Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Immanuel Can]

...for those who grasp the deterministic threads shaping their lives, a new kind of intentionality becomes possible.

For those who grasp Determinism, there is no "intentionality" at all. All there is, is pitiless, indifferent, material "causality."

You seem to have confused determinism with nihilism, as though acknowledging the inescapable web of causality renders concepts like intentionality void.

It does. And you've already said it does. Then you try to import the idea of "intentionality" back in, like contraband from a foreign country, trying to slip it past the border-guards of rationality.

Sorry...it just doesn't work. Where material causality rules, there's no room for anything else. Determinism (whether Theistic or Materialistic) takes one thing to be the total explanation of how any action can take place in the universe at all. And "intentions" then have no causal significance whatsoever.

The "pitiless, indifferent material causality" you invoke is the foundation of everything, including the very thoughts you're using to craft this critique.

That I can use thoughts to craft this is yet further proof we don't live in a Deterministic universe, not proof we do.

Your dismissal of intentionality...

I don't. I believe in intentionality. What I dismiss is Determinism. As should you, on rational grounds.

So, let me spell it out for you, Immanuel Can: grasping determinism doesn’t mean succumbing to existential despair or abandoning intentionality.

There's only one way that can be true: by you becoming irrational, and undermining your own faith in Determinism. Otherwise, that's exactly where you'd end up. And many of your own statements betray that very fact.

[henry quirk]

within the deterministic framework, there is room for foresight and intentionality...it means understanding that our current actions are themselves causes of future outcomes...it’s embracing the reality of causality and using it to shape what comes next.

How can we have foresight, be intentional, understand, or embrace when...

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

[BigMike]

For those who grasp Determinism, there is no "intentionality" at all. All there is, is pitiless, indifferent, material "causality."

You seem to have confused determinism with nihilism, as though acknowledging the inescapable web of causality renders concepts like intentionality void.

It does. And you've already said it does. Then you try to import the idea of "intentionality" back in, like contraband from a foreign country, trying to slip it past the border-guards of rationality.

Sorry...it just doesn't work. Where material causality rules, there's no room for anything else. Determinism (whether Theistic or Materialistic) takes one thing to be the total explanation of how any action can take place in the universe at all. And "intentions" then have no causal significance whatsoever.

The "pitiless, indifferent material causality" you invoke is the foundation of everything, including the very thoughts you're using to craft this critique.

That I can use thoughts to craft this is yet further proof we don't live in a Deterministic universe, not proof we do.

Your dismissal of intentionality...

I don't. I believe in intentionality. What I dismiss is Determinism. As should you, on rational grounds.

So, let me spell it out for you, Immanuel Can: grasping determinism doesn’t mean succumbing to existential despair or abandoning intentionality.

There's only one way that can be true: by you becoming irrational, and undermining your own faith in Determinism. Otherwise, that's exactly where you'd end up. And many of your own statements betray that very fact.

Your obtuseness is nothing short of astonishing. The sheer audacity of your response—to claim that I have “already said” intentionality doesn’t exist under determinism, only to then insist that intentionality is incompatible with determinism—is a masterclass in willful misinterpretation and intellectual laziness. Do you even read the arguments you’re attempting to rebut, or are you so consumed by the need to dismantle determinism that you’re willing to ignore even the most basic nuances?

Let me make this excruciatingly simple for you, since the subtleties clearly elude you. Intentionality exists within determinism, not as some metaphysical free agent, but as an emergent phenomenon shaped entirely by causal processes. You insist that determinism allows "no room for anything else," but that’s a straw man so absurd it borders on parody. Determinism explains the mechanisms by which thoughts and actions occur—it doesn’t negate the reality of those thoughts and actions. The fact that intentionality arises from causality doesn’t make it less real; it makes it explicable. But perhaps that’s the problem for you: you prefer your intentionality wrapped in mystical nonsense rather than grounded in reality.

And your smug declaration that the ability to use thoughts is "proof" we don’t live in a deterministic universe? Laughable. Your thoughts, like everyone else’s, are the result of interactions within your brain, conditioned by prior causes. They feel autonomous because you lack the self-awareness to grasp the underlying mechanics. If anything, your insistence on this point proves not the failure of determinism but your failure to understand it.

You dismiss determinism on "rational grounds"? Please. Your entire argument is riddled with contradictions and rhetorical sleight of hand. You accuse me of irrationality while clinging to a metaphysical fantasy that collapses under the weight of even cursory scrutiny. If determinism undermines intentionality in your view, it’s because you can’t conceive of intentionality as anything other than uncaused magic. That’s not a failure of determinism—it’s a failure of your imagination and intellectual rigor.

So let me be blunt: your critique is not profound; it’s petty, shortsighted, and embarrassingly devoid of nuance. If you insist on dismissing determinism, at least muster an argument that demonstrates you’ve engaged with it seriously, rather than clinging to tired misconceptions and smug posturing. Until then, your objections are little more than the frustrated flailing of someone unwilling—or unable—to confront the depth of the ideas they so desperately wish to refute.

