Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm surprised though that many people on this forum are vehemently opposed to determinism, or have no idea what it even is. I thought people learn about it in school. Well they do in continental Europe anyway.

I'm not particularly opposed to it. The pseduo-religious epiphanies that Mike wants to use it for are plain stupid though.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You’ve crafted a familiar tactic here, one reminiscent of Chris Matthews when he dodged a direct question about believing in virgin births: vague appeals to an overarching conflict without ever engaging with the specifics. You talk about putting the "conflict into relief" as if that absolves you of the responsibility to address the contradictions in your own position. It doesn’t.

If resolving the "discordancies" is such a monumental task, then shouldn’t you at least try to clarify where you stand within it?

I think I have but you did not catch it. I am aware that I have a subjective life, and a subjective spiritual life (distinct from a religious affiliation).

The long and the short of it (as it pertains to inner experiences with notable outer effect), and all of this in contrast to the sort of explanatory narratives with which you are deeply involved), that challenge and undermine what you refer to as “faith”, is that I maintain my working understanding of my own connection with what I describe as “ineffable”, and try to keep myself in line with it, while I notice the narrative structures that seek to pull people away from involvement in inner life and possibly “inner growth”.

In the larger sense, how the notion of “God” is resolved for •mankind• as science and technology move into the zones involving the remodeling of man (the reengineering of man c.f. Terrence McKenna), and brain-analysis, is an issue that is above and beyond my own limited strategy.

What did Chris Matthews say and where? I Googled it but found nothing.

[Atla]

The fact that from nothingness there could arise such a thing as "system" (implying order), is the miracle.

And it is that miracle that McKenna is alluding to in the quote I provided.

It is a "miracle"...
(again, "...the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing...”)

Don't you get tired of repeating this lie? The idea of the world arising out of nothing has as much to do with science and determinism as God and the invisible pink unicorn do.

[BigMike]

You’ve crafted a familiar tactic here, one reminiscent of Chris Matthews when he dodged a direct question about believing in virgin births: vague appeals to an overarching conflict without ever engaging with the specifics. You talk about putting the "conflict into relief" as if that absolves you of the responsibility to address the contradictions in your own position. It doesn’t.

If resolving the "discordancies" is such a monumental task, then shouldn’t you at least try to clarify where you stand within it?

I think I have but you did not catch it. I am aware that I have a subjective life, and a subjective spiritual life (distinct from a religious affiliation).

The long and the short of it (as it pertains to inner experiences with notable outer effect), and all of this in contrast to the sort of explanatory narratives with which you are deeply involved), that challenge and undermine what you refer to as “faith”, is that I maintain my working understanding of my own connection with what I describe as “ineffable”, and try to keep myself in line with it, while I notice the narrative structures that seek to pull people away from involvement in inner life and possibly “inner growth”.

In the larger sense, how the notion of “God” is resolved for •mankind• as science and technology move into the zones involving the remodeling of man (the reengineering of man c.f. Terrence McKenna), and brain-analysis, is an issue that is above and beyond my own limited strategy.

What did Chris Matthews say and where? I Googled it but found nothing.

I’ll address your points directly. First, about the Chris Matthews interview: I saw it live some 10-15 years ago, and while I found it on YouTube later, it now seems to have disappeared or been buried too deeply. The crux of the matter isn’t the specifics of Matthews’ evasion, but the pattern: when pressed on a contradiction—his Catholic belief in virgin births versus its apparent implausibility—he avoided answering. It mirrors what you’re doing here: invoking the ineffable as a central element of your worldview but dodging the hard questions about its coherence within the framework of reality.

Let’s talk about subjective experiences and deterministic processes. Hallucinogens, for instance, can produce profound subjective effects—visions, altered perceptions, and even feelings of transcendence. Yet these effects are entirely grounded in deterministic brain processes. Chemical compounds interact with neural pathways in predictable ways. The experiences are "real" in the subjective sense but do not operate outside the deterministic framework of biology, chemistry, and physics. This is an important point because it shows that subjective profundity does not imply an escape from causality.

