Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexis Jacobi]

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

Ok, Ok, bear with me, I am doing this on the fly …

Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name

Ontic Force who art outside of all causation, a sacred Power you can only be.

Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven

This Larger Will that is distinct from my will, I choose to cooperate with that, and see its Effects take shape in the causal realm.

Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us

We live within a Causal Web and depend on it for material sustenance, help us to see the degree to which we are victims of pre-determined, causal patters, as are all people we know and have relationships with.

And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil, amen

Knowing what we know, seeing and understanding what is true about our condition, allow the finer tuning of a Superior Will to properly tune our own “strings” and guide us away from material and causal traps.

Make it so …

[Alexis Jacobi]

Mike, I am trying to forge a Marriage between the rigidity of your sciency views, and my own deeply intuited sense of how things really, or ultimately, are …

If you have benefited from this please consider a $99.00 gift directly to me (DM me for details).

[Immanuel Can]

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.

I didn't. You do.

You, yourself insist that epiphenomena are utterly irrelevant to the question of causality. And then, of course, you take that all back and pretend you can believe they're relevant again.

Just pick a horse and ride it. Those who swap in midstream end up only muddying the waters.

Epiphenomena, such as the experience of agency, are how we interpret and narrate the deterministic processes driving our actions.

Your forgot the word "wrongly." We interpret them "wrongly" as our choices, when in fact, we're just robots to Determinism. That's what you mean, really. So they're mere delusions. And that's a good deal worse even than "nothing."

[henry quirk]

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

Ok, Ok, bear with me, I am doing this on the fly …

Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name

Ontic Force who art outside of all causation, a sacred Power you can only be.

Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven

This Larger Will that is distinct from my will, I choose to cooperate with that, and see its Effects take shape in the causal realm.

Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us

We live within a Causal Web and depend on it for material sustenance, help us to see the degree to which we are victims of pre-determined, causal patters, as are all people we know and have relationships with.

And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil, amen

Knowing what we know, seeing and understanding what is true about our condition, allow the finer tuning of a Superior Will to properly tune my own “strings” and guide me away from material and causal traps.

Make it so …

I don't entirely agree with your interpretation but I endorse it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't entirely agree with your interpretation but I endorse it.

What is interesting is that in Mike’s system there is no longer a non-material “ontic” entity as there had been for all of our history (speaking of Europe), and therefore such a “lever” and fulcrum is non-conceivable to him. It has been explained away …

It is only within the epiphenomena of the computer-brain, when the life-switch is in the on position, that a trillion-circuited electrical board of the self lights up, and holographic man dances for an infinitesimal moment, knowing this, understanding that, darting here, darting there …

Whereas, the other available concept — and Mike has pushed me in this direction like a determined 8 ball — is just as I say: to resolve to make an appeal on one level or another to what is the Origin Point of all of this …

That conceptual point standing outside of the causal web …

The question though is really less in a concept held in the mind, but what is really & truly true.

And that is known in the realm of subjective experience.

[BigMike]

I don't entirely agree with your interpretation but I endorse it.

What is interesting is that in Mike’s system there is no longer a non-material “ontic” entity as there had been for all of our history (speaking of Europe), and therefore such a “lever” and fulcrum is non-conceivable to him. It has been explained away …

It is only within the epiphenomena of the computer-brain, when the life-switch is in the on position, that a trillion-circuited electrical board of the self lights up, and holographic man dances for an infinitesimal moment, knowing this, understanding that, darting here, darting there …

Whereas, the other available concept — and Mike has pushed me in this direction like a determined 8 ball — is just as I say: to resolve to make an appeal on one level or another to what is the Origin Point of all of this …

That conceptual point standing outside of the causal web …

The question though is really less in a concept held in the mind, but what is really & truly true.

And that is known in the realm of subjective experience.

Alexis, ever the poet, weaving grandiose imagery of the "trillion-circuited electrical board" and "holographic man dancing for an infinitesimal moment." Your prose is colorful, but your argument remains as vaporous as your "conceptual point standing outside the causal web."

