Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[accelafine]

Just the fact that 'free will' is some bs thought up by religious quacks should be enough for anyone to realise that it's nonsense. It hasn't gone unnoticed that the only ones on here vehementy (trying to) argue against determinism are the religious nuts. If we genuinely had 'free will' we would barely be able to function. Think about it.

[Atla]

Fun fact, if people had free will, none of us would be here. Because none of us would have been born, because the world would have been destroyed at least tens of thousands of years ago by the first human wanting to destroy it. And since then, the world would have been destroyed billions of times over.

So either we have no free will at all, or we do have some influence over things but people with opposing wills tend to cancel each other out.

[Immanuel Can]

Fun fact, if people had free will, none of us would be here. Because none of us would have been born, because the world would have been destroyed at least tens of thousands of years ago by the first human wanting to destroy it.

That seems implausible, I have to say. Assuming some primitive person wanted to destroy the whole world, what would make you think some club-swinging cave-dweller had anything close to that kind of power? It’s not until the last century that the human race as a whole, through nuclear power, gained the means even to destroy most life on the planet. So how was it going to be done before that?

And since then, the world would have been destroyed billions of times over.

That’s even less plausible. Not only would one primitive man have had to had the means, but now you suggest a billion would?

So either we have no free will at all, or we do have some influence over things but people with opposing wills tend to cancel each other out.

I think maybe you’re imagining “free” means something like “omnipotent.” However, I don’t know even one proponent of free will who thinks that’s the case. But I can’t even make sense of the argument unless you’re imagining some kind of omnipotence would have to come along with free will…

[Alexis Jacobi]

It hasn't gone unnoticed that the only ones on here vehemently (trying to) argue against determinism are the religious nuts.

It is a good point to have brought out. And though your view of religion (philosophy arose out of religious views) is cynical, no one could deny that there is such a thing as religious nuttery.

However, there is also a very sane religiousness and a philosophical stance that considers and is involved with things metaphysical (and only understandable intellectually) and even supernatural.

The essence of this problem is in a contrast between two very different mental types. And much of it depends on inner experience.

We are definitely determined beings insofar as we are here in this world and subject to extraordinary limitations and constraints. In a very real sense that determinism can be, should be, recognized. We cannot be else but human. And we all come out of conditioning circumstances (quite a bit like His Bigness describes it).

But the thing about most of you lower-level, childish, brutish, blathering, hot-headed, over-stuffed and illiterate loudmouths cannot understand (though I demonstrate a saint-like patience when facing such intransigence!) is what intellect actually means and what it is.

That’s it! I’ve convinced myself! I’m fed up! I am putting all you assholes on ignore!
________________________

(Latin intelligere — inter and legere — to choose between, to discern; Greek nous; German Vernunft, Verstand; French intellect; Italian intelletto).

The faculty of thought. As understood in Catholic philosophical literature it signifies the higher, spiritual, cognitive power of the soul. It is in this view awakened to action by sense, but transcends the latter in range. Amongst its functions are attention, conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness. All these modes of activity exhibit a distinctly suprasensuous element, and reveal a cognitive faculty of a higher order than is required for mere sense-cognitions. In harmony, therefore, with Catholic usage, we reserve the terms intellect, intelligence, and intellectual to this higher power and its operations, although many modern psychologists are wont, with much resulting confusion, to extend the application of these terms so as to include sensuous forms of the cognitive process. By thus restricting the use of these terms, the inaccuracy of such phrases as "animal intelligence" is avoided. Before such language may be legitimately employed, it should be shown that the lower animals are endowed with genuinely rational faculties, fundamentally one in kind with those of man. Catholic philosophers, however they differ on minor points, as a general body have held that intellect is a spiritual faculty depending extrinsically, but not intrinsically, on the bodily organism. The importance of a right theory of intellect is twofold: on account of its bearing on epistemology, or the doctrine of knowledge; and because of its connexion with the question of the spirituality of the soul.

