reject free will isn’t an argument; it’s a rhetorical tantrum. If he can’t articulate why rejecting free will diminishes human complexity, then maybe it’s time he stops pretending there’s anything profound in his metaphor and steps up to the actual discussion.

I’m no expert on TikTok, but maybe that’s a more suitable forum for Henry and his equals—short attention spans, surface-level metaphors, and an audience that might mistake his rambling for insight. Here, we aim for substance, not shallow theatrics.

[accelafine]

''If Henry insists on reducing the conversation to some juvenile obsession with "meat," then it's no surprise he can't explain his point—it’s a nonstarter. Equating a living, conscious being to a lump of flesh just because we reject free will isn’t an argument; it’s a rhetorical tantrum. If he can’t articulate why rejecting free will diminishes human complexity, then maybe it’s time he stops pretending there’s anything profound in his metaphor and steps up to the actual discussion.

I’m no expert on TikTok, but maybe that’s a more suitable forum for Henry and his equals—short attention spans, surface-level metaphors, and an audience that might mistake his rambling for insight. Here, we aim for substance, not shallow theatrics.''



Exactly, and perfectly articulated.

[promethean75]

"My Mum shook his hand in the 80s. She was the personal secretary for the Director General of the Ordnance Survey - ya know, the firm that mapped the world."

*sigh*

Wish i could say something like that about my mum. My mum's an insufferable cretin who can't set an alarm clock and keeps wads of tissue in her flower patterned catlady daydress pocket she blows her nose five times in before discarding.

[accelafine]

"My Mum shook his hand in the 80s. She was the personal secretary for the Director General of the Ordnance Survey - ya know, the firm that mapped the world."

*sigh*

Wish i could say something like that about my mum. My mum's an insufferable cretin who can't set an alarm clock and keeps wads of tissue in her flower patterned catlady daydress pocket she blows her nose five times in before discarding.

That's a vile way to talk about your mother. Imagine how she feels having a sleazebag for a son.

[promethean75]

"a sleazebag for a son"

It's true. Any dignified person with even a shred of humanity in them would have murdered the wretched creature years ago.

[henry quirk]

what sets a living, thinking human apart from a slab of meat?

The human is a free will while the slab of meat (on hoof, paw, wing, or fin; or in your grocer's display case) is not.

Easey-peasey. Gimme another question.

[henry quirk]

what sets a living, thinking human apart from a slab of meat?

The human is a free will while the slab of meat (on hoof, paw, wing, or fin; or in your grocer's display case) is not.

Easey-peasey. Gimme another question.

It seems like a useful point to unpack

Man is a hylomorph (in the Thomistic sense); that slab of meat is not.

[Impenitent]

my favorite hylomorph is the feeling you get from riding Steel Vengeance...

-Imp

[BigMike]

Many proponents of free will often hold the belief that their thinking and decision-making originate in an immaterial entity—be it a soul, a mind separate from the body, or some abstract "free will" force—before the brain becomes involved. But this perspective invites two critical questions.

First, how can thinking and decision-making occur without the brain’s involvement? The brain is the organ known to process thoughts, store memories, and drive actions. If these mental processes are happening outside the brain, by what mechanism do they occur? This line of reasoning effectively implies that it’s possible to think without a brain—a claim that seems at odds with everything we know about neuroscience and biology.

Second, if decisions are made by this supposed immaterial entity, how are they translated into physical action? What is the process by which these non-physical choices are communicated to the brain, which then signals the body to act? There’s no clear explanation of how an immaterial decision-maker interfaces with the physical systems that execute actions. It's psychokinesis.

These are glaring gaps in the logic of free will. Without coherent answers to these questions, the idea of free will as something independent of physical processes becomes deeply problematic.

[henry quirk]

how can thinking and decision-making occur without the brain’s involvement?

Who, in this thread, said the brain wasn't involved?

Not me, that's for sure.

-----

At some level, at some point, something intangible and non-physical brings about effect within the complex structure of the brain but moreover in the “mind”. Could one ever make an absolute delineation? an absolute separation? Not within a man (and any one of us).

Hylomorphism, particularly the Thomistic strain, describes man as a composite being, body and soul, co-equal. There is no delineation possible or needed. A person, a free will, morally discerning and responsible, and subject to moral judgement, is body and soul together. There is no mind-body problem. No causal gap. Man is not a soul ridin' around in a meat car. He is meat as much as he is spirit.

Interestingly, this corresponds with Wilder Penfield's conclusions about brain and mind. He reasoned for a person to be a person, both, with their complementary powers, were necessary.

[promethean75]

Henry's hylomorphing again!?

[attofishpi]

"My Mum shook his hand in the 80s. She was the personal secretary for the Director General of the Ordnance Survey - ya know, the firm that mapped the world."

*sigh*

Wish i could say something like that about my mum. My mum's an insufferable cretin who can't set an alarm clock and keeps wads of tissue in her flower patterned catlady daydress pocket she blows her nose five times in before discarding.

*naaaw*

Yes, my Mum was awesome - polar opposite to Dad - still blows my mind how she stuck with him. When I was about 10 I begged her to leave him!