Let me be clear: the absence of a metaphysical "ontic" entity isn’t some tragic loss—it’s a liberation from the unnecessary baggage of unfounded assumptions. The deterministic framework doesn’t "explain away" agency; it redefines it in a way that aligns with observable reality. Agency doesn’t need a mystical lever or a conceptual fulcrum outside causality to exist. It emerges, wholly and unapologetically, from the interactions within the system.

Your appeal to an "Origin Point" that somehow exists outside causation is nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. If such a point "stands outside the causal web," it becomes inaccessible to explanation, reason, or evidence—a placeholder for ignorance cloaked in grandiosity.

And your final invocation of "the realm of subjective experience" as the arbiter of truth is precisely the kind of solipsistic thinking that prevents genuine understanding. Subjective experience is valuable for interpreting our place within the deterministic web, but to elevate it as the ultimate measure of truth is to surrender to whim and illusion.

So, Alexis, continue to paint your metaphysical murals if you must, but don’t mistake them for answers. They’re just pretty distractions from the hard, deterministic reality that underpins everything, including your musings about what stands "outside" it.

[henry quirk]

As I said...

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

[henry quirk]

What is interesting is that in Mike’s system there is no longer a non-material “ontic” entity

God has never been in determinism. That's kinda the whole point of determinism.

[Dubious]

In discussing free will - a phrase or concept somewhat oxymoronic in itself - depends upon who draws the best cards in a game of verbal poker in its defence or improbability. It is as it has always been. The term free will lacks the precision to bring it to some semblance of being resolved.

[henry quirk]

It ain't complicated, dub.

It's libertarian/metaphysical free will vs material determinism.

Are we sunthin' more than material or are we just meat?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your appeal to an "Origin Point" that somehow exists outside causation is nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. If such a point "stands outside the causal web," it becomes inaccessible to explanation, reason, or evidence—a placeholder for ignorance cloaked in grandiosity.

Actually it is more than merely a rhetorical flourish and the allusion involves matters of real consequence.

What you cannot explain and will never be able to explain is existence itself — that in which we live and have this interpretive conversation. Being and existence are not susceptible to “explanation, reason, or evidence” and so (in my view) always invoke awe and also mystery. As we all know science has nothing to say about this. Therefore, we turn to other means of understanding when we confront that.

What you do, without really understanding that you are doing it, is essentially to explain away an entire relevant endeavor (of man). My suggestion to you is not to do that with such contrived force and a concocted certainty. People have thought, felt and understood many different things (about life) that you can do nought else but negate.

However, the labyrinth of mystical belief is a whole other topic. And where we stand now — in a sort of netherworld of neither here nor there — we have to face the facts about the uncertainty and non-solidity of that perceptual position.

And your final invocation of "the realm of subjective experience" as the arbiter of truth is precisely the kind of solipsistic thinking that prevents genuine understanding. Subjective experience is valuable for interpreting our place within the deterministic web, but to elevate it as the ultimate measure of truth is to surrender to whim and illusion.

I did not say “the arbiter of all truth” and I refer to a special realm where other truths apply. Science truths are certainly real. But they are not final. And people also live in accord with other sorts of truths that are, in your case, inconsiderable.

Your “doctrines felt as absolute facts” keep you, let’s say, locked within a loop where only your doctrines are “real”.

Please, read Chapter 13 in the 4th section in Part 6 of The Course. I employ mathematical diagramming to elicit full understanding. And since you have a mathematical mind I feel I might in this way get through to you. I accept all credit cards, PayPal, etc.

[Alexis Jacobi]

God has never been in determinism. That's kinda the whole point of determinism.

Except in Calvinism as IC has pointed out.

[henry quirk]

God has never been in determinism. That's kinda the whole point of determinism.

Except in Calvinism as IC has pointed out.

Well, I think in calvinism it's predestination, not determinism, but I guess that's just splittin' hairs.

