Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

Ultimately, determinism as a philosophical and scientific framework explains the observable world

But it doesn't, Mike. Determinism, for all its explanatory power, doesn't explain us. Any attempt to explain us, by way of materialism/physicalism/determinism, falls flat (is just plain wrong).

We, persons, are not reducible to particles and the interplay of particles.

Henry, you are made of stardust—quite literally. Every atom in your body was forged in the heart of a star, remnants of cosmic processes that predate humanity by billions of years. So if your "self," your "soul," or your "ghost" is something beyond the physical, then what, exactly, is it made of? Star "ghosts"? Ethereal stardust? Or is it just an abstraction born of the same neural and physical processes that govern your thoughts and actions?

Determinism doesn’t reduce "us" to lifeless particles; it reveals the astounding complexity and interconnectedness of the universe that made us possible. Far from falling flat, it situates us within the grand tapestry of causality—an intricate web of interactions that give rise to consciousness, creativity, and meaning.

But if you want to claim there's something about "us" that escapes this cosmic lineage, then show your work. What is this "something"? Where does it reside? And how does it interact with the physical universe you so casually dismiss as insufficient to explain the wonder of you?

[Atla]

Well Atla is only 90% stardust.

[attofishpi]

Determinism, at its core, is simply the view that all events, including human actions, arise inevitably from preceding causes according to the laws of nature. It doesn’t necessitate the existence of a deity or higher power to enforce these laws—physics, chemistry, and biology suffice. When we observe the natural world, we see consistent causal relationships that operate without the need for divine intervention. This is the determinism I align with as an atheist.

No issue there, from your POV as an atheistic determinist. (* sorry Belinda/Mike but I just must interject - of my own compatibilist will)

Your assertion that "what necessarily happens is the core meaning of 'God'" seems to redefine God in a way that strips the term of its traditional theological significance. If God is merely a synonym for nature or the deterministic unfolding of events, then it ceases to be a "being" in any meaningful sense and becomes a metaphor.

Absolutely Mike, well said. Spinoza for me was an atheist and not even a pantheist.

That’s fine, but it also makes atheism and determinism perfectly compatible. One can fully accept that the universe operates deterministically without invoking a deity.

Yep.

As for the miraculous: belief in miracles contradicts determinism because miracles, by definition, are violations of natural laws. If God occasionally “lays aside His own laws of nature,” then we are no longer in a deterministic universe; we are in one governed by arbitrary whims. This makes the miraculous incompatible with both determinism and the scientific understanding of natural processes.

This is where I disagree. Determinism still exists where there is a GOD or NOT.

Where you state there are violations of natural laws, no, mere manipulation of the laws of physics doesn't contradict determinism - it just sets the determined universe on a different causal direction. This is certainly how GOD operates IF it wants an eventual outcome. It's still a deterministic universe, but rather than mere man manipulating reality within the bounds of our current comprehension of the "laws" of physics, GOD can manipulate reality to achieve a desired outcome (outside of those laws/parameters).

If I make this same point from another angle, where you can remain atheist. Imagine indeed, we are in a simulation & the 'laws' of physics are all that we have to work with within this simulation, even though they are virtual, not 'real' but still real to our reality. If the entity that is running the simulation alters the physics 'parameters' such that a 'miracle' occurs, that doesn't stop the simulated physics operating forever in a non-deterministic way, it just means that different 'arrows' of causality can take affect.

So, if you comprehend what I am stating, you must agree that the existence of GOD does not contradict determinism. Reading your argument is why I have never liked the term "miracle".

[BigMike]

Determinism, at its core, is simply the view that all events, including human actions, arise inevitably from preceding causes according to the laws of nature. It doesn’t necessitate the existence of a deity or higher power to enforce these laws—physics, chemistry, and biology suffice. When we observe the natural world, we see consistent causal relationships that operate without the need for divine intervention. This is the determinism I align with as an atheist.

No issue there, from your POV as an atheistic determinist. (* sorry Belinda/Mike but I just must interject - of my own compatibilist will)

Your assertion that "what necessarily happens is the core meaning of 'God'" seems to redefine God in a way that strips the term of its traditional theological significance. If God is merely a synonym for nature or the deterministic unfolding of events, then it ceases to be a "being" in any meaningful sense and becomes a metaphor.

