Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexiev]

"Ah, Belinda, your invocation of the leap of faith into free will warrants a closer look"

I love how Mike B always begins his post by an overdone recognition of the excellence of the question posed to him... like a professor pacing before a chalkboard who suddenly stops, turns on his heel, and points to a student with his pointer announcing, "an excellent question, Belinda, and, indeed, one we must take a closer look at! Now then, as we established earlier... [begins pacing again with one hand tucked behind him]

Excellent point, prom. How perceptive of you!

Polite syphocancy is so rare in this forum that we should appreciate it. It's certainly more pleasant than the penchant of one poster (who has won numerous awards for her skillful writing) to redundantly litter her posts with the words "wanker" and "wokie".

[Atla]

"Ah, Belinda, your invocation of the leap of faith into free will warrants a closer look"

I love how Mike B always begins his post by an overdone recognition of the excellence of the question posed to him... like a professor pacing before a chalkboard who suddenly stops, turns on his heel, and points to a student with his pointer announcing, "an excellent question, Belinda, and, indeed, one we must take a closer look at! Now then, as we established earlier... [begins pacing again with one hand tucked behind him]

Excellent point, prom. How perceptive of you!

Polite syphocancy is so rare in this forum that we should appreciate it. It's certainly more pleasant than the penchant of one poster (who has won numerous awards for her skillful writing) to redundantly litter her posts with the words "wanker" and "wokie".

Like, spelling contest awards?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your so-called refusal, your decision to "stay in bed," arises from the same causal web that brought you to this moment. Your environment, your mental state, your past experiences—all these factors converge to make that refusal inevitable.

Ah ha! I got you! I did not stay in bed! I slithered under the bed and non-did a very different thing: I seemed played a hand of solitaire while counting backwards from 1,000. I did not will these actions in any conventional sense, but came under the influence of sheer acausality!

[Belinda]

Your so-called refusal, your decision to "stay in bed," arises from the same causal web that brought you to this moment. Your environment, your mental state, your past experiences—all these factors converge to make that refusal inevitable.

Ah ha! I got you! I did not stay in bed! I slithered under the bed and non-did a very different thing: I seemed played a hand of solitaire while counting backwards from 1,000. I did not will these actions in any conventional sense, but came under the influence of sheer acausality!

Is there genuinely absolute randomness? You learned how to play solitaire and how to count backwards!

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: Do I think your “edifice” is compelling? Given your terms I see and understand the conceptual formula you apply. And if I remain — conceptually — within that structure, yes, I agree that it and everything about us can all be seen as “emergent phenomena” located in the physical brain-computer. That is really what your position is.

The curious thing here is to ponder the larger implications: if (or when) humankind is absolutely erased, then all ‘brains’ with their emergent (false-) metaphysics ideas — everything that makes the human — disappears.

But what about before humankind existed? Did everything that we now conceive of not exist prior to our arrival (emergence if you wish)? And when we are no longer existent, what then?

What about before anything and everything emerged from that singular point? And what about after?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ontic Free Will is incompatible with determinism and is a superstition and a reification of relative freedom to choose.

Thus the “free will” conceived of requires relationship, in whatever degree, with some force, power or potential that exists outside of the causal web.

I am now inspired to begin work on a whole other section of The Course where I explain how that is done! You see? You have provided me with an Archimedean lever with which I will now move the world!

[BigMike]

What’s fascinating is that you don’t need to pretend free will exists to recognize your ability to make decisions and influence outcomes. Understanding that those decisions are shaped by prior causes doesn’t undermine your agency; it grounds it in reality. So by all means, get out of bed and do what you feel compelled to do. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that pretending free will exists somehow gives us powers we wouldn’t otherwise have. Determinism is what enables you to act, not what prevents it.

Finally — in any case from my perspective — you seem to be stuck in rhetorical loops, undergirded by a reductionist “scientism”, that bizarrely negates the notion of genuine agency that seems to be of vital importance to you (personally), and renders your philosophy into neurosis.

