Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[BigMike]

Alexis,

To address this more deeply, let’s clarify something essential about memory formation: it’s not abstract, nor is it mystical. It’s a profoundly physical process, governed by the precise biochemistry of the brain. Your critique of determinism hinges on a seeming inability—or perhaps unwillingness—to integrate this scientific understanding into a cohesive view of human behavior and thought. Let me illuminate this for you, not in grand abstractions but through the intricate and fascinating details of how the brain works, particularly the role of dopamine, serotonin, and protein kinase A in memory formation.

Dopamine and serotonin are neurotransmitters—chemical messengers that influence mood, cognition, and, importantly, the processes of learning and memory. These chemicals don’t work in isolation; they operate within an intricate system of molecular interactions that deterministically shape how memories form and are retained.

When a significant or emotionally charged event occurs, dopamine levels spike in the brain, signaling that this moment is important. This triggers a cascade of molecular events that enhance synaptic plasticity—the ability of synapses to strengthen or weaken in response to activity. Dopamine facilitates the activation of a critical enzyme called protein kinase A (PKA). This enzyme is central to both short-term potentiation (STP) and long-term potentiation (LTP), the two main mechanisms by which the brain encodes and consolidates memories.

Here’s where it gets fascinating. Protein kinase A exists in an inactive form, bound to regulatory subunits. When dopamine or serotonin activates specific receptors on the neuron, it leads to the production of cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP). cAMP, in turn, breaks the bond between the regulatory subunits and the catalytic subunits of PKA, setting the catalytic subunits free to do their work. And this is where the magic—if you can call deterministic biochemistry magic—happens.

For short-term potentiation, these catalytic subunits travel to the synaptic cleft, where they increase the presence of calcium ions (Ca++). Calcium ions, in turn, enhance the process of neurotransmitter release by increasing the number of vesicles that are pulled to the cell membrane. These vesicles dock, fuse with the membrane, and release their neurotransmitter payload into the synaptic cleft, amplifying the signal to the receiving neuron. This rapid enhancement of signal transmission is the foundation of STP—short-lived but critical in the initial encoding of memories.

For long-term potentiation, the story gets even more deterministic—and more profound. The same catalytic subunits, freed by dopamine and serotonin's activation, engage in a kind of molecular randomness known as Brownian motion. They bounce around within the neuron, occasionally traveling to the soma—the cell body, where the nucleus resides. Repetition of neuronal activity increases the likelihood that these subunits reach the nucleus, where they interact with the DNA. There, they activate or deactivate specific genes responsible for producing proteins that strengthen synaptic connections over time. Some of these proteins facilitate the growth of new axon terminals, creating entirely new pathways for neural communication. This structural remodeling is the very essence of long-term memory formation.

Now, let’s bring this back to your critique. Everything I’ve just described—this intricate dance of molecules, ions, enzymes, and proteins—is governed by deterministic physical laws. At no point does free will enter the equation. And yet, this deterministic process allows us to learn, to remember, and to grow. It enables the brain to adapt its structure and function based on experience. The next time someone recalls a poignant moment or applies a hard-learned lesson, it’s because their brain’s neural architecture has been reshaped in exactly the way I’ve outlined.

You might argue that this deterministic view strips away something essential about the “mind.” But I would counter that it doesn’t strip anything away; it explains how the mind arises from the brain. The thoughts, symbols, and abstractions we treasure as uniquely human are not diminished by understanding their biochemical basis. Instead, they are deepened, rooted in a reality more intricate and awe-inspiring than any metaphysical speculation.

So, Alexis, I ask again: What about this contradicts determinism? If studying, learning, and remembering reshape the physical structure of the brain—and if those changes subsequently influence behavior—where is the space for free will to act independently of these processes? If you believe the mind operates outside this framework, I invite you to explain how. But I suspect that, like many who cling to the illusion of free will, your resistance is less about evidence and more about discomfort with what the evidence reveals: that we are not separate from the deterministic forces that shape us but are entirely a part of them.

And far from being dehumanizing, this understanding reveals just how remarkable, adaptable, and interconnected we truly are.

[BigMike]

But here’s the key: unlike the static delta, the brain is dynamic. Learning and memory reshape it. Studying a subject today is like carving a new channel in the delta, redirecting the flow of signals. As those pathways are strengthened, they influence how you act tomorrow, a year from now, or decades into the future. This process is deterministic, but it’s anything but static or limiting. It’s what allows us to adapt, to grow, to change. And it is precisely what makes humans unique among the animals.

You mean, the brains of all animals are dynamic, so in that regard we aren't unique among the animals at all. I guess you meant that, because we humans possess enough intelligent volitional self-consciousness, we can deliberately change (rewire) ourselves on a level that's unique, unprecedented among animals.