He was THE MAN. ..and I was a little nerd that liked computers. Dad a carpenter/joiner - v skilled at it, some lovely furniture he made over the years - big foreman at Vosper Thornycroft (naval shipyard in Southampton) "when I was your age, I had xxx men working under me" -- bla bla bla braggard "You're just a lodger under my roof" - ya, since about the age of 15 I always had to work and pay for toward a roof over my head!
Honestly, taught me well though. I always said to myself I don't want to be anything like him in any relationship AND taught me to respect MONEY!!

*phew*

[attofishpi]

..every time I read Henry's posts in this thread I feel hungry..

[Dubious]

Many proponents of free will often hold the belief that their thinking and decision-making originate in an immaterial entity—be it a soul, a mind separate from the body, or some abstract "free will" force—before the brain becomes involved. But this perspective invites two critical questions.

First, how can thinking and decision-making occur without the brain’s involvement? The brain is the organ known to process thoughts, store memories, and drive actions. If these mental processes are happening outside the brain, by what mechanism do they occur? This line of reasoning effectively implies that it’s possible to think without a brain—a claim that seems at odds with everything we know about neuroscience and biology.

Second, if decisions are made by this supposed immaterial entity, how are they translated into physical action? What is the process by which these non-physical choices are communicated to the brain, which then signals the body to act? There’s no clear explanation of how an immaterial decision-maker interfaces with the physical systems that execute actions. It's psychokinesis.

These are glaring gaps in the logic of free will. Without coherent answers to these questions, the idea of free will as something independent of physical processes becomes deeply problematic.

What is intelligence for if not to supervise a modicum of what free will denotes, which does not to any degree void its deterministic underpinnings as that responsible for establishing the open vistas of a free will domain. Within chaos theory, what we endorse as free will becomes a variable capable of multiple values. In effect, determinism doesn't glide on a single monorail of awareness but instead invokes the non-linearity of free will as a process, creating the measured freedom by which determinations can be made.

The greater the intelligence, i.e., its ability to magnify or scrutinize, the more it can consciously filter out the options available creating an artificial separation in its wake labelled as free will. To the extent it exists in ANY organism, it becomes a manifestation of chaos theory, which has long ceased to be as theoretical as it once was.

[BigMike]

Many proponents of free will often hold the belief that their thinking and decision-making originate in an immaterial entity—be it a soul, a mind separate from the body, or some abstract "free will" force—before the brain becomes involved. But this perspective invites two critical questions.

First, how can thinking and decision-making occur without the brain’s involvement? The brain is the organ known to process thoughts, store memories, and drive actions. If these mental processes are happening outside the brain, by what mechanism do they occur? This line of reasoning effectively implies that it’s possible to think without a brain—a claim that seems at odds with everything we know about neuroscience and biology.

Second, if decisions are made by this supposed immaterial entity, how are they translated into physical action? What is the process by which these non-physical choices are communicated to the brain, which then signals the body to act? There’s no clear explanation of how an immaterial decision-maker interfaces with the physical systems that execute actions. It's psychokinesis.

These are glaring gaps in the logic of free will. Without coherent answers to these questions, the idea of free will as something independent of physical processes becomes deeply problematic.

What is intelligence for if not to supervise a modicum of what free will denotes, which does not to any degree void its deterministic underpinnings as that responsible for establishing the open vistas of a free will domain. Within chaos theory, what we endorse as free will becomes a variable capable of multiple values. In effect, determinism doesn't glide on a single monorail of awareness but instead invokes the non-linearity of free will as a process, creating the measured freedom by which determinations can be made.

The greater the intelligence, i.e., its ability to magnify or scrutinize, the more it can consciously filter out the options available creating an artificial separation in its wake labelled as free will. To the extent it exists in ANY organism, it becomes a manifestation of chaos theory, which has long ceased to be as theoretical as it once was.

Your response raises an interesting attempt to reconcile determinism with the subjective experience of free will by invoking intelligence and chaos theory. However, it seems to conflate two fundamentally different ideas: the deterministic nature of processes underlying choice and the perception of choice as free.

Intelligence, as you point out, is indeed a filtering mechanism, refining the available options and creating the appearance of choice. But this filtering doesn’t introduce true freedom in the sense of autonomy from causality. Instead, it operates as an additional layer of complexity within deterministic systems. Chaos theory, while it highlights the non-linearity and unpredictability of complex systems, does not imply the kind of "measured freedom" you describe. Even chaotic systems are deterministic at their core; their outcomes are sensitive to initial conditions but not free from causality.

The notion of free will as a "manifestation of chaos theory" is intriguing but problematic. If the variability of outcomes in a chaotic system can be mistaken for freedom, this is an illusion, not evidence of autonomy. What you describe as an "artificial separation" of options by intelligence underscores this point. The brain's ability to evaluate choices and project consequences is still governed by the underlying laws of physics and biology. This does not create true freedom but rather a deterministic process that feels subjectively like free will.

Your framing of intelligence as magnifying or scrutinizing options supports the argument that free will, as commonly understood, is not independent of deterministic systems but arises as an emergent, yet fully caused, phenomenon. Thus, the deterministic nature of causality remains intact, whether or not chaos theory adds complexity to the pathways of those causes. Ultimately, the idea of free will as an emergent property does not escape the need for physical explanation and causation, leaving it squarely within the deterministic framework.