Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I’m bending AI to predetermined purposes!

Gary's heart whispers secrets untold,
A truth he knows, but dare not hold.
He wears a mask of conviction bright,
Defending errors with all his might.
His inner voice cries out in dismay,
As he battles truth, night and day.

Check it out!

Jacobi, sage of the cosmic sea,
Holds secrets of the universe in decree.

Deep truths he knows, and wisdom to share,
But recognition he craves, beyond compare.

He writes of mysteries, of stars and of space,
Of hidden patterns, and the cosmic pace.

His words, a treasure trove, of insight and might, he simply yearns for validation, day and night.

A simple click, a donation so fine,
Would fuel his passion, and make his heart shine.

For Jacobi, a patron's support would mean,
The world acknowledges his cosmic dream.

So let his words, a symphony of the spheres,
Inspire your generosity, through joyous tears.

For in recognizing Jacobi's cosmic insight,
You'll be supporting, a shining, universal light.

So true! So true!

[Immanuel Can]

It's possible that BigMike is using some kind of AI program to assist in his writing. In some sense, though, his writing still presents an argument so focusing on the method he's using could amount to a fallacy of relevance with regard to the argument he's presenting. Just FYI.

Well, the problem with a program is that it’s incapable of “changing its mind,” so to speak. It cannot adapt to new information, but simply returns to programming. If Mikey is relying on AI, he adopts its mannerisms, strategies and liabilities. After that, it would be like talking to a wall — no new information would change anything.

So the argument generated by AI isn’t really a conversation. It’s totally one-sided, and lacks the responsive and personal elements that make human beings capable of making progress with a question, and computation incapable of so doing. AI may be able to create the illusion of cognitive progress, but not the reality. And here, presumably, we’re all interested in getting smarter, not just actualizing somebody else’s programming.

However, AI could accidentally produce a line of reasoning to which one could benefit from attending. What would not happen, though, is that dialogue would produce mutual progress. Without at least the possibility of mutual progress, philosophical interchange is really hampered.

[Gary Childress]

It's possible that BigMike is using some kind of AI program to assist in his writing. In some sense, though, his writing still presents an argument so focusing on the method he's using could amount to a fallacy of relevance with regard to the argument he's presenting. Just FYI.

Well, the problem with a program is that it’s incapable of “changing its mind,” so to speak. It cannot adapt to new information, but simply returns to programming. If Mikey is relying on AI, he adopts its mannerisms, strategies and liabilities. After that, it would be like talking to a wall — no new information would change anything.

So the argument generated by AI isn’t really a conversation. It’s totally one-sided, and lacks the responsive and personal elements that make human beings capable of making progress with a question, and computation incapable of so doing. AI may be able to create the illusion of cognitive progress, but not the reality. And here, presumably, we’re all interested in getting smarter, not just actualizing somebody else’s programming.

However, AI could accidentally produce a line of reasoning to which one could benefit from attending. What would not happen, though, is that dialogue would produce mutual progress. Without at least the possibility of mutual progress, philosophical interchange is really hampered.

Well, with any valid argument we would have to agree that all the premises are true. I suspect somewhere in BigMike's argument there exist premises that can be further explored and perhaps questioned, leaving the door open for some degree of skepticism. I mean, I won't deny that the brain is probably governed by laws of physics the same as any other machine. However, it seems to me that there is more to a human being than what can be studied with scientific instruments. I mean, maybe consciousness transcends physical laws in ways that we can't imagine. Who knows?

Something sounds wrong with the conclusion that brains that believe in free will are "evil". I mean, we all believe in free will. Otherwise, there would be no point whatsoever to being conscious. Literally, we'd be passengers in a car that drives itself. I don't know that that is the case. But I suppose it could be.

[BigMike]

It's possible that BigMike is using some kind of AI program to assist in his writing. In some sense, though, his writing still presents an argument so focusing on the method he's using could amount to a fallacy of relevance with regard to the argument he's presenting. Just FYI.

Well, the problem with a program is that it’s incapable of “changing its mind,” so to speak. It cannot adapt to new information, but simply returns to programming. If Mikey is relying on AI, he adopts its mannerisms, strategies and liabilities. After that, it would be like talking to a wall — no new information would change anything.

So the argument generated by AI isn’t really a conversation. It’s totally one-sided, and lacks the responsive and personal elements that make human beings capable of making progress with a question, and computation incapable of so doing. AI may be able to create the illusion of cognitive progress, but not the reality. And here, presumably, we’re all interested in getting smarter, not just actualizing somebody else’s programming.