Now, let’s move to your ineffable connection. Where does it get its presumed wisdom or intelligence? Does this "potency" have a mind, a brain, or some other form of intelligence to generate its guidance? Or is it linked to yet another even higher source of wisdom? The chain of reasoning here is crucial. If this ineffable source exists outside time, space, and deterministic processes, what mechanism connects it to the human mind, and how does it provide its supposed insights?

Without a clear answer, the ineffable remains an empty placeholder. It cannot explain or justify anything without collapsing into yet another "just because" assertion. If you cannot or will not address this, then you’re not clarifying anything; you’re merely perpetuating a cycle of abstractions that leave critical questions unanswered.

You describe your connection to the ineffable as part of your subjective and spiritual life, distinct from religious affiliation, but that distinction doesn’t absolve it from scrutiny. Subjective experiences are meaningful to the individual, certainly, but if they’re to be presented as explanations for anything beyond personal conviction, they need to be reconciled with what we empirically know about the world. So far, they haven’t been.

If you’re content with the ineffable being purely subjective and outside the realm of evidence or reason, just say so. But if you want it taken seriously as a component of understanding reality, you’ll need to provide more than faith-based assertions. The burden of clarity lies with you, not with those asking reasonable questions.

[seeds]

The fact that from nothingness there could arise such a thing as "system" (implying order), is the miracle.

And it is that miracle that McKenna is alluding to in the quote I provided.

It is a "miracle"...
(again, "...the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing...”)

Don't you get tired of repeating this lie? The idea of the world arising out of nothing has as much to do with science and determinism as God and the invisible pink unicorn do.

Give me a break!

Try to pay attention and grasp the point being made.

You cannot have the systematic incremental processes of determinism without first establishing where those systematic processes came from and how they were set in motion on a trajectory that led to a context of order that defies our comprehension.

Indeed, you (and BigMike, among others) are giving off the same air of self-assured smugness that Richard Dawkins exudes as he lauds the workings of evolution, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that this...



...which, again, came "fully stocked" with every possible ingredient and process necessary to awaken billions of unique lifeforms into existence,...

...had to be in place before evolution could even begin.

The point is that if you cannot give a plausible accounting of how these spectacularly complex and ordered (prerequisite) conditions and structures came into existence,...

(other than offering the ridiculous proposition that "gravity" and "thermodynamics" did it)

...then theories such as evolution and determinism...

(which are wholly dependent on the preexistence of those ordered conditions and structures)

...are weak and superficial.
_______

[accelafine]

It's a miracle

[BigMike]

The fact that from nothingness there could arise such a thing as "system" (implying order), is the miracle.

And it is that miracle that McKenna is alluding to in the quote I provided.

It is a "miracle"...
(again, "...the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing...”)

Don't you get tired of repeating this lie? The idea of the world arising out of nothing has as much to do with science and determinism as God and the invisible pink unicorn do.

Give me a break!

Try to pay attention and grasp the point being made.

You cannot have the systematic incremental processes of determinism without first establishing where those systematic processes came from and how they were set in motion on a trajectory that led to a context of order that defies our comprehension.

Indeed, you (and BigMike, among others) are giving off the same air of self-assured smugness that Richard Dawkins exudes as he lauds the workings of evolution, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that this...



...which, again, came "fully stocked" with every possible ingredient and process necessary to awaken billions of unique lifeforms into existence,...

...had to be in place before evolution could even begin.

The point is that if you cannot give a plausible accounting of how these spectacularly complex and ordered (prerequisite) conditions and structures came into existence,...

(other than offering the ridiculous proposition that "gravity" and "thermodynamics" did it)

...then theories such as evolution and determinism...

(which are wholly dependent on the preexistence of those ordered conditions and structures)

...are weak and superficial.
_______

Seeds,

Determinism is not a claim about the origins of the universe or the ultimate source of the physical laws—it’s a framework for understanding how events unfold within those laws. The origins of those laws, or what might have existed before Planck time, are unknown, and science freely admits as much. But that lack of knowledge doesn’t undermine the deterministic chain of events we can observe and verify within the universe as it exists.