And as usual you're fundamentally wrong, since the average intelligence of humans is too low, only say about 20-30% of humans can do this on a sufficient level. The rest are more like automatons, and could only be rewired sufficiently by a well-meaning world government, which they won't elect.

Atla,

You’re right to point out that the brains of all animals are dynamic. Neuroplasticity—the ability of neural networks to adapt in response to experience—is a shared trait across the animal kingdom. What makes humans unique, though, is the degree to which our intelligence, memory capacity, and self-awareness allow us to harness this plasticity in deliberate ways. It’s not that we alone possess dynamic brains, but rather that the scale and complexity of our cognition make us capable of levels of intentional self-rewiring that no other species appears to achieve.

However, your assertion that only 20-30% of humans can engage in this process at a “sufficient level” feels both dismissive and unnecessarily pessimistic. Intelligence is a spectrum, yes, and individuals vary in their ability to analyze, reflect, and deliberately shape their behaviors based on learned knowledge. But even those you classify as “automatons” are subject to the same fundamental mechanisms of learning and memory. The difference is often not one of capacity but of opportunity, education, and environment.

And here’s where determinism comes back into play: people don’t choose their intelligence, upbringing, or the quality of their education. Their neural architecture develops within the constraints of genetics and external conditions. So while it might seem tempting to divide humanity into a thoughtful few and an unthinking majority, doing so oversimplifies the deeper truth: everyone’s ability to change—whether dramatically or subtly—is grounded in deterministic processes.

You mention that these so-called automatons “could only be rewired sufficiently by a well-meaning world government,” which they wouldn’t elect. That’s an interesting observation, but it assumes that the average person is incapable of meaningful growth without external enforcement. I’d argue instead that the problem lies in systemic structures that fail to nurture this potential. Humans are products of their environments, and when those environments emphasize learning, critical thinking, and adaptability, people’s capacities to grow—and “rewire”—increase significantly.

Your view paints a rather dystopian picture, but it also inadvertently aligns with determinism. If the majority can’t or won’t engage in deliberate self-change, it’s not due to some intrinsic flaw but rather because of the cumulative effects of their life circumstances, including the societal systems in which they operate. That’s not an argument against determinism; it’s an argument for addressing the deterministic causes of these limitations.

So, while I don’t disagree that humans vary in their ability to reshape themselves, I think your framing overlooks the deterministic underpinnings of why this variation exists and how it might be addressed. It’s not that only a small percentage can ever change; it’s that many have not yet been given the tools or the environment to realize their potential. Determinism doesn’t preclude this—it explains it and provides a roadmap for understanding how to improve it.

[Atla]

Must be nice to be able to forget determinism when it comes to the average human's potential.

[Wizard22]

I've now come to the conclusion it is far more dangerous to trust "Secular" (or Agnostic, or Atheist) Determinists, than it is to trust the Religious.

Because at least the Religious will tell you what they actually believe.

[BigMike]

Must be nice to be able to forget determinism when it comes to the average human's potential.

Not forgetting determinism at all—quite the opposite. The average human’s potential, like anyone’s, is entirely determined by their genetics, environment, and experiences. Change that environment—provide better education, opportunities, and conditions—and you change the outcomes. That’s determinism in action, not denial.

[BigMike]

I've now come to the conclusion it is far more dangerous to trust "Secular" (or Agnostic, or Atheist) Determinists, than it is to trust the Religious.

Because at least the Religious will tell you what they actually believe.

So, Wizard22, you're saying you'd rather trust ungrounded beliefs over observable, verifiable facts? At least with determinism, there’s no need for blind faith—just evidence and logic.

[Atla]

Must be nice to be able to forget determinism when it comes to the average human's potential.

Not forgetting determinism at all—quite the opposite. The average human’s potential, like anyone’s, is entirely determined by their genetics, environment, and experiences. Change that environment—provide better education, opportunities, and conditions—and you change the outcomes. That’s determinism in action, not denial.

Just not enough. That's determinism for you.

[BigMike]

Must be nice to be able to forget determinism when it comes to the average human's potential.

Not forgetting determinism at all—quite the opposite. The average human’s potential, like anyone’s, is entirely determined by their genetics, environment, and experiences. Change that environment—provide better education, opportunities, and conditions—and you change the outcomes. That’s determinism in action, not denial.

Just not enough. That's determinism for you.

Exactly, Atla—that’s determinism. The outcomes are limited by the constraints of genetics, environment, and opportunity. But acknowledging that isn’t resignation; it’s a call to action. Change the conditions, and you shift the outcomes within those deterministic limits. It's not everything, but it’s something—and that matters.

[accelafine]

Still doesn't smell like determinism to me. If it doesn't make sense then it's probably not true. I have no argument with determinism, but determinism that you can manipulate and cause to deviate from its determined path-- a path that was determined from the Big Bang? That's stretching it don't you think?

