Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here’s the hard truth, Alexis: meaningful engagement requires more than just poetic musings. It requires definitions, evidence, and logical consistency—things you consistently refuse to provide. You’ve turned this conversation into a caricature of intellectual discourse, all so you can avoid confronting the reality that your ideas don’t hold up under even the mildest scrutiny.

Nah, I think you are dishonest with yourself. The so-called conversation was and is non-workable from the start. Because our core predicates are incompatible. You should know, given yours, that you will never forge agreements when agreement is impossible and from the start.

I do not deny nor negate the physiological facts of the platform you subscribe to. But yes, I definitely hold to true things that depend on another sort of epistemological base. It really is just this, BigMike.

I agree that when I speak of “experience with what is divine” that I rely on subjectivity. And I am acutely aware that I cannot reveal, as in a scientific paper that is published and reviewed, a mechanical path that explains how it worked. And I also know that what cannot be demonstrated and proven must for you be relegated to fantasy, to poetry, and of course to hallucination.

definitions, evidence, and logical consistency

I regret to inform you that life in this manifested world, for all that you wish it to be so, will constantly confound your desire for “consistency”. But I am not talking about the world of laboratory measurements but life as a mysterious event that is lived. I draw on a far longer history of tradition and thought when I say this.

Really, that is just one aspect of my thought that arises when I come face to face with someone operating within your sort of scaffolding. It just seems that the things I mention are necessary to point out.

Keep living in your fantasy if you like, but don’t expect me—or anyone else—to take it seriously until you can explain it in terms that make sense in the real world. And if you can’t do that, at least have the decency to admit it instead of pretending I’m the problem for asking you to be clear.

I have encountered, time and again, people who have the sort of orientation that I sense in you. And the kind of statements you make are pretty typical. So, I do not think that you could be influenced by any verbal arrangement. I am referring to a realm of experienced that is not amenable to discursive proofs. I frankly do not know what more to say. But I am telling you the truth.

I do not expect anything from you, BigMike. I do not expect nor do I really want to change how you think or see!

Are you “a problem” and are you “the problem”? I would answer that yes, in some sense, you show what I describe as an immature posture of over-certainty. But I don’t slight you for holding to your position. Given your predicates there is no alternative.

I am aware of more rounded and mature intellects (I refer to authors I read) who would understand quite well what I have tried to bring out. I am not dismayed however.

In the end — for many who write on this forum — everything I have said will be summed up as utterly ridiculous and it will be dismissed out of hand. But some will possibly “share agreement” in some areas.

[BigMike]

Alexis,

You say our "core predicates are incompatible," but that’s not an excuse to avoid a substantive discussion. In fact, it’s the reason this conversation is so important. If you truly believe determinism is fundamentally flawed, then you should be able to articulate why, in clear terms—not just hide behind vague appeals to "another epistemological base" or subjective experience. You claim you can’t prove your position because it’s rooted in subjectivity, yet you refuse to engage with the foundational principles of determinism in any meaningful way. That’s not a conversation; it’s a cop-out.

I proposed this challenge in all seriousness because we’ve been stuck on the most foundational aspects of determinism. Why? Because you’ve refused to explain what about it bothers you in any coherent manner. I want to move beyond these basics and demonstrate how much can be derived from the principles you dismiss as "overly simplistic." Determinism doesn’t just account for physiological processes—it explains creativity, love, moral responsibility, intuition, and even spiritual experiences. Yes, even the things you claim to be irreducibly subjective can be fully described within this framework.

So here’s the challenge again, spelled out clearly: Name one human trait or quality you believe cannot be explained deterministically. Let’s say it’s something like creativity, moral responsibility, or even spiritual experiences. I’ll explain it through determinism, and you’ll do the same from your perspective. No evasions, no tangents—just direct engagement. Pick one. Let’s see where this conversation actually leads when we address real-world phenomena instead of retreating into metaphysical abstractions.

You claim to be drawing on a "longer history of tradition and thought," but tradition alone doesn’t make an argument valid—it needs to be applicable to the real world. If you’re so convinced that determinism is reductionist and inadequate, prove it. Stop pretending this conversation is unworkable because of my “immature posture” or “over-certainty.” The real reason it hasn’t progressed is your refusal to engage substantively.

So, let’s hear it. What human trait or quality do you think lies beyond the reach of determinism? Let’s finally put this to the test. Or admit, as you’ve already hinted, that you can’t provide an explanation that holds up under scrutiny. The choice is yours.

[accelafine]

"Name one human trait, quality, or experience that you believe cannot be fully described or explained within the deterministic framework I’ve laid out. Just one."

A French physicist falls into a hadron collider, is converted into a laser beam, and fired at a double slit in a sheet of metal. The physicist reports having passed through both slits unless and only if one of the other physicists looked at him.

