Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Age]

Think about it for a moment: we don’t just exist as isolated “decision-making machines” sealed away from the world; we’re woven into a massive, living web of influences. Each one of us provides input to everyone else—through our words, our actions, the insights we choose to share. Now, when we recognize that we’re all part of each other’s external causes, a natural conclusion follows: we should be willing to speak up, to exchange viewpoints, to engage seriously and thoughtfully with one another.

YET, here you ARE NOT 'exchanging viewpoints', but WANTING others to SEE and AGREE WITH 'your viewpoint', ONLY.

you, OBVIOUSLY, have NOT YET been PREPARED, through 'deterministic processes', to CHANGE 'the way' you 'look at' and 'see' things, and are, still, STUCK in that 'VERY OLD WAY' of 'doing things' and DEBATING.

Also, you, STILL, have NOT YET COMPREHENDED that ABSOLUTELY NO one has even come close to DISAGREEING with your view, BELIEF, and CLAIM that we are ALL part of the One continually evolving CAUSED creation happening and occurring, here.

So, WHY you PERSIST with words like, 'When we recognize that we are all part of each other's external causes', although UNKNOWN BY 'you' is ALREADY KNOWN, FULLY, BY 'I'.

After all, if our thinking has even the slightest chance of shaping someone else’s trajectory, wouldn’t it be better to do so consciously, with the aim of fostering growth, understanding, and progress?

What do you think EVERY human parent has done WITH their children SINCE human beings have been inhabiting the earth?

Do you think or believe that NOT EVERY human parent has been fostering growth, understanding, and progress, from 'the beginning'?

Even EVERY one of your human being made up 'religions' claim to be fostering growth, understanding, and progress.

Why do you BELIEVE fostering growth, understand, and progress will ONLY happen and occur AFTER understanding that 'cause and effect', 'causality', or 'determinism' actually exists?

But let’s also consider the idea that everything might be determined, that all our choices simply reflect some grand chain of prior events. If we buy into that worldview too thoroughly, we might start to shrug our shoulders and say, “Well, what does it matter then? We were always going to do this, so what’s the point?” That kind of complacency is dangerous. It risks turning us passive, sapping the urgency and care from our collective conversation. Genuine advancement—cultural, intellectual, moral—requires a sense of responsibility. Without it, why strive for deeper insight or greater justice?

But you are NOT seeking for 'deeper insight' nor 'greater justice' AT ALL, here.

you are just WANTING 'others' to SEE and BELIEVE what you SEE and BELIEVE is true.

In this sense, even if we were to grant a fully determined universe, there’s still immense value in interacting conscientiously. By participating, by contributing our reasoning and our best ideas, we shape the environment through which all those future causes and effects must pass.

you seem to keep FORGETTING that ALL 'religions' who SEE and BELIEVE that some thing CREATED 'this world' and 'this Universe' also BELIEVES that 'this Universe' and 'this world' WAS and IS FULLY DETERMINED. But, as history has SHOWN and PROVED True 'religions' and thus the BELIEF in A FULLY 'DETERMINED UNIVERSE' is, REALLY, NOT the BEST thing AT ALL. 'Conflicting views and religions' have CERTAINLY SHOWN and PROVED to NOT foster growth, understanding, genuine advancement, nor progress.

Yes, our influence might be one thread among countless others, but it’s there. And if enough of us take that seriously, there’s a meaningful chance we can steer these unfolding patterns toward something better.

But, and according to you, you human beings have absolutely NO CHOICE AT ALL over 'the unfolding patterns', as 'that course' has ALREADY BEEN SET, and STEERED, FOR you ALL.

[henry quirk]

I hear where that line of reasoning is coming from

You hear but you don't listen, not even to yourself.

If this...

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..

neuroplasticity—this capacity of the brain to form and reform its connections in response to new experiences

...is just programming. It doesn't allow us to...

change behaviors, solve problems,

...or...

imagine new futures

...or...

consider "if this, then that"

...becuz we don’t control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions.

[Age]

ONCE MORE what 'we' can CLEARLY SEE here, in this thread, is that WHEN the CONTRADICTIONS and/or INCONSISTENCIES, being EXPRESSED, are FINALLY RECOGNIZED, and 'SEEN', by the author, then the author does NOT ACKNOWLEDGE them, but will 'TRY TO' find OTHER WAYS AROUND them.

