Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Atla]

Incoherent

Why? Explain it.

You'll have to explain it. You claim to have the Magical Power of free will in your head, where we can't see it, there you can think and choose freely. But then in the external world, where we can see it, you suddenly can't do whatever you want, you lose the Magical Power. That's incoherent.

[BigMike]

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, the two statements align perfectly when you stop clinging to the illusion of free will. My argument consistently recognizes that our actions, thoughts, and decisions are determined by prior causes—biology, environment, and experiences. Understanding those causes doesn’t give us mystical "control" over them; it gives us the knowledge to influence outcomes moving forward.

Imagine a river: it flows downhill because of gravity and the terrain—determined forces. But if you understand how those forces work, you can construct channels or dams to redirect the flow. Similarly, understanding human behavior allows us to design better systems that reduce harm and encourage beneficial outcomes. This isn’t a contradiction—it’s a practical application of determinism.

[Alexis Jacobi]

C’mon Gary, think THINK!

[henry quirk]

Incoherent

Why? Explain it.

You'll have to explain it. You claim to have the Magical Power of free will in your head, where we can't see it, there you can think and choose freely. But then in the external world, where we can see it, you suddenly can't do whatever you want, you lose the Magical Power. That's incoherent.

Yeah, already covered that. Libertarian free will/agent causation isn't what you think it is. Look it up for yourself.

Of course, as a free will, you can choose to not look it up and to go on sayin' libertarian free will/agent causation is sumthin' other than what it is, and you can use that falsehood to keep right on denyin' your own status as a free will.

Your choice, guy, and your business.

[Atla]

Why? Explain it.

You'll have to explain it. You claim to have the Magical Power of free will in your head, where we can't see it, there you can think and choose freely. But then in the external world, where we can see it, you suddenly can't do whatever you want, you lose the Magical Power. That's incoherent.

Yeah, already covered that. Libertarian free will/agent causation isn't what you think it is. Look it up for yourself.

Of course, as a free will, you can choose to not look it up and to go on sayin' libertarian free will/agent causation is sumthin' other than what it is, and you can use that falsehood to keep right on denyin' your own status as a free will.

Your choice, guy, and your business.

And you can't add 2 and 2 together and realize that the libertarian free willers had to settle for this bullshit because they tried to make their free will work in the external world and failed.

[henry quirk]

Here it is again, Gary. Mike sez...

the two statements align perfectly when you stop clinging to the illusion of free will.

...as though I have a choice.

Tell me, Gary, how do I have a choice if...

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.

...?

[henry quirk]

And here, Gary, is another who sez I have a choice but don't have the free will to actually make a choice...

And you can't add 2 and 2 together and realize that the libertarian free willers had to settle for this bullshit because they tried to make their free will work in the external world and failed.

[Gary Childress]

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.

OK. I hear you, So, if some deranged terrorist decides to nuke the town I live in to retaliate for something one of my neighbors did, then I'm history and the terrorist will be reformed so that he doesn't make the same mistake again? Somehow, that's not a very comforting thought to me. But I guess if I'm killed, then it doesn't really matter about me anymore. I'm no longer part of the equation.

Kind of sobering to think about.

[BigMike]

Here it is again, Gary. Mike sez...

the two statements align perfectly when you stop clinging to the illusion of free will.

...as though I have a choice.

Tell me, Gary, how do I have a choice if...

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.

...?

Exactly, Henry—you don’t have a choice. But if you gained even a basic understanding of how determinism actually works, that knowledge could become one of the many inputs shaping your future actions and thoughts. In other words, your deterministic brain could evolve its perspective—not through mystical free will, but through the natural process of learning and adapting to new information. That’s how it works, Henry—deterministically, of course.

[Gary Childress]

Here it is again, Gary. Mike sez...

the two statements align perfectly when you stop clinging to the illusion of free will.

...as though I have a choice.

Tell me, Gary, how do I have a choice if...

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.

...?

I honestly don't know, Henry. It seems to me that if Mike is correct, then you and I must just be passengers in our bodies, going along for the ride. We'll have to see if we learn how to be better machines now that we know this...I guess. Beats me. I'm just a resident in this world. It's not like I have any effect on it or any say in what happens. ("I" being this conscious being who feels pain and pleasure and other things.)

[BigMike]

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.

OK. I hear you, So, if some deranged terrorist decides to nuke the town I live in to retaliate for something one of my neighbors did, then I'm history and the terrorist will be reformed so that he doesn't make the same mistake again? Somehow, that's not a very comforting thought to me. But I guess if I'm killed, then it doesn't really matter about me anymore. I'm no longer part of the equation.

Kind of sobering to think about.

Gary, I understand why that feels unsettling. The deterministic view doesn’t erase the gravity of actions like those of a terrorist, nor does it mean their behavior is excused or shrugged off. It means we shift from reacting with blind retribution to addressing the causes that lead to such actions in the first place—extremism, social conditions, mental health issues, or misinformation.