Determinism applies to the interactions and processes governed by those established physical laws. Every event is caused by prior conditions, and those causes operate consistently within the parameters of the universe as we know it. Whether or not the laws themselves were "set in motion" in some ultimate sense is a question that lies beyond the scope of determinism—it’s a philosophical or metaphysical inquiry, not a scientific one.

The image you provided of the universe’s staggering complexity doesn’t negate determinism; it emphasizes it. What we observe—matter organizing into galaxies, stars forging elements, and life emerging from chemical interactions—happens within the framework of those governing principles. Determinism isn’t trying to explain why the universe exists; it explains how, once the universe came into being, everything that has happened since can be traced to prior causes.

If you’re suggesting that the lack of an explanation for the origins of the universe somehow weakens determinism or evolutionary theory, that’s a misstep. Theories like evolution or the deterministic framework aren’t trying to account for the universe’s ultimate origin. They describe the mechanisms and processes at play once those initial conditions were established.

You can call the emergence of those initial conditions a "miracle" if you like, but that’s a separate conversation. Determinism doesn’t require an origin story for the laws of physics—it only needs those laws to be consistent, and all evidence shows that they are.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Determinism is not a claim about the origins of the universe or the ultimate source of the physical laws—it’s a framework for understanding how events unfold within those laws. The origins of those laws, or what might have existed before Planck time, are unknown, and science freely admits as much. But that lack of knowledge doesn’t undermine the deterministic chain of events we can observe and verify within the universe as it exists.

But Seed’s point is tremendously important.

You cannot have the systematic incremental processes of determinism without first establishing where those systematic processes came from and how they were set in motion on a trajectory that led to a context of order that defies our comprehension.

[seeds]

The point is that if you cannot give a plausible accounting of how these spectacularly complex and ordered (prerequisite) conditions and structures came into existence,...

(other than offering the ridiculous proposition that "gravity" and "thermodynamics" did it)

...then theories such as evolution and determinism...

(which are wholly dependent on the preexistence of those ordered conditions and structures)

...are weak and superficial.
_______

Seeds,

Determinism is not a claim about the origins of the universe or the ultimate source of the physical laws—it’s a framework for understanding how events unfold within those laws. The origins of those laws, or what might have existed before Planck time, are unknown, and science freely admits as much. But that lack of knowledge doesn’t undermine the deterministic chain of events we can observe and verify within the universe as it exists.

In the course of all of these tit-for-tat contentious exchanges, I think my original beef with you has gotten lost.

My original problem was with your insistence that humans are devoid of "free will."

However, in an attempt to clarify why I contest that assertion, see my response to Dubious (and indirectly to you) in this following excerpt from a prior post...

...if I were to concede to you [Dubious] and BigMike that determinism was indeed probably involved in most of the material processes that culminated in the manifestation of the human brain,...

...will you guys at least be open to the "possibility" that the human "I Am-ness" of which the brain has metaphorically "given birth" to,...

...could be an epiphenomenal "something" that,...

...in the spirit of what "strong emergence" allegedly entails,...

...represents something that is "wholly other" than that which it emerged from?

I'm talking about a "self-aware something" that, within the autonomous domain of its own personal mind, possesses the absolute "free will" ability to shape its own personal supply of mental imaging energy into absolutely anything it freely chooses?

Again, you guys can have your determinism up to - but not beyond the point - where the human mind, along with its accompanying "I Am-ness," is, again, metaphorically "born" (strongly emerges) from the quantum fabric of the brain.

Now I know it sounds far-fetched, but what I am speculatively suggesting is that the ontological status of the human mind (relative to the material fabric of the brain) is not unlike what is suggested as being the status of the parallel worlds in the "Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics."

