Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm loving this thread

Thank you, Accelafine, it is genuinely appreciated!

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

Philosophical smuggling! Ideological contraband in a black market of ideas!

Now things are hopping!

[accelafine]

[Immanuel Can]

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.

And your doublespeak is manifest. Check the quotation Henry supplied, and anybody reasonable would have all the evidence they needed; and yet, you still insist that somehow you can get "intentionality" back into the picture.

But anybody can see you can't. You banished it. You can only bring it back by abandoning the basic definition of Determinism, and becoming, to one extent or another, an advocate of free will (i.e. "intentionality") as a causal agency.

Intentionality exists within determinism,

No, by definition, it does not. That you haven't realized it is quite astonishing, actually.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Philosophical smuggling! Ideological contraband in a black market of ideas!

Now things are hopping!

Time to close the border. Legitimate, rational entry points only, henceforth.

[Age]

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.

Philosophical smuggling! Ideological contraband in a black market of ideas!

Now things are hopping!

Time to close the border. Legitimate, rational entry points only, henceforth.

The only True 'borders' are lines on maps. Which, OBVIOUSLY, are not things that could be 'closed'.

In the day when this is being written you adult human beings are beyond 'belief'. you have ONLY One home, sometimes called and referred to as earth, of which NO actual 'border' is warranted, necessary, nor even REALLY wanted. A lot of you adult human beings whinge and whine about children squabbling and bickering, BUT, really, have a good hard look at "yourselves", FIRST. The ONLY reason children 'grow up' 'arguing', bickering, and fighting is because 'they' learned to misbehave 'that way' from the older ones.

WHEN will you human beings, REALLY, just 'grow up', and 'mature'.

REALLY LISTEN to 'the way' you older ones talk here. ' Close the borders, we do not want others coming into 'our space and place '. LOL ' If 'the others' are not of the same color, creed, or race, or are not from the same space or place, then we do not want 'them' here with 'us' '.

you adult human beings REALLY do NEED to 'GROW UP'. If, and WHEN, so-called 'world war 3' STARTS, then HOW and WHY is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS when one just LOOKS AT and LISTENS TO 'the way' you adult human beings 'carry on' 'the way' you did, BACK when this was being written.

[BigMike]

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.

Dubious, while your poetic flourish about "emergence" and its cosmic grandeur is colorful, it doesn’t align with the reality of causation. If agency or intentionality has no mass, electric charge, spin, or any other conserved physical property, then it cannot cause anything. Causation requires physical interactions, not metaphysical musings.

Agency emerges as a pattern of behavior resulting from physical processes in the brain—processes that actually cause thoughts and actions. Emergence is not magic; it’s a descriptor for the complexity arising from simpler systems interacting according to physical laws. But let’s not confuse the map for the territory. The brain’s physical mechanisms—neuronal firings, chemical gradients, and electrical impulses—are the actual causal agents. What we call “agency” is the story we tell about those processes, not some independent force capable of driving causality.

As I’ve said before, Schopenhauer’s insight—"a man can do what he wills, but not will what he wills"—gets close but doesn’t go far enough. I prefer: a man can’t do what he wills; he wills what he does. Our desires, intentions, and choices are not free-floating phenomena; they arise entirely from prior causes—your biology, your experiences, and even random molecular processes. These are what determine your "wants," and by extension, your actions.

So while it’s tempting to imbue emergence with an air of metaphysical mystery, let’s stay grounded in reality. Intentionality and agency are emergent properties of physical systems, but they do not escape the deterministic web. They are results of it, not drivers of it. That distinction is not only important—it’s the key to understanding why everything we think and do is fully, irrevocably caused.

[accelafine]

I'm beginning to suspect a highly sophisticated troll...

[accelafine]

Either there is determinism or there isn't. You can't say we are deterministic BUT, we can make decisions based on our neurons responding to our knowledge of 'determinism', and thus create a more caring and loving world based on our knowledge (that was determined from the big bang) changing our neurons to create a more 'caring and loving world'. If we do this, then it was determined at the big bang. Oh FFS. This is getting ridiculous.