However, AI could accidentally produce a line of reasoning to which one could benefit from attending. What would not happen, though, is that dialogue would produce mutual progress. Without at least the possibility of mutual progress, philosophical interchange is really hampered.

Well, with any valid argument we would have to agree that all the premises are true. I suspect somewhere in BigMike's argument there exist premises that can be further explored and perhaps questioned, leaving the door open for some degree of skepticism. I mean, I won't deny that the brain is probably governed by laws of physics the same as any other machine. However, it seems to me that there is more to a human being than what can be studied with scientific instruments. I mean, maybe consciousness transcends physical laws in ways that we can't imagine. Who knows?

Something sounds wrong with the conclusion that brains that believe in free will are "evil". I mean, we all believe in free will. Otherwise, there would be no point whatsoever to being conscious. Literally, we'd be passengers in a car that drives itself. I don't know that that is the case. But I suppose it could be.

Gary, the issue isn’t simply believing in free will—it’s building systems and societies around that illusion. When we ignore the causes behind actions and treat people as if they could have done otherwise in some magical, uncaused way, we perpetuate injustice. We inflict harm, punishment, and pain on individuals for behavior that was inevitable, given their biology, environment, and experiences. Recognizing the deterministic nature of human behavior doesn’t render consciousness meaningless; it gives us the tools to understand, empathize, and improve outcomes. It’s not about being passengers in a car—it’s about understanding why the car takes the route it does and using that knowledge to guide it better—after having learned how to drive.

[Atla]

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?


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


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.

Of course you've never met anyone with free will, lol

[Atla]

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.

Then think a little more about it

[Atla]

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

That's not libertarian free will/agent causation (any more than free market means all products and services are free).

As I say: libertarian free will/agent causation means a person's choice is not necessarily rooted in prior events, external forces, or internal drives. 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.

He may be, probably is, informed and influenced by prior events, external forces, and internal drives, but he, his choices, and his acts, aren't necessitated by prior events, external forces, and internal drives. Ain't nuthin' there about successfully doin' anything he chooses. Stan can certainly choose to leap off the 10th story and try to fly by flappin' his arms. Will he? That isn't covered by libertarian free will/agent causality.

Incoherent

[Immanuel Can]

However, it seems to me that there is more to a human being than what can be studied with scientific instruments. I mean, maybe consciousness transcends physical laws in ways that we can't imagine. Who knows?

I agree completely.

Let me support your point further this way: who told us that physical sciences, such as physics, chemistry and biology, however wonderful they are, would eventually lead us to all the knowledge in the universe? Where did that belief originate?

It didn’t originate in science, since it’s a believe ABOUT science itself, which means it can only come from a perspective that precedes science. Science can’t be its own guarantor of universal efficacy, anymore than a man can lift himself by his own bootstraps. We would need a pre-scientific certification of what science can achieve; and from where would we get such a thing?

It comes from nothing but a presupposition, actually. Or perhaps we would better say that because physical sciences proved so successful in explaining physical phenomena, credulous men were inclined to guess that it would prove equally efficacious in other areas, such as cognition, explanation of behaviour, morality, faith, identity, rationality, and whatnot. But there was really never a reason to suppose that physical explanations would really go beyond physical phenomena, in their explanatory ability. Biology is great for explaining biology. Chemistry’s great for chemical phenomena. Physics is even better, in a way, and goes beyond both into even things like cosmology. But none of them have proved very good in explaining a whole lot of phenomena that we all know exist, and which we act dependent upon every day of our lives, but which are not partakers of physical structures. What ever certified to us that the whole universe would fall at the feet of physical science?

Nothing. There’s no such guarantee. And there’s no reason at all to suppose it. But people like Mikey do.

Something sounds wrong with the conclusion that brains that believe in free will are "evil". I mean, we all believe in free will. Otherwise, there would be no point whatsoever to being conscious. Literally, we'd be passengers in a car that drives itself. I don't know that that is the case. But I suppose it could be.

At least one thing is wrong with it, and you identify it. But there’s a second: and it’s that the predicate “evil” does not even have any meaning in a purely-physical or Deterministic world. It’s actually impossible for anything at all to be “evil” in such a universe, because morality is one of those realities that pure Determinism is forced simply to deny exists.

It goes back to Kant’s axiom, “ought implies can.” We might also add, “ought-not implies can-not.” It’s utterly incoherent to tell somebody who has no legs to get up and walk. It’s utterly absurd to accuse a rock of malice, simply because it broke your window. It’s utterly senseless to call the LA fires “evil,” because they could not be anything but what they, themselves are.