Absolutely Mike, well said. Spinoza for me was an atheist and not even a pantheist.

That’s fine, but it also makes atheism and determinism perfectly compatible. One can fully accept that the universe operates deterministically without invoking a deity.

Yep.

As for the miraculous: belief in miracles contradicts determinism because miracles, by definition, are violations of natural laws. If God occasionally “lays aside His own laws of nature,” then we are no longer in a deterministic universe; we are in one governed by arbitrary whims. This makes the miraculous incompatible with both determinism and the scientific understanding of natural processes.

This is where I disagree. Determinism still exists where there is a GOD or NOT.

Where you state there are violations of natural laws, no, mere manipulation of the laws of physics doesn't contradict determinism - it just sets the determined universe on a different causal direction. This is certainly how GOD operates IF it wants an eventual outcome. It's still a deterministic universe, but rather than mere man manipulating reality within the bounds of our current comprehension of the "laws" of physics, GOD can manipulate reality to achieve a desired outcome (outside of those laws/parameters).

If I make this same point from another angle, where you can remain atheist. Imagine indeed, we are in a simulation & the 'laws' of physics are all that we have to work with within this simulation, even though they are virtual, not 'real' but still real to our reality. If the entity that is running the simulation alters the physics 'parameters' such that a 'miracle' occurs, that doesn't stop the simulated physics operating forever in a non-deterministic way, it just means that different 'arrows' of causality can take affect.

So, if you comprehend what I am stating, you must agree that the existence of GOD does not contradict determinism. Reading your argument is why I have never liked the term "miracle".

Attofishpi, I see where you're coming from, but I think your argument stretches determinism into territory it doesn’t comfortably inhabit.

When you say that "mere manipulation of the laws of physics doesn’t contradict determinism," you're fundamentally altering the definition of determinism. Determinism, as traditionally understood, is predicated on consistent, unalterable natural laws. If a God or a simulation operator intervenes to "manipulate" those laws—be it through miracles or changing the parameters—then the system is no longer deterministic in the traditional sense. Instead, it's contingent on the whims of an external agent, introducing arbitrariness into what should be a causally consistent framework.

Your simulation analogy is intriguing but flawed. If the entity running the simulation changes the physics midstream, the simulation isn’t operating deterministically anymore—it's following the updated whims of its creator. The deterministic unfolding of the simulation is undermined by interventions that are, by definition, outside the system’s original causal chain.

The concept of miracles or divine intervention inherently contradicts determinism because it inserts uncaused causes or changes to the causal chain. Determinism requires that every event follows inevitably from prior causes without exception. Invoking a God—or a simulation operator—who can step in and change the course undermines the core premise of determinism. If miracles or interventions are possible, then the universe ceases to be deterministic and instead becomes dependent on the arbitrary decisions of this external force.

You’re effectively trying to have your cake and eat it too, preserving determinism while making room for divine or simulated interventions. That’s a philosophical contradiction. Determinism stands firm without the need for divine or arbitrary interventions, and that’s precisely why it’s so appealing as a framework for understanding the universe.

[attofishpi]

The concept of miracles or divine intervention inherently contradicts determinism because it inserts uncaused causes or changes to the causal chain. Determinism requires that every event follows inevitably from prior causes without exception.

No it doesn't insert 'un-caused' causes, it simply inserts an entity that causes causes.

Invoking a God—or a simulation operator—who can step in and change the course undermines the core premise of determinism. If miracles or interventions are possible, then the universe ceases to be deterministic and instead becomes dependent on the arbitrary decisions of this external force.

It doesn't necessarily become dependent on it Mike, just a little tweaking every now and then directing new causal chains. The universe remains deterministic, just occasionally manipulated.

You’re effectively trying to have your cake and eat it too, preserving determinism while making room for divine or simulated interventions. That’s a philosophical contradiction. Determinism stands firm without the need for divine or arbitrary interventions, and that’s precisely why it’s so appealing as a framework for understanding the universe.

Well, unfortunately for your insistence on what determines determinism, the theists have it correct. (I am not a theist)

I don't see any philosophical contradiction to GOD being a result of a determined universe, then causing a reality with the physics parameters we are able to ascertain, from the reality this entity most definitely has caused.

Other_wise. I am batshit crazy since witnessing so many mirror-coils.