[Age]

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.

Dubious, while your poetic flourish about "emergence" and its cosmic grandeur is colorful, it doesn’t align with the reality of causation. If agency or intentionality has no mass, electric charge, spin, or any other conserved physical property, then it cannot cause anything. Causation requires physical interactions, not metaphysical musings.

Do you have any proof that 'agency' does not have mass, electric charge, spin, nor any other conserved physical property?

If yes, then where and what is that proof, exactly?

Agency emerges as a pattern of behavior resulting from physical processes in the brain—processes that actually cause thoughts and actions.

So, where and what is 'agency', exactly?

Emergence is not magic; it’s a descriptor for the complexity arising from simpler systems interacting according to physical laws.

But there is absolutely NO complexity here at all.

Why did you assume or believe that there was?

But let’s not confuse the map for the territory. The brain’s physical mechanisms—neuronal firings, chemical gradients, and electrical impulses—are the actual causal agents. What we call “agency” is the story we tell about those processes, not some independent force capable of driving causality.

WHY would people like you tell "yourselves" 'that story'?

By the way, and just out of curiosity, do thoughts and/or emotions have mass, electric charge, spin, or any other conserved physical property?

As I’ve said before, Schopenhauer’s insight—"a man can do what he wills, but not will what he wills"—gets close but doesn’t go far enough. I prefer: a man can’t do what he wills; he wills what he does. Our desires, intentions, and choices are not free-floating phenomena; they arise entirely from prior causes—your biology, your experiences, and even random molecular processes.

Only A FOOL would think or believe that your desires, intentions, and choices arose without prior experiences/events. But, this CERTAINLY does NOT mean that 'free will' does not exist.

OBVIOUSLY "bigmike's" OWN version of 'free will' could not, and does NOT, exist. There is not a human being who refute this, so WHY the continual 'battle', here, makes one wonder HOW and WHY these people were SO BLIND.

Although the ANSWER is OBVIOUS, these ones could not even BEGIN to SEE it.

These are what determine your "wants," and by extension, your actions.

So while it’s tempting to imbue emergence with an air of metaphysical mystery, let’s stay grounded in reality. Intentionality and agency are emergent properties of physical systems, but they do not escape the deterministic web. They are results of it, not drivers of it. That distinction is not only important—it’s the key to understanding why everything we think and do is fully, irrevocably caused.

So, ONCE AGAIN, how does 'knowing' this knowledge help in what you BELIEVE can happen, which is; CHANGING your CHOICES?

[Age]

Either there is determinism or there isn't.

OF COURSE EVERY 'future event' was DETERMINED by 'previous events'.

You can't say we are deterministic BUT, we can make decisions based on our neurons responding to our knowledge of 'determinism', and thus create a more caring and loving world based on our knowledge (that was determined from the big bang) changing our neurons to create a more 'caring and loving world'.

Thank you. The CONTRADICTION has been OBVIOUS from the OUTSET.

If we do this, then it was determined at the big bang.

Here is ANOTHER one who BELIEVES that the big bang is the ABSOLUTE BEGINNING of ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing.

Oh FFS. This is getting ridiculous.

When you human beings ALSO uncover, or learn, and understand WHEN 'the beginning' IS, exactly, then you will ALSO FIND and REALIZE what the ACTUAL Truth is, HERE.

[accelafine]

I mentioned the contradiction several times. I don't recall you doing that--parasite.

[BigMike]

Either there is determinism or there isn't. You can't say we are deterministic BUT, we can make decisions based on our neurons responding to our knowledge of 'determinism', and thus create a more caring and loving world based on our knowledge (that was determined from the big bang) changing our neurons to create a more 'caring and loving world'. If we do this, then it was determined at the big bang. Oh FFS. This is getting ridiculous.

