Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[henry quirk]

Big Mike is a big bust

Yes, he is. But he's fun to tussle with, so that's sumthin'.

[accelafine]

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.

What happened to being a pantheist? You get more and more 'god-bothering' by the day. It doesn't suit you.

[accelafine]

Big Mike is a big bust

Yes, he is. But he's fun to tussle with, so that's sumthin'.

Good grief.

[Dubious]

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.

John Calvin was a fucking nut case. There isn't much more to say about John Calvin!

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

Ah, right. Yes, determinism is a science concept.

[Alexiev]

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

OK. Zwingli.

Also, exceptions disprove the rule. Although I actually like contradictory proverbs:

Too many cooks spoil the broth....
but...
Many hands make light labor.

Or

Look before you leap...

but...

He who hesitates is lost.

[accelafine]

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

OK. Zwingli.

Also, exceptions disprove the rule. Although I actually like contradictory proverbs:

Too many cooks spoil the broth....
but...
Many hands make light labor.

Or

Look before you leap...

but...

He who hesitates is lost.

If it's an exception then the rest must follow 'the rule'. Duh!

[Alexiev]

If it's an exception then the rest must follow 'the rule'. Duh!

There's one way ro find out: ask Big Mike. Would an exception invalidate conservation?

[henry quirk]

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.

Who can introduce, or choose to introduce, better inputs when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

Those who understand causation can act in ways that influence others’ neural pathways

How can anyone influence, or choose to influence, another when when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

A deterministic understanding of human behavior doesn’t negate justice; it redefines it.

Who can redefine justice, or choose to redefine justice, when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

The goal shifts from punishment based on blame to prevention and rehabilitation based on understanding

How can we shift goals, or choose to shift goals, if none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

If actions are caused, then addressing the causes—poverty, trauma, mental health—reduces harmful behaviors.

Who will address the causes, or choose to address the causes, when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

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.

Who will argue persuasively, or choose to argue persuasively, when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

If this...

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.

...is true, then expecting a better world, or just a better man, is no more likely by way of your scheme than getting The Old Man and the Sea from a chimp at a typewriter is.

[henry quirk]

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.

Ah, right. Yes, determinism is a science concept.

We're told that, yes.

-----

I stand corrected (a rare thing)...

DuckAssist BETA
Determinism is primarily a philosophical concept that suggests all events, including human actions, are causally inevitable based on prior events and natural laws. However, it also intersects with scientific discussions, particularly in physics, where it relates to theories about the predictability of events in the universe.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

However I would not ever advocate for abandoning reason, that’s your take.

And i am well aware that religious conviction — the capability of believing in traditional senses — is in an afflicted state.

What this means is another topic of conversation.

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."

It adds to the conversation very definitely, but depends on who the participants are.

I don’t dismiss the explanatory power of the science-determinism perspective within its domain. But what “faith” means at this point in intellectual history — that is another conversation.

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.

Not weak. Apropos! You seek an explanatory model that is final and absolute. You certainly do not see that need as “pathological” and I see it as an attempt to to fulfill a deep (human) need. In this sense “doctrines held as absolute facts” fits your project.

..,at least it’s tethered to reality.

“Tethering” is an interesting word. While I understand what you mean by that, I am quite uncertain if you, Big Mike, are “tethered to reality”.

But really, that is another aspect of this conversation.

[godelian]

Ah, right. Yes, determinism is a science concept.

No, it is not scientific concept but a mathematical one.

It requires an idealized computational environment. It also requires an idealized axiomatic theory of everything (ToE).

Science does not deal with any of that. Determinism does not have anything to do with experimental testing. Furthermore, science is never axiomatic, which is a firm requirement in dealing with the issue.

ChatGPT: Assuming infinite computational capacity, does determinism imply that every state of the universe is predictable from the theory of everything?

Yes, assuming infinite computational capacity, determinism does imply that every state of the universe is predictable from the Theory of Everything (TOE).

Key Assumptions

1. Determinism:

Determinism means that the current state of the universe and the laws of the TOE uniquely determine all future and past states.

2. Infinite Computational Capacity:

With infinite computational resources, any calculation, no matter how complex or computationally expensive, can be performed without limitations.

3. Perfect Knowledge of Initial Conditions and Laws:

Predictability also requires exact knowledge of the current state of the universe (initial conditions) and the correct TOE.

Why Determinism Implies Predictability Under These Conditions
...

Conclusion

If we assume infinite computational capacity, perfect knowledge of initial conditions, and a deterministic TOE, then every state of the universe is theoretically predictable. Under these idealized conditions, determinism implies predictability because there are no computational or informational barriers to deriving future or past states from the laws of the TOE.

Science can almost never contribute to answering philosophical questions. Mathematics sometimes can.

[accelafine]

If it's an exception then the rest must follow 'the rule'. Duh!

There's one way ro find out: ask Big Mike. Would an exception invalidate conservation?

Whatever that even means...

[henry quirk]

Poor man's AI sez...

DuckAssist BETA
Determinism is primarily a philosophical concept that suggests all events, including human actions, are causally inevitable based on prior events and natural laws. However, it also intersects with scientific discussions, particularly in physics, where it relates to theories about the predictability of events in the universe.

[accelafine]

.