[henry quirk]

Henry, you are made of stardust—quite literally.

Part of me, yeah.

if your "self," your "soul," or your "ghost" is something beyond the physical, then what, exactly, is it made of?

I don't know, Mike. Can you tell me what a quark is made of? it's physical, so surely you know. How about a photon?

show your work

You first. No assertions, no declarations, no appeal to a promissory materialism: just tell me how the brain produces the mind. Tell me how synaptic flux becomes identity. Tell me how electricity and chemicals create pride. Tell me where love lives in your brain (you do love don't you?). Tell me, Mike: show your worK.

Here's the best question of all (and, remember, no assertions, no declarations, no appeals to a promissory materialism; just present the detailed, factual, explanation): how do lifeless, mindless particles -- electrons, neutrons, protons -- create life and mind?

Tell me, Mike: show your work.

Do that then I'll try again (I began to, up-thread, but you dismissed it).

So, you first.

[BigMike]

The concept of miracles or divine intervention inherently contradicts determinism because it inserts uncaused causes or changes to the causal chain. Determinism requires that every event follows inevitably from prior causes without exception.

No it doesn't insert 'un-caused' causes, it simply inserts an entity that causes causes.

Invoking a God—or a simulation operator—who can step in and change the course undermines the core premise of determinism. If miracles or interventions are possible, then the universe ceases to be deterministic and instead becomes dependent on the arbitrary decisions of this external force.

It doesn't necessarily become dependent on it Mike, just a little tweaking every now and then directing new causal chains. The universe remains deterministic, just occasionally manipulated.

You’re effectively trying to have your cake and eat it too, preserving determinism while making room for divine or simulated interventions. That’s a philosophical contradiction. Determinism stands firm without the need for divine or arbitrary interventions, and that’s precisely why it’s so appealing as a framework for understanding the universe.

Well, unfortunately for your insistence on what determines determinism, the theists have it correct. (I am not a theist)

I don't see any philosophical contradiction to GOD being a result of a determined universe, then causing a reality with the physics parameters we are able to ascertain, from the reality this entity most definitely has caused.

Other_wise. I am batshit crazy since witnessing so many mirror-coils.

Attofishpi, your argument is running in circles and dragging the concept of determinism through the mud in the process.

You claim that inserting an "entity that causes causes" doesn’t break determinism. Seriously? Determinism hinges on the idea that every cause is part of an unbroken chain of prior causes within the system. If you insert some external entity, divine or otherwise, to meddle with that chain, then guess what? It’s no longer deterministic. It’s contingent on the whims of that external force, whether you label it "tweaking" or outright intervention.

Your insistence that "the universe remains deterministic, just occasionally manipulated," is laughable. Occasional manipulation undermines the very consistency determinism requires. If there’s an outside hand occasionally poking the system, it’s no longer a closed, causally consistent framework. You can’t have "occasional manipulation" and still call it determinism. That’s like saying a car is running on autopilot while you occasionally grab the wheel.

And your defense of theists here is bizarre. Claiming they’ve "got it correct" because you can conjure up convoluted scenarios involving "physics parameters" is not an argument—it’s intellectual handwaving. If you want to argue that an external entity exists, fine, but stop pretending it fits within a deterministic framework. It doesn’t.

As for your "mirror-coils" comment, if that’s meant to add depth or clarity, it fails. Instead of appealing to personal anecdotes, how about sticking to coherent reasoning? If your argument relies on redefining determinism to include arbitrary interventions, then all you’re doing is twisting definitions to fit your narrative. That’s not philosophy—that’s desperation.

[henry quirk]

And while you're craftin' your response to my last post, give this one a shot too...

Henry, are you seriously suggesting that a 100% deterministic AI can learn and adapt while deterministic humans—whose brains are vastly more complex—cannot?

Great Crom on Your Mountain, gimme strength...

Mike, AI adapts in the same way a sunflower turns toward the sun, unconsciously, without choice. It learns nuthin'. it does exactly what it's programmed to do. It (any version) is not curious, is not ambitious, is not creative. It can't assess or judge. It has no reason or feeling. It cannot hate or love or be compassionate. It cannot measure. Shame and pride are beyond it and always will be. It has no sense of what it means to fail or to win and it'll do both equally, preferring neither. Justice: it can tell you all about it, but it feels no need for it, will not seek it, fight for it, or turn away from it to do wrong. It can't do wrong, or right. It's never nostalgic. It never dreams of what is not, and it will never, ever, strive to make that dream real.