[Immanuel Can]

"Henry's actually trying to get Big Mike to agree with himself."

Word around the symposium is that Mike B might be a closet compatibilist.

But no Compatibilist has been able to explain how Determinism and will can be genuinely "compatible." They always liquidate will into Determinism, at the end of the day...Determinism is said to be the truth, and will, only a thing in which we happen to believe, but which has no causal power and no ultimate reality.

Mike's not even THAT clear on what he believes. He thinks he can affirm both: nay, more than that -- he thinks that somehow, strict Determinism will provide us with an even more profound reason to cherish will. In other words, he's either completely confused and inconsistent, or he knows that Determinism stultifies all ideas of free will, but he wants to be propagandist, and convince people maliciously to believe in Determinism, so he can achieve some Socialistic ideological triumph he has in mind.

Ironically, if he could "convince" anybody, then by defintion, that would be a double exercise of free will...both Mike's and the listener's. "Changing minds" is, by defintion, something that, under a Deterministic worldview, simply cannot be done. For the Determinist, it's always those prior forces that make any belief what it is...not rationality, not argument, not evidence, and definitely not will...prior forces.

[Age]

I hear where that line of reasoning is coming from

You hear but you don't listen, not even to yourself.

If this...

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..

neuroplasticity—this capacity of the brain to form and reform its connections in response to new experiences

...is just programming. It doesn't allow us to...

change behaviors, solve problems,

...or...

imagine new futures

...or...

consider "if this, then that"

...becuz we don’t control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions.

What can be SEEN, here, ONCE MORE, is that INSTEAD of WORKING TOGETHER to FIND OUT what 'the words' ACTUALLY MEAN and/or are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, by BOTH people, on BOTH "sides", they would BOTH just keep talking as though 'their view' and "side" was the ONLY True and Right one, ALONE.

LOL These people had NOT YET even WORKED OUT who and/or what the words 'we' nor 'our' were even REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, yet they, STILL, PERSISTED WITH FIGHTING and ARGUING AGAINST 'the other', for their very OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

Here what is SEEN is are two posters talking about 'we' and about having CONTROL OVER 'their thoughts, desires, and decisions' WITHOUT EVER FIRST JUST QUESTIONING, and CLARIFYING, who and what 'I', 'they', 'we', and 'our' even are, EXACTLY.

[Age]

"Henry's actually trying to get Big Mike to agree with himself."

Word around the symposium is that Mike B might be a closet compatibilist.

But no Compatibilist has been able to explain how Determinism and will can be genuinely "compatible."

LOL
LOL
LOL

But HOW, EXACTLY, they ARE GENUINELY COMPATIBLE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED A COUPLE OF TIMES, ALREADY.

AGAIN, those with pre-existing BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS are NOT YET READY, WILLING, nor ABLE TO SEE, and HEAR, the ACTUAL Truth of things.

They always liquidate will into Determinism, at the end of the day...Determinism is said to be the truth, and will, only a thing in which we happen to believe, but which has no causal power and no ultimate reality.

Here 'we' can CLEARLY SEE one who has put one of their BELIEFS OVER another BELIEF. Which is even MORE FUNNIER because the BELIEF, which is 'under' here, is ALSO CLAIMED by this one to be the ONLY REAL BELIEF to HAVE and HOLD ONTO.

These people were SO HYPOCRITICAL and CONTRADICTORY it was HILARIOUS to WATCH PLAY OUT, in 'real time'. as some would say.

What is even FUNNIER, MORE SO, is that a lot of these ones have REFUSED to READ, SEE, LISTEN, and HEAR so I can POINT OUT and HIGHLIGHT their CONTRADICTIONS and INCONSISTENCIES, here, WITHOUT HAVING them 'TRYING TO' 'justify' their, CLEARLY, VERY DISTORTED thinking, views, and BELIEFS.

'I' can just POINT OUT their False CLAIMS and ASSERTIONS and/or their Wrong DOINGS while they PROVE FOR me what I have been CLAIMING ABOUT how CLOSED and NARROWED older human beings HAD BECOME, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

These posters, here, have been, literally, PROVING True what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING ABOUT HOW the Mind, and the brain, ACTUALLY WORK.