See? This is where education is so important. What does that even mean? It's sad. Could it have been 'witty and hilarious' but for a missed comma or two? A better choice of words? A greater understanding of the double slit experiment? We will never know. Sigh....

[promethean75]

"If you truly believe determinism is fundamentally flawed, then you should be able to articulate why, in clear terms"

Well, a long time ago, when i was a PN newb i had to sort everyone out about that very thing. I do believe they summarily dismissed my thesis.

The outstanding problem for the theory of determinism is that it can't be falsified empirically, something Hume was getting at indirectly with his contiguity of events premise; all we experience are events following each other in sequence but nothing demonstrates that any of these events in sequence cause those that come after them. There is no logical connection between A and B. Even if B persistently follows A.

That being said, neither is the theory of freewill empirically falsifiable or verifiable (which is redundant because verifiability is granted for any falsifiability).

Moreover, the alternative theory to... let's call it Hume's theory of Leibniz's spontaneous monadic causality... would be even more strange than a mundane theory of physical force causation through the simple transfer of energy (objects bumping into objects causing them to move).

In other words, it would be easier to explain ball B moving when ball A hits it because ball A's intertia and mass and momentum was such that it caused ball B to move than it would be to say ball A had nothing to do with making ball B move. Ball B made itself move... and it did it every single time ball A hit it just to fuck with you.

And that being the case, we go back to Big Mikean determinism even though it isn't falsifiable via Hume, and the alternative theory to explain motion (from particles to neurons to galaxies) would be even more bonkers than Big Mikean determinism is.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you truly believe determinism is fundamentally flawed (…)

Insofar as it pertains to a man’s free choices, yet within conditioned circumstances, your interpretation of determinism’s consequences seem flawed to me.

I would say that the doctrines you have established and purvey show notable flaws. I have spoken of this already …

Does that help any?

If you’re so convinced that determinism is reductionist and inadequate, prove it.

You have been reading badly. I largely accept determinism in the unfolding of the cosmos. I accept determinism in man’s world if it is modified to “conditioning”. I give an agency to man that you deny, and believe that man can access a higher dimension (through mechanism I cannot fathom or explain).

I do believe that everything we do is constructed on what is in a linear order (this is intuitive). So I think I get your fixation on what has been determined.

I think that what Promethean just submitted (he always surprises, doesn’t he?) could be useful to your understanding.

[seeds]

So here’s the challenge again, spelled out clearly: Name one human trait or quality you believe cannot be explained deterministically.

Okay, how about the "experiencing" of the qualia involving the unique flavor or "taste" of a banana?

In other words, use determinism to describe what it is within the makeup of a human that not only "experiences" (and "enjoys") the unique flavor of a banana, but is also capable of differentiating it from the unique flavor of a pear,...

...of which it "enjoys" to an equal degree, but "prefers" the "taste" of the banana on its morning cereal?
_______

[henry quirk]

Just a reminder: this...

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 what Mike thinks of you.

You are meat.

Now, Mike, almost as refined and filigreed as AJ, dresses up that pig in Sunday, go-to-meetin', duds, makin' it all well-presentable.

Declaratives like the deterministic laws of physics do not eliminate the richness of human experience; they explain it or neural activity, behavior, and decision-making processes adhere to causal patterns that align with conservation laws. These patterns don’t deny the richness of human experience—they provide the framework within which that richness unfolds or determinism doesn’t erase the richness of human experience—it grounds it or determinism doesn’t strip life of its richness—it explains the processes that underpin it all sound nifty but ultimately mean nuthin'.

He declares, but never substantiates, instead relyin' on some bastard chimera, one part science sez, one part promissory materialism, one part everybody who's anybody just knows...

He presses for material explanations of the metaphysical but offers nuthin' beyond catchphrases (neuroplasticity) and willful misinterpretations of research (Libet) to undergird his own barren bio-determinism.

He explains away or dismisses neuroscience that fails to fall within his cat dish-shallow materialism (the unity of mind after corpus callosotomy; the wholeness of mind after hemispherectomy) but cannot explain how the three pounds of dog's breakfast in your skull makes you. He'll lecture about synapses and whatnot (talks machinery) but never gets to the root of how it works, of how you come to be.

The worst of it, of course: Mike believes a better world, and a better you, can be had thru your acceptance of bein' less. Never mind you're nuthin' but a deterministic machine with no control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions, somehow you're just supposed to accept and adopt (and you're a bad egg if you don't).

[iambiguous]

The worst of it, of course: Mike believes a better world, and a better you, can be had thru your acceptance of bein' less. Never mind you're nuthin' but a deterministic machine with no control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions, somehow you're just supposed to accept and adopt (and you're a bad egg if you don't).

