Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[accelafine]

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.

Well said. He won't refute any of it because he can't. You will get a 'meh' and a 'blah blah meat' and that will be it.

[henry quirk]

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.

Oh sure, a different discussion might be more complex, but not the one in this thread. Here, it's Mike as the rep for a material determinism vs those who advocate for a libertarian/metaphysical free will. Here, what's on the table really is the simple question: are we meat or are we more?

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.

Yep, unscrupulous types do twist things to advantage themselves. But let's not mix up blame with responsibility.

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.

You're right. If man had no true choice, if his thoughts and actions were causally inevitable, then he could bear no responsibility, never be accountable, and couldn't be redeemed.

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

Oh, I only refuted a lil...mostly I recast 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.

[BigMike]

As I said...

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

Henry, the self-proclaimed sage who mistakes smug one-liners for substantive critique. Your repetition of "Mike is a free will talkin' to free wills" is as intellectually barren as it is predictable. It's almost endearing—like watching someone repeatedly try to open a locked door with the wrong key, convinced it’s everyone else’s problem.

Let me simplify this for you, though I suspect nuance isn’t your forte: I’m not "miffed" because I can’t sway anyone; I’m amused by how your stubborn misrepresentation of determinism keeps you circling the same shallow arguments. You’re like a child scribbling on a chalkboard, thinking you’ve solved quantum mechanics. Your entire shtick hinges on a willful ignorance of the deterministic framework I’ve outlined—an ignorance that does little more than showcase your inability to engage with ideas that challenge your comfort zone.

So keep throwing your one-note taunts, Henry. They’re as hollow and uninspired as the free will delusion you cling to. But don’t mistake your refusal to engage with the argument as a victory—it’s just a loud declaration of your intellectual limitations.

[accelafine]

meat

What did I say?

[promethean75]

We may henceforth know Henry as Uncle Meat

[Dubious]

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.

You're right. If man had no true choice, if his thoughts and actions were causally inevitable, then he could bear no responsibility, never be accountable, and couldn't be redeemed.

Humans are definitely accountable which determinism, if understood correctly, does not prevent them in any way from being. But the quandary here is evident in the fact that it's not merely used as a way to make humans responsible for sinning in its usual secular manner but to image Christ as a redeemer of our sins which is pretty much the central core of Christianity.

Free will thereby becomes fundamental to Christianity which cannot justify itself without that upholding concept.

Aside from that, seriously! What idiot, god or man, would sacrifice themselves for the sins of man who long sinned before the sacrifice and continued to sin even more afterwards when Christians became the main proponents who made sure to flagellate themselves in retribution for their scurrilous free will episodes?

Though often conflated, discussing free will on a philosophic basis is much different than centralizing it as a religious mandate.

[BigMike]

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.

You're right. If man had no true choice, if his thoughts and actions were causally inevitable, then he could bear no responsibility, never be accountable, and couldn't be redeemed.

Humans are definitely accountable which determinism, if understood correctly, does not prevent them in any way from being. But the quandary here is evident in the fact that it's not merely used as a way to make humans responsible for sinning in its usual secular manner but to image Christ as a redeemer of our sins which is pretty much the central core of Christianity.

Free will thereby becomes fundamental to Christianity which cannot justify itself without that upholding concept.

Aside from that, seriously! What idiot, god or man, would sacrifice themselves for the sins of man who long sinned before the sacrifice and continued to sin even more afterwards when Christians became the main proponents who made sure to flagellate themselves in retribution for their scurrilous free will episodes?

Though often conflated, discussing free will on a philosophic basis is much different than centralizing it as a religious mandate.

Dubious, your sardonic commentary cuts through the theological absurdities with surgical precision. Let’s address the core of this tangled mess: the necessity of free will to justify the Christian narrative of sin, accountability, and redemption. It’s a theological house of cards, propped up by the precarious notion that humans are endowed with some mystical capacity to "choose freely," thus earning their cosmic guilt.

If, as determinism makes abundantly clear, our thoughts and actions are causally inevitable, then the idea of moral responsibility rooted in metaphysical free will collapses. And with it crumbles the entire framework of sin and redemption upon which Christianity rests. What kind of deity sets up this perverse charade—creating beings incapable of acting outside the deterministic web and then holding them eternally accountable for actions they couldn’t have avoided? And then, as if this wasn’t ridiculous enough, sacrifices itself (to itself, no less) as a solution to the problem it created. The absurdity is staggering.