Mike's not even THAT clear on what he believes. He thinks he can affirm both: nay, more than that -- he thinks that somehow, strict Determinism will provide us with an even more profound reason to cherish will. In other words, he's either completely confused and inconsistent, or he knows that Determinism stultifies all ideas of free will, but he wants to be propagandist, and convince people maliciously to believe in Determinism, so he can achieve some Socialistic ideological triumph he has in mind.

And, "immanuel can" wants to CONVINCE others to BELIEVE in 'free will', while ALSO, LAUGHINGLY, CLAIMING that a 'male being or creature' created absolutely EVERY thing, with an INTENDED and PRE-DETERMINED PLAN SET IN PLACE.

These posters, here, ARGUING and FIGHTING WITH 'each other' are AS BLIND and AS STUPID as 'each other'.

Ironically, if he could "convince" anybody, then by defintion, that would be a double exercise of free will...both Mike's and the listener's.

OBVIOUSLY 'this' is NOT necessarily true AT ALL. As 'this' could have just HAPPENED and OCCURRED BECAUSE OF 'determinism' of BECAUSE OF what the Creator of EVERY thing had DECIDED, and thus had DETERMINED, what WOULD HAPPEN and OCCUR.

These older human beings, back when this was being written, REALLY DID NOT PUT MUCH THOUGHT INTO WHAT THEY WOULD SAY, and WRITE, here.

They were TO BUSY just 'TRYING TO' CONVINCE 'the other' TO SEE and BELIEVE 'things' 'the way' that they each, personally, DID.

"Changing minds" is, by defintion, something that, under a Deterministic worldview, simply cannot be done. For the Determinist, it's always those prior forces that make any belief what it is...not rationality, not argument, not evidence, and definitely not will...prior forces.

See HOW these people would SAY and WRITE just about ANY thing, in the HOPE that it would back up and support their 'current' BELIEF, even when they SAY and WRITE had NO 'logical relationship' with itself, let alone with what 'the other' had SAID and WRITTEN.

[accelafine]

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'.

Accelafine, I didn’t put words in your mouth; I clarified your apparent misunderstanding. If you think I’m “tying myself into knots,” it’s only because you’re struggling to grasp the distinction between determinism and the experience of making decisions within it.

There’s no reconciliation of determinism with "non-determinism" here because I am not arguing for any form of metaphysical free will. The "better world" scenario you mention is entirely deterministic. Here’s how: understanding that our choices and actions are caused doesn’t mean those actions disappear—it means they are part of the causal chain. Recognizing this allows us to work within that chain to influence future outcomes. That influence isn’t free in a metaphysical sense; it’s causally determined by our understanding, intentions, and circumstances.

The difference between determinism and free will lies in the source of our actions. Free will suggests actions originate independently of causation, which is nonsense. Determinism shows that all actions—including those aimed at creating a "better world"—are driven by prior causes. There’s no contradiction, no knot, no sleight of hand.

Your inability to see this distinction is not an indictment of determinism; it’s evidence of its explanatory power. You can’t "choose" to see the point until the necessary conditions—experience, understanding, perhaps a bit more reflection—cause it to occur to you. That’s determinism, in action, whether you like it or not.

I don't 'like' or 'not like' it. I'm only interested in what is true. Henry and IC are the ones arguing aboout this simply because the idea of 'determinism' offends their religious beliefs. IC is a religious maniac. Henry is his disciple. EVERYTHING is about proselytising with IC. He sniffs out weakness and vulnerability like an airport drug hound sniffs out cocaine.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm only interested in what is true.

Ha!

Henry and IC are the ones arguing aboout this simply because the idea of 'determinism' offends their religious beliefs.

Actually, no. I've used no religious grounds whatsoever -- and as somebody "only interested in what is true," one might think you would have noticed that.

In point of fact, there are very religious people who are very committed to Determinism. They're called "Calvinists." Being "only interested in what is true," I thought you might want to know that.

[accelafine]

I'm only interested in what is true.

Ha!

Henry and IC are the ones arguing aboout this simply because the idea of 'determinism' offends their religious beliefs.

Actually, no. I've used no religious grounds whatsoever -- and as somebody "only interested in what is true," one might think you would have noticed that.