Actually, this is a point I brought up myself to Big Mike above:

"Determinism: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions." dictionary.com

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable." wiki

And with any number of religious denominations there's the part that revolves around assumptions that a God, the God, my God is omniscient. And how is that not yet another manifestation of determinism?

I was curious as to how his own understanding of determinism was at odds with the above. In terms of either a God or a No God world.

On the other hand, if we can trust IC's account of the Christian God, henry is still going to burn in Hell for all of eternity unless he accepts Jesus Christ as his personal savior.

[promethean75]

Big Mike incoming

[accelafine]

Since 'free will' is a religious concept then it's bullshit by default. Glad that's cleared up. Next topic...

[Atla]

I do not deny nor negate the physiological facts of the platform you subscribe to. But yes, I definitely hold to true things that depend on another sort of epistemological base. It really is just this, BigMike.

I agree that when I speak of “experience with what is divine” that I rely on subjectivity. And I am acutely aware that I cannot reveal, as in a scientific paper that is published and reviewed, a mechanical path that explains how it worked. And I also know that what cannot be demonstrated and proven must for you be relegated to fantasy, to poetry, and of course to hallucination.

Be honest, doesn't it bother you that there are countless different traditions on this planet that rely on subjective experience with the divine, and you can't objectively show that yours is the correct one, nor that it isn't made up?

[Atla]

Seeds, your 'detailed critiques' are nothing more than metaphysical musings...

Well, when confronted with impossible to resolve mysteries such as, for example,...

"...why is there somethingness rather than nothingness?..."

...or...

"...how did the 'somethingness' acquire consciousness?..."

...then, sometimes, "metaphysical musings" are all we have to work with.

...musings that don't address or challenge the fundamental principles of determinism, conservation laws, or the four fundamental forces. Raising unanswered questions about the origins of the universe or dark matter is not the same as disproving causality or determinism. If you want to refute my arguments, bring evidence or logic that contradicts these physical principles—anything less is just hand-waving.

I cannot disprove causality or determinism, nor would I even attempt to challenge the fundamental principles of the laws of conservation, or the four fundamental forces.

No, the simplest thing I can do in this particular situation is to reinvoke the words of Terence McKenna...

“Modern science is based on the principle ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.”

...and then point out to you that your theory of determinism expects us to grant you the "one free miracle" mentioned in the quote.

However, some of us are simply not that generous (or gullible).
_______

No! Modern science is incompatible with the absurdity quoted. Science is based on reasearch and discovery. Least of all is it meant to provide proof which is only applicable to logic and mathematics, not to science. It's not the function of science to prove anything and operates on no other principle except for the one provided which are all based on probability.

The quote implodes the moment he says that science is based of the principle of 'give us one free miracle...' since anything naturally occurring is not a miracle whether or not we can explain it at this or any other time.

But, for the sake of argument, let's use the word 'miracle' as employed in the quote. Now what? Does it in any way confute the fact that all the laws that govern as ramifications of this so-called miracle are by that very definition deterministic...whether or not you call it a miracle?

When an absurd statement is made it usually proves opposite to its intended effect. Mr. Mckenna should have used fewer psychedelics to swarm his neurons in making the wrong connections.

It's easier to point out that there is zero scientific evidence that the universe appeared out of nothing. That's just a determinism-breaking metaphysical guess that some scientists subscribed to. Totally not needed. (Yeah Mr. Mckenna should have gone easier on the magic mushrooms.)

[Dubious]

I do not deny nor negate the physiological facts of the platform you subscribe to. But yes, I definitely hold to true things that depend on another sort of epistemological base.

Everything you believe is a demonstration of determinism, not its exception. What other reality can it detour into other than the one it derives from? There are not two realities, one physical, the other metaphysical. There is only the one which hosts the complete set of everything that was made possible from the beginning which we interpret and separate into its various components epistemologically. Within determinism, subjectivity is as valid an outcome as anything objectively determined. It's just a matter of how its layers are interpreted.

[Atla]

So here’s the challenge again, spelled out clearly: Name one human trait or quality you believe cannot be explained deterministically.

Okay, how about the "experiencing" of the qualia involving the unique flavor or "taste" of a banana?

In other words, use determinism to describe what it is within the makeup of a human that not only "experiences" (and "enjoys") the unique flavor of a banana, but is also capable of differentiating it from the unique flavor of a pear,...

...of which it "enjoys" to an equal degree, but "prefers" the "taste" of the banana on its morning cereal?
_______

It's enough for Mike to answer this in Chalmers's "Easy problems" sense. It would be unfair to expect determinism to resolve the Hard problem within the Western philosophical framework, when no other philosophy can do that either.

[seeds]

_______

Notes: KIV
_______