[Immanuel Can]

Just the fact that 'free will' is some bs thought up by religious quacks should be enough to realise that it's nonsense.

That’s an ad hominem argument, and a fallacy, of course. Even were Determinism or free will defended by Mother Theresa or by Adolph Hitler himself, it wouldn’t tell us which one had the right view. It would only tell us that we did or did not like the speaker — not that, on this particular occasion, he/she was correct or in error.

If we genuinely had 'free will' we would barely be able to function. Think about it.

I’m trying to see the point you’re aiming at making here, but I’m not able to imagine what it is. Why would free will entail that people would be “barely able to function”? And how would Determinism help?

[accelafine]

Just the fact that 'free will' is some bs thought up by religious quacks should be enough to realise that it's nonsense.

That’s an ad hominem argument, and a fallacy, of course. Even were Determinism or free will defended by Mother Theresa or by Adolph Hitler himself, it wouldn’t tell us which one had the right view. It would only tell us that we did or did not like the speaker — not that, on this particular occasion, he/she was correct or in error.

If we genuinely had 'free will' we would barely be able to function. Think about it.

I’m trying to see the point you’re aiming at making here, but I’m not able to imagine what it is. Why would free will entail that people would be “barely able to function”? And how would Determinism help?

Think about it. I'm not your mother.

[henry quirk]

if people had free will, none of us would be here. Because none of us would have been born, because the world would have been destroyed at least tens of thousands of years ago by the first human wanting to destroy it. And since then, the world would have been destroyed billions of times over.

Not seein' how bein' a free will makes for guaranteed global destruction.

You understand libertarian free will/agent causation means a person's choice is not necessarily rooted in prior events, external forces, or internal drives, yeah? To be a free will means he is the source of his choice, he's the cause, and, therefore, he's responsible for his choice.

There's nuthin' in there sayin' becuz he chooses to, for example, kill the world, that he'll succeed.

[Impenitent]

if people had free will, none of us would be here. Because none of us would have been born, because the world would have been destroyed at least tens of thousands of years ago by the first human wanting to destroy it. And since then, the world would have been destroyed billions of times over.

Not seein' how bein' a free will makes for guaranteed global destruction.

You understand libertarian free will/agent causation means a person's choice is not necessarily rooted in prior events, external forces, or internal drives, yeah? To be a free will means he is the source of his choice, he's the cause, and, therefore, he's responsible for his choice.

There's nuthin' in there sayin' becuz he chooses to, for example, kill the world, that he'll succeed.

if at first you don't succeed- try try again

history never repeats

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Just the fact that 'free will' is some bs thought up by religious quacks should be enough to realise that it's nonsense.

That’s an ad hominem argument, and a fallacy, of course. Even were Determinism or free will defended by Mother Theresa or by Adolph Hitler himself, it wouldn’t tell us which one had the right view. It would only tell us that we did or did not like the speaker — not that, on this particular occasion, he/she was correct or in error.

If we genuinely had 'free will' we would barely be able to function. Think about it.

I’m trying to see the point you’re aiming at making here, but I’m not able to imagine what it is. Why would free will entail that people would be “barely able to function”? And how would Determinism help?

Think about it. I'm not your mother.

Mercifully, no, that's true.

Still, if you had an interesting idea, I'd like to know what it was. It's not obvious.

[Immanuel Can]

history never repeats

-Imp

I tell myself...before I go to sleep.

[Atla]

Fun fact, if people had free will, none of us would be here. Because none of us would have been born, because the world would have been destroyed at least tens of thousands of years ago by the first human wanting to destroy it.

That seems implausible, I have to say. Assuming some primitive person wanted to destroy the whole world, what would make you think some club-swinging cave-dweller had anything close to that kind of power? It’s not until the last century that the human race as a whole, through nuclear power, gained the means even to destroy most life on the planet. So how was it going to be done before that?

And since then, the world would have been destroyed billions of times over.