[henry quirk]

It bears repeating...

I dismiss human agency outright, reducing people to passive puppets of causality.

Yes, you 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.

[BigMike]

It bears repeating...

I dismiss human agency outright, reducing people to passive puppets of causality.

Yes, you 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.

Henry, if you're going to try and quote me, at least have the decency to do so accurately. I never said, as you falsely assert, "I dismiss human agency outright, reducing people to passive puppets of causality." What I actually said—if you bothered to read with any semblance of intellectual honesty—is that this claim is a deliberate oversimplification of my argument, made by others, not by me.

Your selective quoting and misrepresentation is as transparent as it is tedious. You attempt to twist my words into a caricature of my position, ignoring the nuance I’ve repeatedly emphasized: that while human actions are entirely determined by prior causes, understanding this causality does not negate agency but redefines it. Agency exists within the deterministic framework as the emergent product of complex causal interactions, not as some metaphysical force detached from reality.

Dragging up my earlier statement about the deterministic nature of the brain does nothing to support your misrepresentation. Yes, I’ve said that our thoughts, desires, and decisions are driven by external and internal processes we do not control in a metaphysical sense. That does not mean humans are "passive puppets." It means our agency is a caused phenomenon, one that operates within and is shaped by those deterministic processes.

Your insistence on framing my argument as a wholesale rejection of agency reveals either a lack of comprehension or a deliberate attempt to distort my position. If it’s the former, I suggest rereading what I’ve written with a more careful eye. If it’s the latter, well, that says far more about your intellectual integrity than it does about mine.

[accelafine]

Henry does that a lot--abuses the 'quote' function with deliberate cherry-picking and omissions that make it look as if the person being 'quoted' has said the exact OPPOSITE of what they actually said. Others get banned for doing this. This was obvious re the 'puppet' comment without even referring to the original. He's not very good at it. It seems like a rather pointless and self-sabotaging way to conduct a 'debate'.

[henry quirk]

You claim I dismiss human agency outright, reducing people to passive puppets of causality. That’s a deliberate oversimplification. I challenge the notion of unconditioned agency, but I absolutely acknowledge that within the deterministic framework, those who grasp its implications can act in ways that reshape their future. In other words, while none of us is "free" in the metaphysical sense, those with the insight to understand causality can consciously plant the seeds for different outcomes.

Here’s the distinction you seem to miss—or perhaps intentionally ignore. I’m not denying that people make choices in the present. I’m saying that these choices are conditioned by their circumstances, their biology, and their history. However, for those intelligent enough to see the deterministic threads that shape their lives, a remarkable opportunity arises: they can deliberately take actions now that alter the trajectory of their future thoughts, decisions, and behaviors. This is not metaphysical free will; it’s simply a deeper understanding of causality and the power of foresight.

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.

[BigMike]

Henry does that a lot--abuses the 'quote' function with deliberate cherry-picking and omissions that make it look as if the person being 'quoted' has said the exact OPPOSITE of what they actually said. Others get banned for doing this. This was obvious re the 'puppet' comment without even referring to the original. He's not very good at it. It seems like a pretty pointless and self-sabotaging way to conduct a 'debate'.

Exactly, accelafine. Misquoting and cherry-picking not only undermines the credibility of the person doing it but also derails any meaningful discussion. Henry's tactics here are not just misleading—they're outright self-defeating. If his goal is to challenge my argument, he should engage with it honestly instead of constructing straw men that collapse under even cursory scrutiny.

[BigMike]

You claim I dismiss human agency outright, reducing people to passive puppets of causality. That’s a deliberate oversimplification. I challenge the notion of unconditioned agency, but I absolutely acknowledge that within the deterministic framework, those who grasp its implications can act in ways that reshape their future. In other words, while none of us is "free" in the metaphysical sense, those with the insight to understand causality can consciously plant the seeds for different outcomes.

Here’s the distinction you seem to miss—or perhaps intentionally ignore. I’m not denying that people make choices in the present. I’m saying that these choices are conditioned by their circumstances, their biology, and their history. However, for those intelligent enough to see the deterministic threads that shape their lives, a remarkable opportunity arises: they can deliberately take actions now that alter the trajectory of their future thoughts, decisions, and behaviors. This is not metaphysical free will; it’s simply a deeper understanding of causality and the power of foresight.

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.

Oh, Henry, what a valiant effort to piece together an incoherent contradiction where none exists. You’re attempting to pit two perfectly compatible statements against each other as though they’re at odds. Let me spell this out for you in the simplest terms, so there’s no excuse for further misrepresentation:

Acknowledging that human thoughts, desires, and decisions are entirely determined by prior causes does not negate agency—it redefines it. Agency isn’t some magical, uncaused phenomenon; it’s the emergent result of deterministic processes. The capacity to act intentionally, to plan, and to reshape future outcomes exists within the deterministic framework, not outside of it.

Your cherry-picking fails to grasp this nuance. My argument is consistent: we are driven by causality, but understanding that causality allows us to act with foresight, planting the seeds for future changes. Pretending that determinism equates to passivity or helplessness is your error, not mine.