Accelafine, your frustration is palpable, but it seems to stem from a misunderstanding of determinism. Yes, if determinism is true, then everything we do—including recognizing determinism and acting on that recognition—was ultimately determined by the initial conditions of the universe. This doesn’t make the process “ridiculous”; it simply underscores that causality operates at every level, including the ones where we process knowledge, form intentions, and take actions.

Here’s where your critique falters: acknowledging determinism doesn’t mean we stop acting or deciding; it means we understand that those actions and decisions are caused. Your neurons firing in response to knowledge of determinism are part of the deterministic chain. The fact that this understanding can lead to more compassionate or rational behavior doesn’t contradict determinism—it demonstrates it.

Saying "it was determined at the Big Bang" doesn’t make the present irrelevant. It’s through the causal chain, mediated by physical processes like brain activity, that we arrive at this point. If this causes us to strive for a more "caring and loving world," it’s not a contradiction; it’s a direct consequence of deterministic processes.

The alternative? Pretend we’re somehow unbound by causality? Now that would be ridiculous. Determinism isn’t about dismissing human experience—it’s about understanding it in its full causal complexity. Whether that irritates you or not is, of course, also determined.

[BigMike]

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.

Dubious, while your poetic flourish about "emergence" and its cosmic grandeur is colorful, it doesn’t align with the reality of causation. If agency or intentionality has no mass, electric charge, spin, or any other conserved physical property, then it cannot cause anything. Causation requires physical interactions, not metaphysical musings.

Do you have any proof that 'agency' does not have mass, electric charge, spin, nor any other conserved physical property?

If yes, then where and what is that proof, exactly?

Agency emerges as a pattern of behavior resulting from physical processes in the brain—processes that actually cause thoughts and actions.

So, where and what is 'agency', exactly?

Emergence is not magic; it’s a descriptor for the complexity arising from simpler systems interacting according to physical laws.

But there is absolutely NO complexity here at all.

Why did you assume or believe that there was?

But let’s not confuse the map for the territory. The brain’s physical mechanisms—neuronal firings, chemical gradients, and electrical impulses—are the actual causal agents. What we call “agency” is the story we tell about those processes, not some independent force capable of driving causality.

WHY would people like you tell "yourselves" 'that story'?

By the way, and just out of curiosity, do thoughts and/or emotions have mass, electric charge, spin, or any other conserved physical property?

As I’ve said before, Schopenhauer’s insight—"a man can do what he wills, but not will what he wills"—gets close but doesn’t go far enough. I prefer: a man can’t do what he wills; he wills what he does. Our desires, intentions, and choices are not free-floating phenomena; they arise entirely from prior causes—your biology, your experiences, and even random molecular processes.

Only A FOOL would think or believe that your desires, intentions, and choices arose without prior experiences/events. But, this CERTAINLY does NOT mean that 'free will' does not exist.

OBVIOUSLY "bigmike's" OWN version of 'free will' could not, and does NOT, exist. There is not a human being who refute this, so WHY the continual 'battle', here, makes one wonder HOW and WHY these people were SO BLIND.

Although the ANSWER is OBVIOUS, these ones could not even BEGIN to SEE it.

These are what determine your "wants," and by extension, your actions.

So while it’s tempting to imbue emergence with an air of metaphysical mystery, let’s stay grounded in reality. Intentionality and agency are emergent properties of physical systems, but they do not escape the deterministic web. They are results of it, not drivers of it. That distinction is not only important—it’s the key to understanding why everything we think and do is fully, irrevocably caused.

So, ONCE AGAIN, how does 'knowing' this knowledge help in what you BELIEVE can happen, which is; CHANGING your CHOICES?

Where to begin with this scattered barrage of skepticism and rhetorical confusion? Let’s untangle this one thread at a time, starting with your demand for "proof" that agency has no mass, electric charge, spin, or any other conserved property. The burden here is on you to demonstrate that agency does possess such physical characteristics if you believe it causes anything. Causation in the physical world requires measurable, interacting properties—mass, charge, energy transfer, etc. If agency lacks these, it cannot cause anything directly but emerges as a descriptor for physical processes.