AI is probably a pretty good stand in for the meat machine humanity of your better world: just as empty, just as meaningless.

A human, a person, learns, is curious, is ambitious, is creative. He adapts becuz he's aware and chooses to. He is, and can do, all that AI is not and cannot. He's a free will. He's what your determinism sez he isn't: a cause unto himself. He bends causal chains, starts them, ends them. He's no slave to prior events. His thoughts and actions are his own and he's utterly responsible for them and himself.

Determinism doesn’t render humans incapable of learning or acting any more than it prevents an AI from refining its algorithms or updating its database.

Determinism makes us empty, meaningless, caricatures. It makes us into organic kludge-versions of AI. Like I say: meat machines.

Humans learn in precisely the same deterministic way—through external inputs, repetition, feedback, and adaptation.

Of course we don't. We apprehend. Yes, we use our senses, our bodies, in this apprehension, but it's we who apprehend. AI doesn't. It can't. As I say, it is a pretty (*good) stand in for, an example of, what we would be if your determinism were true.

equating determinism with nihilism

I hadn't thought if it that way. Thank you. That's exactiy what your determinism is: nihilism.

*absent from original post

[BigMike]

Henry, you are made of stardust—quite literally.

Part of me, yeah.

if your "self," your "soul," or your "ghost" is something beyond the physical, then what, exactly, is it made of?

I don't know, Mike. Can you tell me what a quark is made of? it's physical, so surely you know. How about a photon?

show your work

You first. No assertions, no declarations, no appeal to a promissory materialism: just tell me how the brain produces the mind. Tell me how synaptic flux becomes identity. Tell me how electricity and chemicals create pride. Tell me where love lives in your brain (you do love don't you?). Tell me, Mike: show your worK.

Here's the best question of all (and, remember, no assertions, no declarations, no appeals to a promissory materialism; just present the detailed, factual, explanation): how do lifeless, mindless particles -- electrons, neutrons, protons -- create life and mind?

Tell me, Mike: show your work.

Do that then I'll try again (I began to, up-thread, but you dismissed it).

So, you first.

Henry, let’s start with your deflections about quarks and photons. Quarks, as you should know, are physical entities with measurable properties—mass, charge, and spin. Photons, too, have energy and momentum. These are not mysterious or intangible—they’re well-defined within the framework of physics. So, when you invoke quarks and photons as if their existence somehow parallels your vague notions of a "soul" or "ghost," you’re making a false equivalence. Quarks and photons are part of the observable universe, governed by measurable, testable laws. Your "soul"? Not so much.

Now, onto your demands for how the brain produces the mind, how synaptic flux becomes identity, and how pride or love arises. These are legitimate scientific inquiries—ones that neuroscience is actively unraveling. We already know that emotions like pride and love correlate with specific brain activity and chemical signaling. Synaptic connections and neural patterns form the basis of memory, identity, and thought. Is there more to learn? Of course. But the difference is, neuroscience builds its understanding through evidence, not appeals to mystery or rhetorical games.

Finally, your "best question" about how lifeless particles create life and mind. The answer lies in emergent complexity. Chemistry builds on physics, biology builds on chemistry, and cognition emerges from biology. The transition from non-life to life—abiogenesis—is a subject of ongoing study, but we’ve made significant strides in understanding the conditions and processes that could lead to self-replicating molecules and, eventually, cellular life. None of this requires your undefined, intangible "something beyond."

So, Henry, back to you: quarks have mass and charge. Photons have energy. What measurable properties does your "soul" have? If you want to stake a claim for something "beyond the physical," then stop hiding behind questions and present evidence. Or are we supposed to take your evasive "I don’t know" as an answer? Show your work.

[attofishpi]

The concept of miracles or divine intervention inherently contradicts determinism because it inserts uncaused causes or changes to the causal chain. Determinism requires that every event follows inevitably from prior causes without exception.

No it doesn't insert 'un-caused' causes, it simply inserts an entity that causes causes.

Invoking a God—or a simulation operator—who can step in and change the course undermines the core premise of determinism. If miracles or interventions are possible, then the universe ceases to be deterministic and instead becomes dependent on the arbitrary decisions of this external force.