I extend my hand to you and I promise to help you and, if you will cooperate, to cure you! Determine, by an act if your will, to accept my nudge to cause the hi-fi needle to jump the track so that the song can continue!

With that said, it is 5:15 AM, cold, with a thin layer of frosted snow covering the ground. I am required to be up and at ‘em; a clear causal chain leading to this moment in time when responsibility demands that I get up, right now, and perform an array of preordained tasks, but I refuse! I will not get up. I am staying in bed and defying causation and, to a degree, my duty as a responsible citizen and earthling!

Your playful defiance of causation—your refusal to rise from bed in the early frost—might seem like a rebellion against determinism, but it is, in fact, a beautifully determined moment of epiphenomenal agency at work. You’re not defying causation; you’re embodying it.

The agency I speak of is epiphenomenal, a byproduct of the very neuronal processes that cause the action. It doesn’t exist as an independent force, nor does it drive causation in the metaphysical sense. Instead, it’s the subjective experience of being a participant in the chain of events already set in motion by your brain’s physical processes. As I’ve said before, a man can’t do what he wills; he wills what he does. Your "refusal" to get out of bed arises from those same physical processes, shaped by prior causes, and your experience of agency is merely the mental sidecar of that causal journey.

To frame your refusal as defiance is itself a product of your brain’s processes—a narrative constructed after the fact, not a driver of it. This is what determinism elucidates so beautifully: you feel as though you’re choosing, but the choice is the result of innumerable prior influences converging at this moment.

So, Alexis, your frosty morning rebellion is not a glitch in the deterministic matrix but a perfect example of its elegance. The song doesn’t stop because of a "hi-fi needle jump"; it continues seamlessly, with every note—your thoughts, decisions, and actions—flowing from the same causal melody. Refuse, rebel, resist—it’s all part of the music determinism plays, whether you recognize it or not.

[Immanuel Can]

The agency I speak of is epiphenomenal...

He doesn't know what "epiphenomenal" means, Alexis. He thinks it's some new kind of material causality.

[BigMike]

The agency I speak of is epiphenomenal...

He doesn't know what "epiphenomenal" means, Alexis. He thinks it's some new kind of material causality.

Immanuel Can, your condescension is as misplaced as your understanding of epiphenomenalism. To clarify for you, since nuance seems to escape you: epiphenomenalism doesn’t claim to be a “new kind of material causality.” It acknowledges that agency and conscious experience are byproducts of physical processes, not drivers of them. If you’re going to critique, at least ensure you grasp the basics—your ignorance is showing, and it’s not a good look.

[Immanuel Can]

He doesn't know what "epiphenomenal" means, Alexis. He thinks it's some new kind of material causality.

To clarify for you, since nuance seems to escape you: epiphenomenalism doesn’t claim to be a “new kind of material causality.”It acknowledges that agency and conscious experience are byproducts of physical processes, not drivers of them.

These "byproducts" of yours are no part of the causal chain, by definition (See, for example, Stanford). So that means that in the question of why things happen (i.e. how they are caused), the "epiphenomena" can play no role at all. They don't do anything. But you keep trotting these "epiphenomena" out, as if they are causally explicatory.

So you need to do your research...expecially before you try to convince people of your excessively great knowledge.

[BigMike]

He doesn't know what "epiphenomenal" means, Alexis. He thinks it's some new kind of material causality.

To clarify for you, since nuance seems to escape you: epiphenomenalism doesn’t claim to be a “new kind of material causality.”It acknowledges that agency and conscious experience are byproducts of physical processes, not drivers of them.

These "byproducts" of yours are no part of the causal chain, by definition (See, for example, Stanford). So that means that in the question of why things happen (i.e. how they are caused), the "epiphenomena" can play no role at all. They don't do anything. But you keep trotting these "epiphenomena" out, as if they are causally explicatory.