[BigMike]

Still doesn't smell like determinism to me. If it doesn't make sense then it's probably not true. I have no argument with determinism, but determinism that you can manipulate and cause to deviate from its determined path-- a path that was determined from the Big Bang? That's stretching it don't you think?

Accelafine, perhaps you could help answer the question I posed to Alexis: Is learning, memory, and understanding not deterministic? When you study, learn, or remember something, it physically alters the structure of your brain, influencing future actions and thoughts. Are those processes—guided entirely by biochemistry and physics—not part of the deterministic unfolding of the universe? If so, where’s the stretch in recognizing that we’re shaped by the very same forces we’re part of?

[Belinda]

Obviously from what you write you do not understand determinism. Why not just leave determinism, put it on the back burner, and seek God in your own way.

I think we must state that BigMike has offered a very odd version of determinism. He follows traditional determinism at one moment, and then reintroduces full-fledged choice and decision in the next. If his version is “determinism” I am genuinely confused.

Can you clarify what “determinism” is? And also what understanding it, or “believing in it” can and should do for us?

Determinism implies that every event, without exception, is a necessary event.

Human reason is a necessary event too. Those who argue for Free Will necessarily do so because their circumstances have caused them to trust an archaic idea rather than reason: when determinists claim that education frees people they mean post- enlightenment education based on reason which extends the scope of choices, or else what you have is not education but indoctrination.

Don't confuse determinism with fatalism. Despite that the fates were presumed by pagans to exist most of us have now learned better, that the future is open to adaptation especially for human beings.

Now , it behoves you in your turn to please explain how so called Free Will could ever extend your scope of choices. Maybe begin by explaining if Free Will is quantifiable, or if a cubic centimetre of Free Will can make you as free as someone else who has pints of the stuff always available in his system. Then pray explain to us how so called Free Will may be other than an irresponsible
way to choose i.e. chance.

[accelafine]

Still doesn't smell like determinism to me. If it doesn't make sense then it's probably not true. I have no argument with determinism, but determinism that you can manipulate and cause to deviate from its determined path-- a path that was determined from the Big Bang? That's stretching it don't you think?

Accelafine, perhaps you could help answer the question I posed to Alexis: Is learning, memory, and understanding not deterministic? When you study, learn, or remember something, it physically alters the structure of your brain, influencing future actions and thoughts. Are those processes—guided entirely by biochemistry and physics—not part of the deterministic unfolding of the universe? If so, where’s the stretch in recognizing that we’re shaped by the very same forces we’re part of?

Nothing to argue with there. You know which part I'm talking about.

[Wizard22]

over observable, verifiable facts?

There's no such thing as "observable, verifiable facts".

[BigMike]

Still doesn't smell like determinism to me. If it doesn't make sense then it's probably not true. I have no argument with determinism, but determinism that you can manipulate and cause to deviate from its determined path-- a path that was determined from the Big Bang? That's stretching it don't you think?

Accelafine, perhaps you could help answer the question I posed to Alexis: Is learning, memory, and understanding not deterministic? When you study, learn, or remember something, it physically alters the structure of your brain, influencing future actions and thoughts. Are those processes—guided entirely by biochemistry and physics—not part of the deterministic unfolding of the universe? If so, where’s the stretch in recognizing that we’re shaped by the very same forces we’re part of?

Nothing to argue with there. You know which part I'm talking about.

Accelafine, I see where you're coming from, and I get it—the part you find tricky seems to be the idea that deterministic systems can "manipulate" or redirect themselves without it being a paradox. But here's the thing: it's not a contradiction at all. When learning happens, for example, it's just one deterministic system—our brain—interacting with external inputs, which are also deterministic.

That "redirection" you mention isn't a deviation from determinism; it's a result of it. The brain is structured, through evolution, to adapt and respond to stimuli. When you learn something, it changes the neural pathways in your brain, and those changes alter how you process and act on future inputs. It’s not a break from determinism; it’s an extension of it, albeit more complex than a simple linear chain of cause and effect.

Think back to the river delta I mentioned before: the water flows deterministically, but the delta itself can change over time. New channels form, old ones erode, but the water still follows the same physical laws—it’s just navigating a changing structure. The same goes for us. Our brains “redirect” as they adapt to new information, but it’s all within the deterministic framework. It’s not stretching determinism; it’s showing how dynamic and adaptable determinism can be.

[BigMike]

over observable, verifiable facts?

There's no such thing as "observable, verifiable facts".

Wizard22, if there’s no such thing as observable, verifiable facts, how are we communicating right now? The fact that you’re reading this and responding requires countless observable, verifiable processes—language, technology, even the electricity powering your device. Denying facts while relying on them seems, at best, contradictory.