In point of fact, there are very religious people who are very committed to Determinism. They're called "Calvinists." Being "only interested in what is true," I thought you might want to know that.

Oh please. It oozes out of everything you post whether you mention it specifically or not. Smarmy little creep.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm only interested in what is true.

Ha!

Henry and IC are the ones arguing aboout this simply because the idea of 'determinism' offends their religious beliefs.

Actually, no. I've used no religious grounds whatsoever -- and as somebody "only interested in what is true," one might think you would have noticed that.

In point of fact, there are very religious people who are very committed to Determinism. They're called "Calvinists." Being "only interested in what is true," I thought you might want to know that.

Oh please. It oozes out of everything you post whether you mention it specifically or not. Smarmy little creep.

I'm flattered.

[accelafine]

Of course you are. Narcissistic egomaniacs are incapable of seeing anything but flattery when it comes to themselves.

[Atla]

Atla, still wrestling with concepts of causality and determinism, though I appreciate the effort. A quick clarification for you: you were taken off my ignore list yesterday or perhaps the day before. The timing, like much in this deterministic world, is conditioned by prior interactions. Consider it a causal inevitability.

Now, on to the substance—or lack thereof—of your comment. Your claim that causality has no known direction is a valid observation within specific frameworks, such as in some interpretations of quantum mechanics or discussions of time symmetry in physics. However, the directionality of causation that we perceive is tied to entropy, as you correctly note, and this "arrow of time" is the framework within which determinism operates on the human scale. It’s not about where causality "flows" but about understanding that interactions—my preferred term, since action and reaction occur simultaneously—are the core of everything we observe. I use "causation" for the sake of the general public, who seem to better grasp its implications, but interactions more accurately describe the simultaneity of these phenomena.

You're on a philosophy forum where someone might point out that you haven't actually thought this through. Human experience is inherently tied to entropy, but it's a non sequitur to conclude that therefore causation has a forward direction.

As for your musings on quantum effects and their hypothetical impact on free will, I must admit it sounds more like wishful thinking than serious science. The quantum Zeno effect, while fascinating, doesn’t grant autonomy; it’s still bound by the probabilistic framework of quantum mechanics. To leap from there to ideas like prayer, the law of attraction, or "stopping the clock with your attention" is to indulge in speculation untethered from rigorous evidence. These notions may be enticing, but until science provides a substantive mechanism, they remain in the realm of pseudoscience or metaphysical fancy.

But this isn't about the probabilistic framework, that framework is always a given.

If your "4D philosophy" is an attempt to reconcile determinism with metaphysical notions of free will, you’re free to pursue it—but understand that adding dimensions doesn’t exempt interactions from the deterministic web they inhabit. It’s all part of the same interconnected system, regardless of the scale or perspective.

It's no such attempt, I'm a determinist no matter how many dimensions.

[accelafine]

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'.

Accelafine, I didn’t put words in your mouth; I clarified your apparent misunderstanding. If you think I’m “tying myself into knots,” it’s only because you’re struggling to grasp the distinction between determinism and the experience of making decisions within it.

There’s no reconciliation of determinism with "non-determinism" here because I am not arguing for any form of metaphysical free will. The "better world" scenario you mention is entirely deterministic. Here’s how: understanding that our choices and actions are caused doesn’t mean those actions disappear—it means they are part of the causal chain. Recognizing this allows us to work within that chain to influence future outcomes. That influence isn’t free in a metaphysical sense; it’s causally determined by our understanding, intentions, and circumstances.

The difference between determinism and free will lies in the source of our actions. Free will suggests actions originate independently of causation, which is nonsense. Determinism shows that all actions—including those aimed at creating a "better world"—are driven by prior causes. There’s no contradiction, no knot, no sleight of hand.

Your inability to see this distinction is not an indictment of determinism; it’s evidence of its explanatory power. You can’t "choose" to see the point until the necessary conditions—experience, understanding, perhaps a bit more reflection—cause it to occur to you. That’s determinism, in action, whether you like it or not.

You certainly provide a lot of food for thought. That doesn't happen often on here

[Dubious]

Every one of my existing, that is to say, still operating neurons have predetermined, prior to forcing my determination, to terminate all involvement in a thread that once again is going nowhere except for its emergence into a liquid pool of pure BS.

[accelafine]

How is it going nowhere and where is it supposed to go?