In other words, the emergence of the human mind ("I Am-ness"/soul) from the quantum fabric of the brain is like a new parallel universe that "branches" off of this universe in such a way where the inner physics of the mind is no longer connected to (entangled with) the physics of the universe it branched off of.

In which case, our minds thus acquire full autonomy where the inner "agent" has "free will" control over its own inner dimension of reality without effecting or impinging on the physics of other parallel universes.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, poor ol' Hugh Everett and Bryce DeWitt are probably spinning in their graves right now. But you can't say that I'm not trying to incorporate "science" [albeit "pseudo" science] into my argument. )

Now I know that the preceding is highly speculative, however, seeing how this is a philosophy forum and not a hard science forum, such speculation is (or at lease, should be) permitted.

In which case, are you at least "open to the possibility" that "free will" might very well exist in the context I offered above?...

...or...

...is there absolutely no room for compromise on your part, despite your admission that science may not have all the answers to the mystery of reality?
_______

[Atla]

The fact that from nothingness there could arise such a thing as "system" (implying order), is the miracle.

And it is that miracle that McKenna is alluding to in the quote I provided.

It is a "miracle"...
(again, "...the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing...”)

Don't you get tired of repeating this lie? The idea of the world arising out of nothing has as much to do with science and determinism as God and the invisible pink unicorn do.

Give me a break!

Try to pay attention and grasp the point being made.

You cannot have the systematic incremental processes of determinism without first establishing where those systematic processes came from and how they were set in motion on a trajectory that led to a context of order that defies our comprehension.

Indeed, you (and BigMike, among others) are giving off the same air of self-assured smugness that Richard Dawkins exudes as he lauds the workings of evolution, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that this...



...which, again, came "fully stocked" with every possible ingredient and process necessary to awaken billions of unique lifeforms into existence,...

...had to be in place before evolution could even begin.

The point is that if you cannot give a plausible accounting of how these spectacularly complex and ordered (prerequisite) conditions and structures came into existence,...

(other than offering the ridiculous proposition that "gravity" and "thermodynamics" did it)

...then theories such as evolution and determinism...

(which are wholly dependent on the preexistence of those ordered conditions and structures)

...are weak and superficial.
_______

What a desperately dishonest God-of-the-gaps argument.

- We don't know how the universe started, therefore determinism can't be true. Wtf?
- We don't know whether or not the deterministic universe even had a beginning, therefore it must have had a beginning. Wtf?

Well lucky for us we can always fall back to God, because the appearance of God out of nothing and his universe-creating powers don't need to be explained.

(Logic of course dictates that the universe didn't even have a beginning. Either it goes on forever in time or time is a circle. But the Bible says that the world had a beginning, so..)

[godelian]

Logic of course dictates that the universe didn't even have a beginning.

I don't see why that view would be more compatible with logic. It is certainly not compatible with the Big Bang of which ΛCDM is the standard model in cosmology. Furthermore, what matters more, is that the ΛCDM model is compatible with observations.

ChatGPT: Does the ΛCDM model suggest a beginning of time and space?

Yes, the ΛCDM model (Lambda Cold Dark Matter model), which is the current standard model of cosmology, suggests a beginning of time and space as we understand them. This beginning is commonly referred to as the Big Bang.

Big Bang Framework:

The ΛCDM model is built on the framework of the Big Bang theory, which describes the universe's expansion from an extremely hot and dense state approximately 13.8 billion years ago.
This implies that the observable universe had a finite beginning in the past, where spacetime, matter, and energy emerged from an initial singularity-like state (a point of infinite density and curvature).

[Skepdick]

Can people who ask such questions and undermine the axiomatic presupposition of trust be trusted?

Trust is the bedrock of any meaningful interaction, whether personal, social, or intellectual.

Yeah. Fine. This is banal - that's why we have the principle of charity.

But when it comes to religious individuals, particularly in discussions involving uncomfortable truths—like those grounded in determinism—trust can become a complicated question. For me, and perhaps for others, it sometimes feels as if certain religious people deliberately distort their own beliefs or outright deny what they clearly recognize as logical, deterministic facts. Why? Is it a defense mechanism? A desire to maintain their worldview? Or is it something deeper—an unconscious, perhaps even willful, refusal to confront contradictions between their faith and evidence-based reasoning?