It doesn't necessarily become dependent on it Mike, just a little tweaking every now and then directing new causal chains. The universe remains deterministic, just occasionally manipulated.

You’re effectively trying to have your cake and eat it too, preserving determinism while making room for divine or simulated interventions. That’s a philosophical contradiction. Determinism stands firm without the need for divine or arbitrary interventions, and that’s precisely why it’s so appealing as a framework for understanding the universe.

Well, unfortunately for your insistence on what determines determinism, the theists have it correct. (I am not a theist)

I don't see any philosophical contradiction to GOD being a result of a determined universe, then causing a reality with the physics parameters we are able to ascertain, from the reality this entity most definitely has caused.

Other_wise. I am batshit crazy since witnessing so many mirror-coils.

Attofishpi, your argument is running in circles and dragging the concept of determinism through the mud in the process.

You claim that inserting an "entity that causes causes" doesn’t break determinism. Seriously? Determinism hinges on the idea that every cause is part of an unbroken chain of prior causes within the system. If you insert some external entity, divine or otherwise, to meddle with that chain, then guess what? It’s no longer deterministic. It’s contingent on the whims of that external force, whether you label it "tweaking" or outright intervention.

Your insistence that "the universe remains deterministic, just occasionally manipulated," is laughable. Occasional manipulation undermines the very consistency determinism requires. If there’s an outside hand occasionally poking the system, it’s no longer a closed, causally consistent framework. You can’t have "occasional manipulation" and still call it determinism. That’s like saying a car is running on autopilot while you occasionally grab the wheel.

And your defense of theists here is bizarre. Claiming they’ve "got it correct" because you can conjure up convoluted scenarios involving "physics parameters" is not an argument—

Sure, I am claiming theists have got it correct from personal empirical evidence provided to me via an intelligence that DOES manipulate our REAL_IT_Y -- apparently operating from below the scale we could ever detect - the Planck scale.

ALL I attempt to do is reason with people on this philosophy forum from my POV. The fact that I appear to be the only person on this forum claiming to have witnessed countless "miracles" does not then mean I cannot argue and challenge concepts provided by atheists.

miracles <-- yes, I hate that term BECAUSE there has to be a rational reason for GOD and its ability to screw up your deterministic universe idea.

[henry quirk]

Quarks, as you should know, are physical entities with measurable properties—mass, charge, and spin.

Yes, I know, quarks are physical. So what is a quark made of, Mike?

Photons, too, have energy and momentum. These are not mysterious or intangible—they’re well-defined within the framework of physics.

Yes, I know, photons are physical. So what is a photon made of, Mike?

ones that neuroscience is actively unraveling

Promissory materialism. Not a factual explanation.

We already know that emotions like pride and love correlate with specific brain activity and chemical signaling.

Question is: does the brain activity create pride or love, or, does the soul, in feeling pride and love, cause the brain activity?

Synaptic connections and neural patterns form the basis of memory, identity, and thought.

Assertion: not explnation.

Is there more to learn?

Promissory materialism.

neuroscience builds its understanding through evidence

Great. Where's the evidence brain activity causes love or pride; where's the evidence synaptic connections and neural patterns form the basis of memory, identity, and thought?

emergent complexity

Not an answer or explanation, just another assertion and some more promissory materialism. Where's the "this is how it works", Mike?

So, Henry, back to you:

You haven't shown your work, Mike.

quarks have mass and charge. Photons have energy

The question: what are quarks and photons made of?

stop hiding behind questions and present evidence

You stop asserting and promising and answer the questions.

[Belinda]

Stuff like dinosaurs not existing but Adam & Eve did...sure.

What do you think about the Jesus stuff - changing water to wine for example? I have no reason to doubt that happened (from what I have experienced of REAL_IT_Y) --> do I have to reject science to comprehend that as plausible

Atto, I hope you don't mind if I interrupt.

The wine was changed into water in the sense that Jesus substituted water for wine . It was a novel idea that for ritual purposes water would do equally well as wine.

I don't mind people interrupting if they are not talking nonsense. The account within the New Testament is a clear account of Jesus performing a "miracle" where water auto converted to wine.