That’s even less plausible. Not only would one primitive man have had to had the means, but now you suggest a billion would?

So either we have no free will at all, or we do have some influence over things but people with opposing wills tend to cancel each other out.

I think maybe you’re imagining “free” means something like “omnipotent.” However, I don’t know even one proponent of free will who thinks that’s the case. But I can’t even make sense of the argument unless you’re imagining some kind of omnipotence would have to come along with free will…

That's what free means, not bound by physical laws ie. some kind of omnipotent.

[Atla]

if people had free will, none of us would be here. Because none of us would have been born, because the world would have been destroyed at least tens of thousands of years ago by the first human wanting to destroy it. And since then, the world would have been destroyed billions of times over.

Not seein' how bein' a free will makes for guaranteed global destruction.

You understand libertarian free will/agent causation means a person's choice is not necessarily rooted in prior events, external forces, or internal drives, yeah? To be a free will means he is the source of his choice, he's the cause, and, therefore, he's responsible for his choice.

There's nuthin' in there sayin' becuz he chooses to, for example, kill the world, that he'll succeed.

Then he doesn't have free will. Being able to deviate from physical laws when making choices but never being able to act on your choices is incoherent.

[Immanuel Can]

Fun fact, if people had free will, none of us would be here. Because none of us would have been born, because the world would have been destroyed at least tens of thousands of years ago by the first human wanting to destroy it.

That seems implausible, I have to say. Assuming some primitive person wanted to destroy the whole world, what would make you think some club-swinging cave-dweller had anything close to that kind of power? It’s not until the last century that the human race as a whole, through nuclear power, gained the means even to destroy most life on the planet. So how was it going to be done before that?

And since then, the world would have been destroyed billions of times over.

That’s even less plausible. Not only would one primitive man have had to had the means, but now you suggest a billion would?

So either we have no free will at all, or we do have some influence over things but people with opposing wills tend to cancel each other out.

I think maybe you’re imagining “free” means something like “omnipotent.” However, I don’t know even one proponent of free will who thinks that’s the case. But I can’t even make sense of the argument unless you’re imagining some kind of omnipotence would have to come along with free will…

That's what free means, not bound by physical laws ie. some kind of omnipotent.

Actually, I've never met a single proponent of free will who uses the word that way. And if any did, then the claim that "people are omnipotent" would be so ridiculous as not to be capable of being an sustained. People are very clearly NOT omnipotent, and I've never met anybody who thinks they are.

So if that's what you thought it meant, when used in the idiom "free will," no wonder you wouldn't be inclined to imagine they had anything at all to say. That would follow logically. However, you'll find that nobody defends "free" as meaning "omnipotent": which means that what you're beating is the classic "straw man," not the argument being made by proponents of will, or of libertarianism, or of any kind of volitionalism or voluntarism -- all the positions normally associated with advocating will as a causal agent.

[henry quirk]

if people had free will, none of us would be here. Because none of us would have been born, because the world would have been destroyed at least tens of thousands of years ago by the first human wanting to destroy it. And since then, the world would have been destroyed billions of times over.

Not seein' how bein' a free will makes for guaranteed global destruction.

You understand libertarian free will/agent causation means a person's choice is not necessarily rooted in prior events, external forces, or internal drives, yeah? To be a free will means he is the source of his choice, he's the cause, and, therefore, he's responsible for his choice.

There's nuthin' in there sayin' becuz he chooses to, for example, kill the world, that he'll succeed.

Then he doesn't have free will. Being able to deviate from physical laws when making choices but never being able to act on your choices is incoherent.

I didn't say diddly about never being able to act on choices.

And: I don't see an explanation of how bein' a free will makes for guaranteed global destruction.

[Alexis Jacobi]

A curious post (2022) from another thread. Hey, wait a second! The writing style is notably different!

Even though they don't have a choice, people who believe they have free will are intrinsically evil. Some younger free-will believers can be saved, but rarely can older ones. The faster they go, the better for everyone else.