That's a lot of doubt/distrust there. What happened?

You still haven't figured out that all evidence is theoretical; and subject to interpretation?
You still haven't figured out that what counts for "evidence" differs from metaphysic to metaphysic?

The religion of "evidence-based reasoning" fails to account for social construction. There's no view-from-nowhere. Your paradigm is as arbitrary as the paradigms you doubt.

[attofishpi]

SKEPPPY!!!

I'll never forgive you 4 not playing table tennis with me.

[BigMike]

Determinism is not a claim about the origins of the universe or the ultimate source of the physical laws—it’s a framework for understanding how events unfold within those laws. The origins of those laws, or what might have existed before Planck time, are unknown, and science freely admits as much. But that lack of knowledge doesn’t undermine the deterministic chain of events we can observe and verify within the universe as it exists.

But Seed’s point is tremendously important.

You cannot have the systematic incremental processes of determinism without first establishing where those systematic processes came from and how they were set in motion on a trajectory that led to a context of order that defies our comprehension.

Alexis,

Let me clarify something fundamental about determinism and science that seems to be misunderstood here. Determinism, as I use it, is not about proving the ultimate origins of the universe or the laws that govern it. It’s about understanding and describing how events unfold within those laws—laws we can observe, measure, and verify. What happened before Planck time or where those laws ultimately come from is not a question determinism or science claims to answer. This is the same point I addressed in my discussion with FlashDangerpants a month or two ago, and it applies equally here.

Science doesn’t operate on axioms in the philosophical sense. It doesn’t assume truths about the universe; it starts with hypotheses, tests them, and builds theories based on what can be falsified or observed. It’s an inductive process—constantly refining, discarding, and improving its models of reality. It doesn’t claim ultimate certainty or absolute knowledge about the "why" behind the universe’s existence.

Seed’s insistence that determinism cannot be valid without explaining its ultimate origins is a misstep. The deterministic framework doesn’t rely on a complete account of the universe’s beginnings. It works within the observable universe, describing the chain of causality that operates according to the established physical laws. Asking determinism to account for the origins of those laws is like demanding a meteorologist explain why gravity exists before they can predict the weather. It’s an entirely separate domain.

This doesn’t diminish the importance of philosophical or metaphysical questions about origins—it just means they aren’t relevant to the validity of determinism as it pertains to the unfolding of events once the universe exists. Determinism doesn’t attempt to answer the "why" behind existence; it seeks to explain the "how" within it.

What’s more, rejecting determinism because it doesn’t address the ultimate origins would be akin to dismissing the theory of evolution because it doesn’t explain abiogenesis. These are different questions entirely. Determinism, like science, doesn’t aim to provide answers to everything; it works within its domain to describe and predict phenomena based on evidence and observation.

If Seed or anyone else believes that determinism’s lack of focus on ultimate origins invalidates its explanatory power, they are holding it to a standard it never claimed to meet. That’s not a critique—it’s a misunderstanding.

[Skepdick]

Determinism, as I use it, is not about proving the ultimate origins of the universe or the laws that govern it. It’s about understanding and describing how events unfold within those laws—laws we can observe, measure, and verify.

That's a reification fallacy. The rest is your usual drivel.

No, you can't observe, measure or verify any laws. Because laws are synthetic a postriori.

We don't directly observe any laws - only their apparent effects. It's similar to how we might observe objects falling but can't directly "see" gravity itself. All laws have explanatory gaps where phenomena diverge from predicted patterns.

That's the non-determinism part.

There exists genuine indeterminacy. Obviously. It is genuinely indeterminate whether the universe is deterministic or non-deterministic.

If that were false you'd be Laplace's demon. You'd be able to know the position and momentum of every particle in the universe and thus calculate all past and future states.

But you can't. Because the uncertainty principle holds.