So, Henry, if you’re going to quote me, at least try to comprehend the argument you’re quoting. Until then, your selective misreading says more about your intellectual limitations than it does about my position.

[henry quirk]

If this...

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.

...is true. Then this...

we are driven by causality, but understanding that causality allows us to act with foresight, planting the seeds for future changes.

...is not.

[BigMike]

If this...

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.

...is true. Then this...

we are driven by causality, but understanding that causality allows us to act with foresight, planting the seeds for future changes.

...is not.

Henry, your continued insistence that these points are incompatible only highlights a fundamental failure to grasp how understanding operates within a deterministic framework. Let me spell this out, incorporating a crucial concept you seem to have overlooked: neuroplasticity.

Your brain is not static; it’s a dynamic, adaptive system capable of forming new neuronal connections throughout your life. This plasticity means that while you may not initially have the neuronal architecture necessary to understand a concept, you can develop it through repeated exposure, study, or practice. These changes, caused by external inputs and internal processes, enable the brain to adapt and acquire new understanding, skills, or desires.

When I say, "understanding allows us to act with foresight," I’m describing the deterministic process whereby a brain that has formed the necessary connections—thanks to prior causal influences—can now apply that understanding to shape future actions. This is neuroplasticity in action: past experiences wire the brain in ways that affect how it processes future inputs and makes decisions.

Your attempt to pit determinism against foresight ignores this fundamental fact. Foresight and intentionality are not metaphysical escapes from causality; they are emergent properties of a brain shaped by deterministic interactions. The ability to "plant the seeds for future changes" comes directly from the causal chain that led to the development of those insights in the first place.

So let me say this clearly: if you lack the neuronal connections necessary to grasp this point, it’s not a personal failing—it’s simply the current state of your brain. But thanks to neuroplasticity, you can still develop those connections—if you’re willing to engage with the topic thoughtfully and repeatedly. If not, well, that, too, is determined. But until you do, your objections are little more than the predictable output of a system still waiting for the right wiring.

[accelafine]

I'm loving this thread

[Dubious]

Intentionality exists within determinism, not as some metaphysical free agent, but as an emergent phenomenon shaped entirely by causal processes.

Precisely! Once a critical measure of complexity is reached there is no observable end or finalization to the process. Instead it creates the soil that grows its own produce based, in our case, on the physical brain which plants the seeds which yields its own output. If there is any process which qualifies as fundamentally metaphysical compared to its more illusory historic version, it's the emergence which proceeds from its physical provider being equal to that which created the cosmos itself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ah, Alexis, your response is a dazzling mix of backpedaling and theatrical flourish. You now claim I’m saying “basically what you said,” but let’s not pretend you’ve been consistent or precise in articulating it. You’ve been waving around “agency” and “metaphysical perspective” like talismans to ward off the implications of a deterministic universe, while simultaneously admitting that choices are conditioned. If I’ve wavered, it’s only because you’re mistaking a nuanced position for inconsistency.

Yes, you are saying (now) what I said days ago: we live in a conditioned universe and world, but that man has a certain amount of agency if he has the intelligence to see it and grasp it. You definitely give man agency, there is no doubt in this.

In fact I believe I am consistent. And wonderful. And princely. And quite (but not entirely, or boringly) enlightened.

Man has a certain agency. Within real constraints. The key is to find a way to live, and choose, more within that “centimeter” of possibility. How we do that — that is a whole other question.

The universe, according to the physicist’s perspective, is determined. The deterministic paradigm is really, really hard to counter. I see the logic in that perspective. And I only say — pleadingly but without blubbering or untoward drama — that you and I have access to agency. You demonstrate it at every turn!

(True, I have a great deal more than you, am more mature and balanced, and have •the causal game• far more mastered than you do. But this is neither here nor there for the time being so we can leave it to the side.)

Where we truly differ is toward the question of •the metaphysical•. But I am not dogmatic here. It seems to me to be an existent realm, but where? how? in what? It “exists” in a realm similar to ideas. I think that all advanced ideas come from a pre-exitent “realm”. They arose just as the universe arose: as latent patterns. And when everything, or specific somethings pass away, they will still be there: like the smile of the Chedhire Cat

Now with the *supernatural*, there I agree with you. It is absurd to believe in such a thing. But too many times I have witnessed, subjectively, the evidences that defy understanding. I am and I remain a “qualified theist” and I have no really compelling nor convincing way to “explain” it.

Not very sciency but there you have it.

Thank you again for taking everyone off ignore! Please remember that you have earned a credit because you overturned a determined action by choosing a better one and that The Course is always available to you at that discounted fee.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Precisely! Once a critical measure of complexity is reached there is no observable end or finalization to the process. Instead it creates the soil that grows its own produce based, in our case, on the physical brain which plants the seeds which yields its own output. If there is any process which qualifies as fundamentally metaphysical compared to its more illusory historic version, it's the emergence which proceeds from its physical provider being equal to that which created the cosmos itself.

Let this be etched into polished stone!