Your point about flagellation—both literal and metaphorical—is apt. Christianity’s obsession with guilt and self-punishment is rooted in this fabricated notion of free will. It’s not about fostering understanding or addressing the deterministic causes of harmful behavior; it’s about perpetuating a cycle of blame, shame, and empty atonement.

As you rightly note, philosophical discussions of free will are categorically different from its use as a religious mandate. In philosophy, free will is dissected, questioned, and often debunked. In religion, it’s sanctified, wielded as a tool to manipulate and control. The two couldn’t be more at odds. So, let’s keep free will where it belongs—in the realm of philosophical critique—and leave the theological justifications for sin and redemption to unravel under their own weight.

[Immanuel Can]

Henry, the self-proclaimed sage who mistakes smug one-liners for substantive critique.

This is what he has, Henry: a blank stare of incomprehension, repetition, and a posture of assumed superiority.

Big Mike is a big bust. Either he can't comprehend the very obvious self-contradictions in his understanding of Determinism, or he simply will not understand them, because he's afraid to lose the point.

Either way, he's firing blanks.

You were right. There isn't anything that can be done for him.

[BigMike]

Henry, the self-proclaimed sage who mistakes smug one-liners for substantive critique.

This is what he has, Henry: a blank stare of incomprehension, repetition, and a posture of assumed superiority.

Big Mike is a big bust. Either he can't comprehend the very obvious self-contradictions in his understanding of Determinism, or he simply will not understand them, because he's afraid to lose the point.

Either way, he's firing blanks.

You were right. There isn't anything that can be done for him.

Ah, Immanuel Can, ever the master of projection. Your condescension and transparent attempts at intellectual dismissal are a poor cover for your inability to engage meaningfully with the argument at hand. Let’s be honest: your critique of determinism amounts to little more than repetitive hand-waving about supposed “self-contradictions” without ever actually identifying one.

You accuse me of "firing blanks," but your own contributions are little more than empty noise—unsupported claims dressed up as conclusions. If there were a genuine contradiction in my position, surely someone of your supposed intellectual caliber could articulate it instead of resorting to vague insinuations and appeals to the peanut gallery.

And as for "nothing can be done for him," perhaps you should consider that your failure to sway me—or anyone paying attention—has less to do with my stubbornness and more to do with the inadequacy of your arguments. You’re not dealing with a lack of comprehension here, Immanuel—you’re dealing with a lack of substance on your end.

[Alexiev]

Humans are definitely accountable which determinism, if understood correctly, does not prevent them in any way from being. But the quandary here is evident in the fact that it's not merely used as a way to make humans responsible for sinning in its usual secular manner but to image Christ as a redeemer of our sins which is pretty much the central core of Christianity.

Free will thereby becomes fundamental to Christianity which cannot justify itself without that upholding concept.

Aside from that, seriously! What idiot, god or man, would sacrifice themselves for the sins of man who long sinned before the sacrifice and continued to sin even more afterwards when Christians became the main proponents who made sure to flagellate themselves in retribution for their scurrilous free will episodes?

Though often conflated, discussing free will on a philosophic basis is much different than centralizing it as a religious mandate.

Have you never heard of John Calvin? He (and his followers) would dispute your notion that free will is fundamental to Christianity. I'm no theologian, and can't explain the Calvinist view of predestination expertly, but it seems naive to assert Christian universals that are clearly not universal. I'll grant that many Christians (like IC) despise heretics more than non-believers, and think of Calvinists as heretics. But perhaps Big Mike would welcome Calvinists to this discussion, although I doubt he numbers himself among the elect.

[henry quirk]

Your entire shtick hinges on a willful ignorance of the deterministic framework I’ve outlined

Here it is, Mike...

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.

...your framework.

1-Tell me, Mike, how are we supposed to reform the world into a kinder, gentler place when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

2-How, Mike, can we reform the justice system when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

3-How, Mike, are we to disabuse ourselves of our wrong-think when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

it is predictable

Here's what's predictable...

You won't answer those 3 questions.

[BigMike]

Your entire shtick hinges on a willful ignorance of the deterministic framework I’ve outlined

Here it is, Mike...

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.

...your framework.

