Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[henry quirk]

Look here, Gary: Mike tells me...

you don’t have a choice.

...but in the same breath he tells me...

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.

...so how am I to gain a basic understanding if I have no say-so at all about where my attention goes, or what I think, or, well, anything?

Mike chastises me for things he sez I can't control.

See the contradiction?

[BigMike]

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.

Gary, the difference is this: God is not falsifiable—determinism is. Show me one instance of something physically happening with no cause. If, however, I claimed I felt the presence of a real unicorn yesterday—good luck proving me wrong. Determinism deals with observable, testable cause-and-effect; God and unicorns don’t. That’s the distinction.

[henry quirk]

It seems to me that if Mike is correct, then you and I must just be passengers in our bodies,

Oh, it's far worse than that. If Mike is right, then all of us are just collections or clusters of reactions. We don't even rate as passengers. We certainly aren't persons.

[BigMike]

Look here, Gary: Mike tells me...

you don’t have a choice.

...but in the same breath he tells me...

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.

...so how am I to gain a basic understanding if I have no say-so at all about where my attention goes, or what I think, or, well, anything?

Mike chastises me for things he sez I can't control.

See the contradiction?

Henry, there’s no contradiction—just your misunderstanding. You don’t choose to gain a basic understanding, just as you don’t choose to misunderstand. I said if "you gained even a basic understanding…", which you evidently didn’t. That’s not your fault; it’s just your underdeveloped brain making it impossible for you to grasp.

[henry quirk]

See how Mike is, Gary? He gives me a pass...

I said if "you gained even a basic understanding…", which you evidently didn’t. That’s not your fault

...then he jabs me good with...

it’s just your underdeveloped brain making it impossible for you to grasp.

...and makes it my fault. You note he doesn't say maybe I just haven't done a good job of explaining, no, it's my brain that's the problem.

Now, me, I cut Mike no slack at all. He's a free will lookin' to subvert other free wills. I think he's willfully, knowingly, a bad person.

[Impenitent]

another underdeveloped brain here asking if he is a knowingly bad person, yet he is predetermined to be so, is he morally culpable?

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know.

Gary, the difference is this: God is not falsifiable—determinism is.

This is Mike's first mistake. Determinism is not falsifiable and not verifiable. But he doesn't know what those words actually mean, philosophically. He hasn't read Popper.

Show me one instance of something physically happening with no cause.

This challenge has nothing to do with free will, actually. Free will states that volition IS a cause. So it's not the case that free will supposes there are no causes for things. It just has a broader set of things included in the category "causes" than Materialism has.

[Immanuel Can]

another underdeveloped brain here asking if he is a knowingly bad person, yet he is predetermined to be so, is he morally culpable?

-Imp

I'm not surprised if he's been depending on AI. When he tries to explain by himself, he seems confused and starts contradicting his own Determinism.

[Gary Childress]

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.

Gary, the difference is this: God is not falsifiable—determinism is. Show me one instance of something physically happening with no cause. If, however, I claimed I felt the presence of a real unicorn yesterday—good luck proving me wrong. Determinism deals with observable, testable cause-and-effect; God and unicorns don’t. That’s the distinction.

It could be the case that God is not falsifiable. Do we know that nothing which is unfalsifiable is the case?

[Gary Childress]

See how Mike is, Gary? He gives me a pass...

I said if "you gained even a basic understanding…", which you evidently didn’t. That’s not your fault

...then he jabs me good with...

it’s just your underdeveloped brain making it impossible for you to grasp.

...and makes it my fault. You note he doesn't say maybe I just haven't done a good job of explaining, no, it's my brain that's the problem.

Now, me, I cut Mike no slack at all. He's a free will lookin' to subvert other free wills. I think he's willfully, knowingly, a bad person.

From one "underdeveloped" brain to another, Henry. I think you're fine. My brain is nothing to write home about either.

[henry quirk]

another underdeveloped brain here asking if he is a knowingly bad person, yet he is predetermined to be so, is he morally culpable?

-Imp

Well, he'd say he isn't a bad person, but even if he were, it wouldn't be his fault.

Me, I say it's all on him.

[Atla]

If they have free will inside their heads then why don't they choose to become smarter?

[henry quirk]

See how Mike is, Gary? He gives me a pass...

I said if "you gained even a basic understanding…", which you evidently didn’t. That’s not your fault

...then he jabs me good with...

it’s just your underdeveloped brain making it impossible for you to grasp.

...and makes it my fault. You note he doesn't say maybe I just haven't done a good job of explaining, no, it's my brain that's the problem.

Now, me, I cut Mike no slack at all. He's a free will lookin' to subvert other free wills. I think he's willfully, knowingly, a bad person.

From one "underdeveloped" brain to another, Henry. I think you're fine. My brain is nothing to write home about either.

Thanks! Just between us: I think my brain is quite developed. Yours too. You just have some really bad habits.

For sure, Mike ain't got nuthin' on either of us. If fact, I think Mike is kinda dumb (along with bein' a bad egg).

[henry quirk]

If they have free will inside their heads then why don't they choose to become smarter?

Good question: so, why don't you get smart and disembark the determinism train to nowhere and be the free will you are?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Master Meta teaches:

Showing kindness and compassion to individuals who hold extremist views, such as Nazis, or those who engage in harmful behavior, like psychopaths and terrorists, may seem counterintuitive. However, it is essential to recognize that these individuals are also human beings, deserving of basic human dignity and compassion.

Firstly, it is crucial to distinguish between the individual and their actions. While we may condemn and reject the harmful ideologies and behaviors, we must not dehumanize the person. By doing so, we risk perpetuating a cycle of hate and violence.

Secondly, showing kindness and compassion can be a powerful tool for transformation. When we treat individuals with empathy and understanding, we create an opportunity for them to reflect on their actions and ideologies. This can be particularly effective in the case of individuals who have been radicalized or indoctrinated into extremist groups.

Furthermore, kindness and compassion can help to break down the "us versus them" mentality that often fuels conflict and violence. By recognizing our shared humanity, we can begin to build bridges and foster greater understanding.

It is also important to recognize that many individuals who engage in extremist behavior have themselves been victims of trauma, abuse, or marginalization. Showing kindness and compassion can help to address these underlying issues and create a safer and more inclusive society.

Finally, it is essential to remember that kindness and compassion are not synonymous with condoning or justifying harmful behavior. Rather, they are essential components of a holistic approach to addressing extremism and promoting social cohesion.

In conclusion, showing kindness and compassion to Nazis, psychopaths, and terrorists is not a sign of weakness, but rather a sign of strength and humanity. By recognizing the inherent dignity and worth of all individuals, we can create a more just, compassionate, and peaceful world.