And here’s the irony: the terrorist probably thinks that you and the rest of us have free will and that we therefore deserve to be punished for something. That belief fuels their justification for harm. Recognizing the deterministic nature of behavior doesn’t comfort victims or justify harm; it’s about preventing future harm by understanding why it happened and altering the conditions that made it inevitable. Sobering, yes, but it’s also the most effective way to reduce tragedies like the one you described.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

OK. I hear you...

Really? Do you hear what he's actually saying, Gary? He's saying that there is such a thing as "illusions" and "bad systems" that will not be built if people believe in Determinism, but will be built if they don't -- which would mean their beliefs can change things. And he says there's such a thing as "injustice," which is a moral term, not a Deterministic one, and he says if we believe that people aren't responsible, then our beliefs will change this "injustice" to justice. And he wants you to believe that "harm, punishment and pain" are unserved, and that it would be morally wrong for us to inflict them...

But none of this makes one lick of sense in a Determinist universe. In that universe, there is only, ever, the inevitable. Whatever is was predestined to be what it is. None of our beliefs change anything. There are no unjust social systems. There's no morality. All there ever is, is whatever already is going to be. It's Fate. You can't escape it, change it, or manipulate it.

But Mike wants you to think that the very reason for Determinism is so that you'll be able to"drive the car" or manipulate the future in different ways, ways that are "better" or "more just" than otherwise.

He can't get his story straight. So why should you "hear" it?

[BigMike]

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.

OK. I hear you...

Really? Do you hear what he's actually saying, Gary? He's saying that there is such a thing as "illusions" and "bad systems" that will not be built if people believe in Determinism, but will be built if they don't -- which would mean their beliefs can change things. And he says there's such a thing as "injustice," which is a moral term, not a Deterministic one, and he says if we believe that people aren't responsible, then our beliefs will change this "injustice" to justice. And he wants you to believe that "harm, punishment and pain" are unserved, and that it would be morally wrong for us to inflict them...

But none of this makes one lick of sense in a Determinist universe. In that universe, there is only, ever, the inevitable. Whatever is was predestined to be what it is. None of our beliefs change anything. There are no unjust social systems. There's no morality. All there ever is, is whatever already is going to be. It's Fate. You can't escape it, change it, or manipulate it.

But Mike wants you to think that the very reason for Determinism is so that you'll be able to"drive the car" or manipulate the future in different ways, ways that are "better" or "more just" than otherwise.

He can't get his story straight. So why should you "hear" it?

Immanuel, your brain might lack the necessary sophistication to grasp how learning today can impact future behavior without invoking free will. Think of a child who touches a hot stove. They don’t touch it again—not because they made a "free choice" but because the pain they experienced altered their neural pathways. That learning shapes future behavior deterministically. No "free will" is required—just cause, effect, and adaptation.

[Immanuel Can]

He can't get his story straight. So why should you "hear" it?

Immanuel, your brain might lack the necessary sophistication...

To detect the painfully obvious contradictions? Hardly. I've pointed them out.

Think of a child who touches a hot stove. They don’t touch it again—not because they made a "free choice" but because the pain they experienced altered their neural pathways. That learning shapes future behavior deterministically. No "free will" is required—just cause, effect, and adaptation.

That's not a Determinist explanation.

This is the Determinist one.

The child was made to touch the stove, not by a choice of his or her own, but by predetermining forces. Whether or not the child will do it again will likewise be determined entirely by what physical forces are going on at that time. There is no "behaviour," no "learning" and no individual consciousness engaged in the question at all.

And it is neither right nor wrong if a child burns his or her hand, or is immolated entirely, for that matter. What will be, will be. Physical forces will determine that.

There. See? I'm better at Determinism than you are. No contradictions.

[Gary Childress]

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.

OK. I hear you...

Really? Do you hear what he's actually saying, Gary? He's saying that there is such a thing as "illusions" and "bad systems" that will not be built if people believe in Determinism, but will be built if they don't -- which would mean their beliefs can change things. And he says there's such a thing as "injustice," which is a moral term, not a Deterministic one, and he says if we believe that people aren't responsible, then our beliefs will change this "injustice" to justice. And he wants you to believe that "harm, punishment and pain" are unserved, and that it would be morally wrong for us to inflict them...

But none of this makes one lick of sense in a Determinist universe. In that universe, there is only, ever, the inevitable. Whatever is was predestined to be what it is. None of our beliefs change anything. There are no unjust social systems. There's no morality. All there ever is, is whatever already is going to be. It's Fate. You can't escape it, change it, or manipulate it.

But Mike wants you to think that the very reason for Determinism is so that you'll be able to"drive the car" or manipulate the future in different ways, ways that are "better" or "more just" than otherwise.

He can't get his story straight. So why should you "hear" it?

I hear what he's saying. I just can't refute it any more than I can refute that there is a God or not. I don't know how this world ultimately works. Maybe he's right and punishing people for egregious acts only makes things worse--or to bring it all home, after what my country did in the Middle East, I can't consciously say, "I hope Muslims punish us for our crimes against them". There but for the grace of God go I. Or maybe it's fate, I don't know.