Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

Imagine a river with an intricate delta—a vast network of branching streams and tributaries. Each drop of water, or even each water molecule, flows through this network, but its path is determined entirely by the topology of the delta, the slope of the terrain, and the force of the water pushing behind it. At every fork, individual water molecules don’t "choose" to go one way or the other; they simply follow the path dictated by gravity, pressure, and the physical constraints of the branching channels.

Now, think of the nervous system as a similar branching network. Signals, like those water molecules, flow through this neural delta, guided by the specific connections between neurons, the strength of synaptic pathways, and the electrochemical conditions at that moment. The "choices" you think you make are not decisions but the inevitable result of how these signals move through the prearranged structure of your neural pathways.

Just as a water molecule at a fork in the river cannot stop and decide whether to flow left or right, your nervous system doesn’t evaluate "choices" consciously. It acts based on input and the preexisting architecture of your brain. The result is as unavoidable as the molecule’s path through the delta. What we perceive as "free will" is merely the unfolding of processes already set in motion, and the illusion of free choice arises because we cannot observe the forces shaping the flow in real time.

[Dubious]

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.

There is no such attempt, since the choices available are circumscribed by the deterministic nature of processes underlying choice. The word free in the context of the argument doesn't apply here.

But this filtering doesn’t introduce true freedom in the sense of autonomy from causality.

The phrase true freedom is superfluous, not having any relation to anything. What does true freedom mean even within the context of an unbridled free will? True freedom is a philosophic will-o'-the-wisp good only for fairy tales and highly imaginative literature.

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.

Correct. Chaotic systems are thoroughly deterministic, but the effects of such systems upon one's neuronal activities remains as uncertain, as undecided as its effect upon weather patterns and all such non-linear systems. Free will is what amounts to the intelligence which attempts to both organize and reorganize what appears or comes across as chaotic. Religion and old philosophies are one of the oldest methods to impose such structures.

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.

There is next to nothing of autonomy in what we're discussing; it's mostly a case of contingency. The myriad ways one kind of input can variously affect other systems, organic or inorganic.

The brain's ability to evaluate choices and project consequences is still governed by the underlying laws of physics and biology.

No argument.

This does not create true freedom but rather a deterministic process that feels subjectively like free will.

Again, no argument except what subjectively feels like free will operates as an objective necessity in the course of our contending with reality. True freedom, considered from either perspective, exists as mere chimera. True freedom is only our conception; it has no standing in the cosmos. It's a state with no laws imposed, devoid of value and therefore superfluous to mention.

[Age]

Why do those who endorse science embrace the impossible, as well as what has already been Falsified?

The answer, by the way, is for the very same reason WHY the theological religious embrace the impossible, as well as what has already been Falsified.

Their pre-existing beliefs and assumptions close them off to what is actually True, and Right. Their pre-existing beliefs and presumptions are what makes them embrace the impossible, and what has already been Falsified.

As these posters here keep SHOWING, and PROVING, True, and Right.

[BigMike]

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.

There is no such attempt, since the choices available are circumscribed by the deterministic nature of processes underlying choice. The word free in the context of the argument doesn't apply here.

But this filtering doesn’t introduce true freedom in the sense of autonomy from causality.

The phrase true freedom is superfluous, not having any relation to anything. What does true freedom mean even within the context of an unbridled free will? True freedom is a philosophic will-o'-the-wisp good only for fairy tales and highly imaginative literature.

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.

Correct. Chaotic systems are thoroughly deterministic, but the effects of such systems upon one's neuronal activities remains as uncertain, as undecided as its effect upon weather patterns and all such non-linear systems. Free will is what amounts to the intelligence which attempts to both organize and reorganize what appears or comes across as chaotic. Religion and old philosophies are one of the oldest methods to impose such structures.

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.

There is next to nothing of autonomy in what we're discussing; it's mostly a case of contingency. The myriad ways one kind of input can variously affect other systems, organic or inorganic.

The brain's ability to evaluate choices and project consequences is still governed by the underlying laws of physics and biology.

No argument.

This does not create true freedom but rather a deterministic process that feels subjectively like free will.

Again, no argument except what subjectively feels like free will operates as an objective necessity in the course of our contending with reality. True freedom, considered from either perspective, exists as mere chimera. True freedom is only our conception; it has no standing in the cosmos. It's a state with no laws imposed, devoid of value and therefore superfluous to mention.

Dubious, your response sharpens the discussion by challenging the use of terms like "true freedom" and clarifying the contingency-based framework you advocate. However, I believe there’s still some room for nuance in our conversation.

The idea that free will is an "objective necessity" in navigating reality may be overstating its role. What we label as free will is better described as a mechanism for processing deterministic inputs in a complex and adaptive way. While it’s true that intelligence and reasoning impose structure on what might otherwise appear chaotic, these structures themselves emerge from deterministic processes—they’re not imposed from some autonomous realm outside causality. Religion, philosophy, and other systems of organization are indeed human attempts to grapple with apparent chaos, but they too are products of historical, social, and biological causation.