So you need to do your research...expecially before you try to convince people of your excessively great knowledge.

Your desperate need to appear clever is almost endearing. Yes, epiphenomena are byproducts and, by definition, are not causal drivers—but that’s the entire point. The agency I reference is not causally efficacious; it is the subjective experience of processes already determined by the causal chain. It doesn’t "do" anything—it’s how we experience the deterministic workings of our brains.

Your attempt to lecture on epiphenomenalism while clearly failing to grasp its role in the context of determinism is, frankly, embarrassing. Perhaps you should take your own advice about research before presuming to critique concepts you barely understand.

[Immanuel Can]

To clarify for you, since nuance seems to escape you: epiphenomenalism doesn’t claim to be a “new kind of material causality.”It acknowledges that agency and conscious experience are byproducts of physical processes, not drivers of them.

These "byproducts" of yours are no part of the causal chain, by definition (See, for example, Stanford). So that means that in the question of why things happen (i.e. how they are caused), the "epiphenomena" can play no role at all. They don't do anything. But you keep trotting these "epiphenomena" out, as if they are causally explicatory.

Yes, epiphenomena are byproducts and, by definition, are not causal drivers—but that’s the entire point.

Then the synonym for "epiphenomenon" is "irrelevancy" -- at least in the case of the present discussion.

According to you, it does absolutely nothing whatsoever in the generating of action our outcomes. It's a "waste byproduct," so to speak, a delusion we carry in our heads, and no more than that.

So you can save your breath. "Epiphenomena" are descriptions of "nothings," so far as Determinism is concerned. They don't even need to be mentioned, one would think.

[BigMike]

These "byproducts" of yours are no part of the causal chain, by definition (See, for example, Stanford). So that means that in the question of why things happen (i.e. how they are caused), the "epiphenomena" can play no role at all. They don't do anything. But you keep trotting these "epiphenomena" out, as if they are causally explicatory.

Yes, epiphenomena are byproducts and, by definition, are not causal drivers—but that’s the entire point.

Then the synonym for "epiphenomenon" is "irrelevancy" -- at least in the case of the present discussion.

According to you, it does absolutely nothing whatsoever in the generating of action our outcomes. It's a "waste byproduct," so to speak, a delusion we carry in our heads, and no more than that.

So you can save your breath. "Epiphenomena" are descriptions of "nothings," so far as Determinism is concerned. They don't even need to be mentioned, one would think.

Ah, Immanuel Can, your insistence on dismissing epiphenomena as "irrelevancies" only highlights your superficial grasp of the subject. The fact that epiphenomena are not causal drivers does not render them irrelevant—it makes them integral to understanding the subjective experience within a deterministic framework. They are "waste byproducts" only to those who mistake their explanatory purpose.

Epiphenomena, such as the experience of agency, are how we interpret and narrate the deterministic processes driving our actions. They don’t generate outcomes, but they are the way those outcomes are experienced and understood. Ignoring them would mean ignoring the very lens through which humans comprehend their existence—an ironic oversight for someone so fixated on asserting relevance.

Dismiss them if you must, but your failure to grasp their role in bridging the deterministic chain with human perception only underscores the inadequacy of your critique. Keep calling them "nothings" if it makes you feel better—it changes nothing about their significance to this discussion.

[henry quirk]

Mike sez...

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.

...and yet he continues to engage everyone as though they were free wills.

Most telling: he chastises others for their wrong-think as if they actually have some say-so over their own thinking.

How can we explain a determinist who doesn't act like a determinist givin' grief to other folks over what his determinism sez they have no control over?

Easy.

Mike is a free will talkin' to free wills, and he's miffed cuz he can't sway them.

[Atla]

epiphenomenalism doesn’t claim to be a “new kind of material causality.” It acknowledges that agency and conscious experience are byproducts of physical processes, not drivers of them.

What are "byproducts" of physical processes?