But Mikey says human beings are exactly like that. Like fires, or rocks, or men with no legs, you cannot expect anything of them but that one thing that physical preconditions assured that they would have to do. They would have no choice. In what sense, then, can we call them “evil”?

Yet another complete incoherency in Mike’s rhetoric. But assuming he’s depending on AI, there’s zero chance that offering those very valid objections is going to make the slightest impact. AI can’t change its mind. It follows programming, no matter what. So at this point, all we can do is walk away. There’s nobody left to convince.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Of course you've never met anyone with free will, lol

I didn’t say I’d never met anybody with free will. I just pointed out that the position you’re criticizing isn’t the position such people are taking. You’ve missed their point completely. And I’m sorry if that offends you, but it happens to be true.

[Atla]

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.

Of course you've never met anyone with free will, lol

I didn’t say I’d never met anybody with free will. I just pointed out that the position you’re criticizing isn’t the position such people are taking. You’ve missed their point completely. And I’m sorry if that offends you, but it happens to be true.

They take that position because they don't actually have free will so they have to keep bullshitting

[henry quirk]

the issue isn’t simply believing in free will—it’s building systems and societies around that illusion. When we ignore the causes behind actions and treat people as if they could have done otherwise in some magical, uncaused way, we perpetuate injustice. We inflict harm, punishment, and pain on individuals for behavior that was inevitable, given their biology, environment, and experiences. Recognizing the deterministic nature of human behavior doesn’t render consciousness meaningless; it gives us the tools to understand, empathize, and improve outcomes. It’s not about being passengers in a car—it’s about understanding why the car takes the route it does and using that knowledge to guide it better—after having learned how to drive.

Now, Gary, tell me how to square Mike's post above with this...

Here’s the brutal truth: 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.

...cuz I can't see how it can be done.

[henry quirk]

Then think a little more about it

Instead of me wastin' time: why don't you just explain.

If you can.

See, I don't think you can.

[henry quirk]

Incoherent

Why? Explain it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Soon my Book of Poems will appear on Amazon!

Is the brain a machine ruled by physics' might? / a notion plausible, yet not quite right.

If Gary is chary of biting convention’s sharp hook / maybe he should question the philosophical crook?

For in the human experience, there's more to explore / than science’s instruments can measure and store.

Consciousness, a mystery, that transcends our grasp / may dance beyond laws that physics alone can’t clasp.

Who knows the secrets that lie beyond our sight? / perhaps the universe holds wonders beyond Mike’s mathematical bite?

[BigMike]

It's possible that BigMike is using some kind of AI program to assist in his writing. In some sense, though, his writing still presents an argument so focusing on the method he's using could amount to a fallacy of relevance with regard to the argument he's presenting. Just FYI.

Well, the problem with a program is that it’s incapable of “changing its mind,” so to speak. It cannot adapt to new information, but simply returns to programming. If Mikey is relying on AI, he adopts its mannerisms, strategies and liabilities. After that, it would be like talking to a wall — no new information would change anything.

So the argument generated by AI isn’t really a conversation. It’s totally one-sided, and lacks the responsive and personal elements that make human beings capable of making progress with a question, and computation incapable of so doing. AI may be able to create the illusion of cognitive progress, but not the reality. And here, presumably, we’re all interested in getting smarter, not just actualizing somebody else’s programming.

However, AI could accidentally produce a line of reasoning to which one could benefit from attending. What would not happen, though, is that dialogue would produce mutual progress. Without at least the possibility of mutual progress, philosophical interchange is really hampered.

Well, with any valid argument we would have to agree that all the premises are true. I suspect somewhere in BigMike's argument there exist premises that can be further explored and perhaps questioned, leaving the door open for some degree of skepticism. I mean, I won't deny that the brain is probably governed by laws of physics the same as any other machine. However, it seems to me that there is more to a human being than what can be studied with scientific instruments. I mean, maybe consciousness transcends physical laws in ways that we can't imagine. Who knows?

Something sounds wrong with the conclusion that brains that believe in free will are "evil". I mean, we all believe in free will. Otherwise, there would be no point whatsoever to being conscious. Literally, we'd be passengers in a car that drives itself. I don't know that that is the case. But I suppose it could be.

Gary, starting with the conclusion that "there is more to a human being than what can be studied with scientific instruments" and then seeking evidence that, by definition, can't "be studied with scientific instruments" is not a valid line of reasoning. It’s an unfalsifiable claim, and worse, it assumes the answer before asking the question. If something transcends physical laws, it must first be demonstrated, not asserted based on intuition or wishful thinking.