[Dubious]

It ain't complicated, dub.

It's libertarian/metaphysical free will vs material determinism.

Are we sunthin' more than material or are we just meat?

Actually it is more complicated than whether we're nothing more than just meat. Free will has more of a theistic origin than a philosophic one. At any rate, they would be discussed differently depending on context. Free will has been consistently utilized as a method to enhance the responsibility for sin upon humans. Sin has been the constant motive since the story of Adam and Eve first came on the scene as the original sinners. Without the free will concept Christ's sacrifice would have made no sense which is why theists will go to any length to defend it.

But having said as much, I'm nearly certain you will refute all of it.

[BigMike]

Your appeal to an "Origin Point" that somehow exists outside causation is nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. If such a point "stands outside the causal web," it becomes inaccessible to explanation, reason, or evidence—a placeholder for ignorance cloaked in grandiosity.

Actually it is more than merely a rhetorical flourish and the allusion involves matters of real consequence.

What you cannot explain and will never be able to explain is existence itself — that in which we live and have this interpretive conversation. Being and existence are not susceptible to “explanation, reason, or evidence” and so (in my view) always invoke awe and also mystery. As we all know science has nothing to say about this. Therefore, we turn to other means of understanding when we confront that.

What you do, without really understanding that you are doing it, is essentially to explain away an entire relevant endeavor (of man). My suggestion to you is not to do that with such contrived force and a concocted certainty. People have thought, felt and understood many different things (about life) that you can do nought else but negate.

However, the labyrinth of mystical belief is a whole other topic. And where we stand now — in a sort of netherworld of neither here nor there — we have to face the facts about the uncertainty and non-solidity of that perceptual position.

And your final invocation of "the realm of subjective experience" as the arbiter of truth is precisely the kind of solipsistic thinking that prevents genuine understanding. Subjective experience is valuable for interpreting our place within the deterministic web, but to elevate it as the ultimate measure of truth is to surrender to whim and illusion.

I did not say “the arbiter of all truth” and I refer to a special realm where other truths apply. Science truths are certainly real. But they are not final. And people also live in accord with other sorts of truths that are, in your case, inconsiderable.

Your “doctrines felt as absolute facts” keep you, let’s say, locked within a loop where only your doctrines are “real”.

Please, read Chapter 13 in the 4th section in Part 6 of The Course. I employ mathematical diagramming to elicit full understanding. And since you have a mathematical mind I feel I might in this way get through to you. I accept all credit cards, PayPal, etc.

You never fail to cloak your retreat into mysticism with a veil of poetic gravitas. Your "Origin Point" is just another term for what has long been a refuge for the unexplainable—a placeholder for human ignorance dressed up as profundity. You accuse me of "explaining away" an "entire relevant endeavor of man," but what you champion isn’t relevance—it’s intellectual resignation.

Yes, existence itself is awe-inspiring, and yes, it invokes mystery. But mystery is not a justification for abandoning reason or evidence in favor of metaphysical indulgence. The fact that science doesn’t yet explain the ultimate nature of existence doesn’t mean it won’t, nor does it mean we should turn to vague invocations of a mystical realm to fill the gaps.

As for your claim that subjective experience reveals "special truths," let’s not pretend this adds anything to the discussion. Subjective experience is indeed a rich part of life, but elevating it as a source of "other sorts of truths" without defining or substantiating them simply muddies the waters. Are these truths actionable? Are they consistent? Or are they just comforting stories we tell ourselves? You dismiss the explanatory power of determinism as if rejecting it elevates your preferred metaphysics, but you provide no actual argument, just appeals to awe and an ill-defined "special realm."

Your dig about "doctrines felt as absolute facts" is a weak attempt to pathologize adherence to reason and evidence. What you label as "locked within a loop" is simply a refusal to entertain ungrounded speculation masquerading as wisdom. If that’s a loop, it’s one I’m happy to inhabit—at least it’s tethered to reality.