Your rejection of "true freedom" as a meaningful concept is well-taken, especially when framed as a chimera. However, even as a chimera, it holds psychological and cultural utility. The belief in free will, however illusory, influences behavior, ethical systems, and legal structures in tangible ways. Acknowledging its deterministic underpinnings does not negate its functional role in society; rather, it shifts the conversation toward understanding how this illusion operates and why it persists.

Where I diverge slightly is on your characterization of free will as contingent on chaos and intelligence. While chaos theory introduces variability and unpredictability, these traits do not constitute a freedom to act outside deterministic laws. Instead, they describe the inherent complexity and sensitivity of systems to their initial conditions. Intelligence, as you describe it, is a means of navigating this complexity, but it doesn’t add any fundamental autonomy to the equation. The term "measured freedom" might still mislead if it suggests any degree of causally unbound agency.

Ultimately, I agree with your assertion that "true freedom" lacks standing in the cosmos, but I maintain that this absence doesn’t diminish the importance of critically examining why we cling to the concept of free will and how its deterministic reinterpretation might better align with reality. The question, then, is not whether free will is real, but how understanding its illusory nature can refine our engagement with the world.

[attofishpi]

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.

There is no such attempt, since the choices available are circumscribed by the deterministic nature of processes underlying choice. The word free in the context of the argument doesn't apply here.

But this filtering doesn’t introduce true freedom in the sense of autonomy from causality.

The phrase true freedom is superfluous, not having any relation to anything. What does true freedom mean even within the context of an unbridled free will? True freedom is a philosophic will-o'-the-wisp good only for fairy tales and highly imaginative literature.

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.

Correct. Chaotic systems are thoroughly deterministic, but the effects of such systems upon one's neuronal activities remains as uncertain, as undecided as its effect upon weather patterns and all such non-linear systems. Free will is what amounts to the intelligence which attempts to both organize and reorganize what appears or comes across as chaotic. Religion and old philosophies are one of the oldest methods to impose such structures.

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.

There is next to nothing of autonomy in what we're discussing; it's mostly a case of contingency. The myriad ways one kind of input can variously affect other systems, organic or inorganic.

The brain's ability to evaluate choices and project consequences is still governed by the underlying laws of physics and biology.

No argument.

This does not create true freedom but rather a deterministic process that feels subjectively like free will.

Again, no argument except what subjectively feels like free will operates as an objective necessity in the course of our contending with reality. True freedom, considered from either perspective, exists as mere chimera. True freedom is only our conception; it has no standing in the cosmos. It's a state with no laws imposed, devoid of value and therefore superfluous to mention.

Dubious, your response sharpens the discussion by agreeing with pretty much every particle of smoke I managed to blow up your arse...

Oh, c'mon Mike, don't make it so obvious..

[FlashDangerpants]

There is no such attempt, since the choices available are circumscribed by the deterministic nature of processes underlying choice. The word free in the context of the argument doesn't apply here.

The phrase true freedom is superfluous, not having any relation to anything. What does true freedom mean even within the context of an unbridled free will? True freedom is a philosophic will-o'-the-wisp good only for fairy tales and highly imaginative literature.

Correct. Chaotic systems are thoroughly deterministic, but the effects of such systems upon one's neuronal activities remains as uncertain, as undecided as its effect upon weather patterns and all such non-linear systems. Free will is what amounts to the intelligence which attempts to both organize and reorganize what appears or comes across as chaotic. Religion and old philosophies are one of the oldest methods to impose such structures.

There is next to nothing of autonomy in what we're discussing; it's mostly a case of contingency. The myriad ways one kind of input can variously affect other systems, organic or inorganic.

No argument.

Again, no argument except what subjectively feels like free will operates as an objective necessity in the course of our contending with reality. True freedom, considered from either perspective, exists as mere chimera. True freedom is only our conception; it has no standing in the cosmos. It's a state with no laws imposed, devoid of value and therefore superfluous to mention.

Dubious, your response sharpens the discussion by agreeing with pretty much every particle of smoke I managed to blow up your arse...

Oh, c'mon Mike, don't make it so obvious..

Again you are doing the exact same sort of quote manipulation that you boast of getting Sculptor banned for.

[BigMike]

Oh, it's just breathtaking, isn’t it? This extraordinary analogy:

—elegant, precise, utterly devastating to the notion of free will—and what does it meet with? Silence. Absolute, echoing silence. Not a peep, not a rebuttal, not even a weak attempt at "well, maybe water molecules kind of choose their path in a quantum way," which, let’s be honest, would at least be something. Instead, what do we get? Crickets. Because here’s the thing: when you’re standing in the face of something this clear, this undeniable, what can you say?