As for your question, "Where and what is agency, exactly?" Agency isn’t a "thing" in the sense of a physical object. It’s a label we assign to patterns of behavior and decision-making, arising from complex neural processes in the brain. It’s an emergent property—a shorthand for describing what happens when neurons fire, chemicals flow, and electrical impulses interact to produce coordinated actions and thoughts. To demand its physical location or mass is akin to asking for the weight of a symphony—it misses the point entirely.

Regarding your claim that there’s "no complexity here," that’s laughable. The human brain, with its approximately 86 billion neurons and trillions of synaptic connections, is among the most complex systems known to science. Complexity doesn’t vanish because you wave it away; it’s an observable fact of the system generating the thoughts you’re using to deny it.

And about telling “ourselves” stories: the idea that agency is a narrative doesn’t mean it’s false—it means it’s a useful conceptual tool for navigating the deterministic web of causality. Thoughts and emotions themselves don’t have mass or charge, but they are the result of physical processes—neuronal activity, chemical gradients, and electrical signals—all of which are measurable and causally significant.

As for your jab about "only a fool" believing desires arise without prior causes—thank you for restating my argument in different words. That doesn’t mean free will exists; it means exactly what I’ve been saying: everything we want, think, and do is caused by prior events, leaving no room for the metaphysical “freedom” you seem to cling to.

Finally, regarding how this knowledge helps us "change our choices": it’s not about changing choices as though we are metaphysically free. It’s about understanding the deterministic processes that shape our choices, allowing us to influence future outcomes more effectively. For example, if you understand that repetition shapes neuronal pathways (thank you, neuroplasticity), you can deliberately engage in behaviors or study that alter those pathways. This is not "free will"—it’s determinism in action, and it’s exactly how understanding causality empowers us to act.

So, Age, if you’d like to deny the deterministic framework or misunderstand emergence, by all means, continue. But unless you can engage with these concepts meaningfully, your objections remain as causally determined as everything else—and just as irrelevant to the argument at hand.

[accelafine]

Either there is determinism or there isn't. You can't say we are deterministic BUT, we can make decisions based on our neurons responding to our knowledge of 'determinism', and thus create a more caring and loving world based on our knowledge (that was determined from the big bang) changing our neurons to create a more 'caring and loving world'. If we do this, then it was determined at the big bang. Oh FFS. This is getting ridiculous.

Accelafine, your frustration is palpable, but it seems to stem from a misunderstanding of determinism. Yes, if determinism is true, then everything we do—including recognizing determinism and acting on that recognition—was ultimately determined by the initial conditions of the universe. This doesn’t make the process “ridiculous”; it simply underscores that causality operates at every level, including the ones where we process knowledge, form intentions, and take actions.

Here’s where your critique falters: acknowledging determinism doesn’t mean we stop acting or deciding; it means we understand that those actions and decisions are caused. Your neurons firing in response to knowledge of determinism are part of the deterministic chain. The fact that this understanding can lead to more compassionate or rational behavior doesn’t contradict determinism—it demonstrates it.

Saying "it was determined at the Big Bang" doesn’t make the present irrelevant. It’s through the causal chain, mediated by physical processes like brain activity, that we arrive at this point. If this causes us to strive for a more "caring and loving world," it’s not a contradiction; it’s a direct consequence of deterministic processes.

The alternative? Pretend we’re somehow unbound by causality? Now that would be ridiculous. Determinism isn’t about dismissing human experience—it’s about understanding it in its full causal complexity. Whether that irritates you or not is, of course, also determined.

I didn't say the 'process was ridiculous'. I was saying you can't have it both ways. You put a lot of words in my mouth. It seems to me that you are tying yourself into knots trying to reconcile 'determinism' with 'non determinism'. I don't see any difference between your 'better world' scenario and 'free will'.