I can't make head to tail of what you are implying, do elaborate. Are you implying some waffly metaphoric symbolism?

For instance if I was celebrating the New Year and someone had drunk all the booze I'd settle for toasting the New Year in water.

[BigMike]

Quarks, as you should know, are physical entities with measurable properties—mass, charge, and spin.

Yes, I know, quarks are physical. So what is a quark made of, Mike?

Photons, too, have energy and momentum. These are not mysterious or intangible—they’re well-defined within the framework of physics.

Yes, I know, photons are physical. So what is a photon made of, Mike?

ones that neuroscience is actively unraveling

Promissory materialism. Not a factual explanation.

We already know that emotions like pride and love correlate with specific brain activity and chemical signaling.

Question is: does the brain activity create pride or love, or, does the soul, in feeling pride and love, cause the brain activity?

Synaptic connections and neural patterns form the basis of memory, identity, and thought.

Assertion: not explnation.

Is there more to learn?

Promissory materialism.

neuroscience builds its understanding through evidence

Great. Where's the evidence brain activity causes love or pride; where's the evidence synaptic connections and neural patterns form the basis of memory, identity, and thought?

emergent complexity

Not an answer or explanation, just another assertion and some more promissory materialism. Where's the "this is how it works", Mike?

So, Henry, back to you:

You haven't shown your work, Mike.

quarks have mass and charge. Photons have energy

The question: what are quarks and photons made of?

stop hiding behind questions and present evidence

You stop asserting and promising and answer the questions.

Henry, your tactic of endlessly deflecting back with "what are quarks and photons made of?" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding—or perhaps intentional evasion—of the nature of scientific inquiry. Let me spell this out clearly:

Quarks and photons are elementary particles. By definition, they are not "made of" anything simpler within our current understanding of the Standard Model of particle physics. They are the foundational building blocks, and their properties—mass, charge, energy, and spin—are precisely measurable and experimentally verified. These are facts, not "promissory materialism."

Your insistence that I "show my work" ignores the mountains of empirical data already accumulated by neuroscience, physics, and biology. Correlations between brain activity and emotions are demonstrated through fMRI scans, electrical studies, and neurochemical analysis. Memory and thought processes have been tied to synaptic activity and neural networks. This isn’t an "assertion"; it’s evidence-based science.

As for your soul, Henry, the burden of proof is on you. You’re the one proposing something beyond the physical—a ghostly puppeteer pulling the strings of your neurons. Where’s your evidence for this "soul" having any measurable property or causal influence? I’m not asserting the soul doesn’t exist; I’m simply asking you to meet the same evidentiary standards you demand from science.

And let’s cut through your rhetorical smokescreen: determinism doesn’t require answers to every metaphysical question to function as a framework. The observable, testable evidence overwhelmingly supports a material basis for consciousness and behavior. If you want to claim otherwise, stop hiding behind childish "but what’s it made of?" diversions and present an actual argument. Until then, Henry, I suggest you spend some time learning about the physical universe you’re so quick to dismiss in favor of intangible fantasies.

[attofishpi]

Atto, I hope you don't mind if I interrupt.

The wine was changed into water in the sense that Jesus substituted water for wine . It was a novel idea that for ritual purposes water would do equally well as wine.

I don't mind people interrupting if they are not talking nonsense. The account within the New Testament is a clear account of Jesus performing a "miracle" where water auto converted to wine.

I can't make head to tail of what you are implying, do elaborate. Are you implying some waffly metaphoric symbolism?

For instance if I was celebrating the New Year and someone had drunk all the booze I'd settle for toasting the New Year in water.

Where's the relevance to the "miracle"?

[Belinda]

I don't mind people interrupting if they are not talking nonsense. The account within the New Testament is a clear account of Jesus performing a "miracle" where water auto converted to wine.

I can't make head to tail of what you are implying, do elaborate. Are you implying some waffly metaphoric symbolism?

For instance if I was celebrating the New Year and someone had drunk all the booze I'd settle for toasting the New Year in water.

Where's the relevance to the "miracle"?

There is and was no miracle; there never was a miracle at the wedding in Cana. There was simply Jesus saying "Use water if you have run out of wine". Remember Jesus was a respected rabbi. and folks would take his advice.

However if you for a reason best known to yourself prefer to account for something that happened by saying it was miraculous, that's your choice.