And don’t think for a second that this silence is innocent. No, this silence isn’t neutrality—it’s complicity. Complicity in preserving the comforting little bedtime story of free will, in propping up an illusion that crumbles under the simplest observation of how reality actually works. The analogy doesn’t just cut to the heart of the matter; it lays bare the absurdity of pretending otherwise. You’re not choosing your path any more than that water molecule is deciding to take a left at the tributary. You’re following the contours of your neural delta, carved by genetics, environment, and a chain of causes stretching back to the Big Bang.

So, where are the defenders of free will now? Off licking their wounds? Or are they just hoping that if they stay quiet long enough, this will blow over, and they can go back to pretending the whole thing didn’t happen? Because if the best they can muster in response to such a brutal, eloquent dismantling of their cherished delusion is silence, well, that tells you everything you need to know, doesn’t it?

[FlashDangerpants]

So, where are the defenders of free will now? Off licking their wounds? Or are they just hoping that if they stay quiet long enough, this will blow over, and they can go back to pretending the whole thing didn’t happen? Because if the best they can muster in response to such a brutal, eloquent dismantling of their cherished delusion is silence, well, that tells you everything you need to know, doesn’t it?

Lol, I love the way he puts all his opponents on ignore and then awards himself self medals when people don't respond to him.

Extra points for describing his own work as eloquent.

[Atla]

I still don't get why he's in love with determinism. It's like being in love with gravity, or climate change, or water.

[accelafine]

I still don't get why he's in love with determinism. It's like being in love with gravity, or climate change, or water.

Does that mean you are 'in love with free will'? FFS.

[BigMike]

FlashDangerpants, your "lol" speaks volumes. When faced with substantive arguments that dismantle the core tenets of free will, your response isn’t to engage intellectually but to deflect with a tired cliché about ignoring opponents and awarding medals. It’s almost touching how you attempt to make this about me rather than address the glaring logical failures of free will defenders. But go ahead, focus on the messenger instead of the message—it’s the last refuge of someone who knows they’ve lost the argument.

And Atla, your analogy is as limp as your attempt to ridicule. "In love with determinism"? Determinism isn’t a romantic notion; it’s the foundation of reality. You might as well mock physicists for "being in love with gravity" or biologists for "being in love with DNA." What you fail to grasp is that understanding determinism is not about infatuation—it’s about accepting the undeniable. Your comment is the intellectual equivalent of scoffing at people for acknowledging that the Earth revolves around the sun. It’s not that I’m "in love" with determinism; it’s that you’re hopelessly out of touch with it.

[Atla]

I still don't get why he's in love with determinism. It's like being in love with gravity, or climate change, or water.

Does that mean you are 'in love with free will'? FFS.

No, actually it doesn't.

[Atla]

FlashDangerpants, your "lol" speaks volumes. When faced with substantive arguments that dismantle the core tenets of free will, your response isn’t to engage intellectually but to deflect with a tired cliché about ignoring opponents and awarding medals. It’s almost touching how you attempt to make this about me rather than address the glaring logical failures of free will defenders. But go ahead, focus on the messenger instead of the message—it’s the last refuge of someone who knows they’ve lost the argument.

And Atla, your analogy is as limp as your attempt to ridicule. "In love with determinism"? Determinism isn’t a romantic notion; it’s the foundation of reality. You might as well mock physicists for "being in love with gravity" or biologists for "being in love with DNA." What you fail to grasp is that understanding determinism is not about infatuation—it’s about accepting the undeniable. Your comment is the intellectual equivalent of scoffing at people for acknowledging that the Earth revolves around the sun. It’s not that I’m "in love" with determinism; it’s that you’re hopelessly out of touch with it.

Then why do you talk about it like you were? Determinism is pretty dry, disapponting,
mundane.

[FlashDangerpants]

FlashDangerpants

Why are you getting pissy about what people on your ignore list write?

I didn't bother reading the post you describe as eloquent and perfect, I don't really rate your writing high enough to look at everything you do.

This site receives quite a lot of narcissists who are able to tell themselves they are geniuses and ignore all nay-sayers. Are you one of those?

[BigMike]

FlashDangerpants

Why are you getting pissy about what people on your ignore list write?

I didn't bother reading the post you describe as eloquent and perfect, I don't really rate your writing high enough to look at everything you do.

This site receives quite a lot of narcissists who are able to tell themselves they are geniuses and ignore all nay-sayers. Are you one of those?

Ah, FlashDangerpants, the old "I didn’t read it, but I’ll critique it anyway" routine. A classic move from the handbook of intellectual avoidance. It’s almost as if you’ve realized that engaging with the argument itself would reveal just how little you have to counter it. Instead, you resort to armchair psychoanalysis and insinuations of narcissism—because why tackle ideas when you can just attack the person presenting them?

Let’s be clear: not reading the arguments you’re supposedly dismissing doesn’t make you look above the fray; it makes you look lazy and uninterested in anything beyond your own smug deflections. The irony here is palpable—you accuse others of narcissism while proudly declaring that you don’t bother engaging with ideas you find challenging. Bravo, truly. It’s a masterclass in self-sabotage.