1-Tell me, Mike, how are we supposed to reform the world into a kinder, gentler place when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

2-How, Mike, can we reform the justice system when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

3-How, Mike, are we to disabuse ourselves of our wrong-think when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

it is predictable

Here's what's predictable...

You won't answer those 3 questions.

Ah, Henry, your predictable bluster wrapped in rhetorical posturing, as though simply repeating "none of us control our thoughts" renders determinism incoherent. Let’s address your questions, not because they pose some great challenge, but because they demonstrate your ongoing misunderstanding of what determinism entails.

1. Reforming the world: Determinism doesn’t mean we sit idly by, paralyzed by inevitability. Change occurs through causation. If our thoughts and decisions are shaped by external inputs, then introducing better inputs—education, exposure to new ideas, and systemic improvements—shapes better outcomes. Those who understand causation can act in ways that influence others’ neural pathways toward more constructive behavior. Reform isn’t magic; it’s deterministic.

2. Reforming the justice system: A deterministic understanding of human behavior doesn’t negate justice; it redefines it. The goal shifts from punishment based on blame to prevention and rehabilitation based on understanding. If actions are caused, then addressing the causes—poverty, trauma, mental health—reduces harmful behaviors. This approach is not only consistent with determinism but more effective than punitive systems that assume free will.

3. Disabusing wrong-think: Disabusing wrong-think happens through causally driven processes like dialogue, education, and experience. You’re not stuck forever with the thoughts you have now; neural plasticity allows new connections to form, influenced by repetition and exposure to better reasoning. Those of us "stuck in wrong-think" are deterministically nudged toward better thinking when exposed to persuasive arguments—assuming we have the intellectual humility to engage.

So, Henry, your three questions aren’t the gotchas you think they are. They’re just more evidence of your refusal to engage with the implications of determinism. You wield your misunderstanding like a blunt instrument, but it only highlights your inability to grapple with nuance. Predictable, indeed.

[henry quirk]

Humans are definitely accountable which determinism, if understood correctly, does not prevent them in any way from being.

Then you and Mike disagree. He 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 there ain't no way a man can be accountable in that scheme.

But the quandary here is evident in the fact that it's not merely used as a way to make humans responsible for sinning in its usual secular manner but to image Christ as a redeemer of our sins which is pretty much the central core of Christianity.

I don't see the quandary. God created man, man chose sumthin' other than God, God let man suffer the consequence of his bad choice and then offered man redemption.

Free will thereby becomes fundamental to Christianity which cannot justify itself without that upholding concept.

Like I said: If man had no true choice, if his thoughts and actions were causally inevitable, then he could bear no responsibility, never be accountable, and couldn't be redeemed. And he wouldn't need to be. If man is not a free will then he is as Mike describes him. And, as I say, there ain't no way a man can be accountable in that scheme.

What idiot, god or man, would sacrifice themselves for the sins of man who long sinned before the sacrifice and continued to sin even more afterward

A loving one. A hopeful one. One who has faith in us even when we have no faith in Him.

when Christians became the main proponents who made sure to flagellate themselves in retribution for their scurrilous free will episodes?

You know folks who do that, especially in God's name, have lost the narrative, right? They aren't the baseline, nor should they be.

[accelafine]

Humans are definitely accountable which determinism, if understood correctly, does not prevent them in any way from being. But the quandary here is evident in the fact that it's not merely used as a way to make humans responsible for sinning in its usual secular manner but to image Christ as a redeemer of our sins which is pretty much the central core of Christianity.

Free will thereby becomes fundamental to Christianity which cannot justify itself without that upholding concept.

Aside from that, seriously! What idiot, god or man, would sacrifice themselves for the sins of man who long sinned before the sacrifice and continued to sin even more afterwards when Christians became the main proponents who made sure to flagellate themselves in retribution for their scurrilous free will episodes?

Though often conflated, discussing free will on a philosophic basis is much different than centralizing it as a religious mandate.

Have you never heard of John Calvin? He (and his followers) would dispute your notion that free will is fundamental to Christianity. I'm no theologian, and can't explain the Calvinist view of predestination expertly, but it seems naive to assert Christian universals that are clearly not universal. I'll grant that many Christians (like IC) despise heretics more than non-believers, and think of Calvinists as heretics. But perhaps Big Mike would welcome Calvinists to this discussion, although I doubt he numbers himself among the elect.

It's quite absurd to single out the ONE exception. There is a saying: The exception proves the rule.