Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

Wizard22, your rambling ode to "freedom" misses the fundamental point entirely: nothing, absolutely nothing, interacts without physical properties. The so-called "freedom" you're attributing to biological organisms isn't some magical force outside the four fundamental interactions of physics—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. These are the engines driving everything in the universe, from the swirling of galaxies to the firing of neurons in your brain.

So, where does your "free will" fit in? Does it have mass? Charge? Spin? No? Then what is it supposed to be interacting with? Because if it can’t push a single atom, let alone direct complex systems, it simply doesn’t exist.

Your poetic waxing about organisms having "freedom" based on intelligence or complexity is laughably naive. Intelligence, imagination, and knowledge are all physical processes. They’re rooted in neural networks, biochemical signals, and evolutionary adaptations—all of which are fully constrained by cause and effect. A neuron doesn't fire because it "freely decides" to—it fires because of a cascade of physical and chemical interactions.

And your attempt to refute determinism by invoking "infinite regress"? That’s not just a misunderstanding of the concept—it’s a complete failure to grasp how causality works. Determinism doesn’t require infinite regress; it acknowledges that causes are interconnected through physical processes and interactions. You don't need "infinite causes" to understand that every event has a precursor governed by observable laws.

Your entire argument is built on vague abstractions and wishful thinking. Freedom, as you describe it, is nothing more than a delusion born of ignorance about the physical forces that govern the universe. Until your "free will" can be shown to have any physical properties or interactions, it remains as nonexistent as the unicorns in your daydreams.

"Physical Properties" are purely hypothetical and theoretical entities. They only exist insofar as they can be proved through Scientific experimentation and replication of events. So your premises don't have any legs to stand on.

Furthermore, there is more immediate 'proof' of freedom and Free-Will inside every human choice, than outside of it. So Free-Will obviously arises from Un-caused phenomena within neural systems. This is further evidenced by limitless frameworks of Causality. There is no limit to Causality, and so any number of "Causes" can be accused, blamed, or hypothesized for any and all actions.

Choice proves Causality, not the other way around.

Wizard22, your latest response is a spectacular display of confusion wrapped in pseudo-intellectual drivel. Let me break this down for you, although I doubt it will penetrate the fortress of wishful thinking you've built around your "free will."

First, physical properties are neither "hypothetical" nor "theoretical"—they are measurable and observable phenomena. Mass, charge, momentum, and energy are quantifiable. These aren't abstract musings; they’re the backbone of how we understand and manipulate the physical world, from designing airplanes to building computers. To dismiss them as hypothetical reveals a lack of even basic scientific literacy.

Second, your claim that "free will arises from uncaused phenomena within neural systems" is laughable. Neural systems operate through the firing of neurons, which are governed by electrochemical gradients, ion channels, and the laws of physics. Where exactly in this deterministic cascade do you imagine a magical, "uncaused" event sneaks in? Show me the part of the brain where causality takes a coffee break.

And then you claim that "choice proves causality, not the other way around." This is incoherent nonsense. A choice is not a standalone event—it’s the culmination of countless prior influences: genetics, environment, upbringing, and present stimuli. You’re confusing the subjective experience of making a decision with an actual break in the chain of causality. Just because you feel free doesn’t mean you are.

Finally, your assertion about "limitless frameworks of causality" is a pointless abstraction. Determinism doesn’t require infinite chains of causes; it only requires that every event has a cause within a defined framework of interactions. This isn’t about hypothesizing blame or constructing "limitless frameworks"—it’s about observing and understanding how physical systems behave.

Your "proof" of free will is nothing but smoke and mirrors, relying on vague appeals to intuition and a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Unless you can demonstrate how "free will" interacts with the physical world, it remains exactly what it has always been: a comforting illusion.

[Wizard22]

Wizard22, your latest response is a spectacular display of confusion wrapped in pseudo-intellectual drivel. Let me break this down for you, although I doubt it will penetrate the fortress of wishful thinking you've built around your "free will."

First, physical properties are neither "hypothetical" nor "theoretical"—they are measurable and observable phenomena. Mass, charge, momentum, and energy are quantifiable. These aren't abstract musings; they’re the backbone of how we understand and manipulate the physical world, from designing airplanes to building computers. To dismiss them as hypothetical reveals a lack of even basic scientific literacy.

And yet, Quantum Physics cannot state with any proficiency what "Mass" or "Matter" actually is...because it is not anything at all. Rather, Human consciousness is what abstracts mass into recognizable objects. A "rock" is such, because the human brain identifies and outlines the rock apart from all other objects and the environment. Thus, a Subjective interplay is necessary to distinguish one phenomenon from the next. This is necessary to Mass and Matter as well, on any fundamental "physical" level.

This is precisely why Quantum Physics cannot unify Energy Theories...because there is no Universal Phenomenon. Hence there is no actual reason to believe in any 'Deterministic' ideology. Because you admit your full and utter dependence upon "Physical Theories". While Free-Will requires no such Dependency. If Physical Law were deterministic, and could explain causality, then that would be in line with Free-Will. But 'freedom' is not contiguous with Determinism.

Which is why you are reduced to accusing any notion of 'Freedom' as "mere illusions of the senses or cognition".

Second, your claim that "free will arises from uncaused phenomena within neural systems" is laughable. Neural systems operate through the firing of neurons, which are governed by electrochemical gradients,

Which, again through Quantum Physics, you must admit ignorance of.

ion channels, and the laws of physics. Where exactly in this deterministic cascade do you imagine a magical, "uncaused" event sneaks in? Show me the part of the brain where causality takes a coffee break.

"Determinism" is the "magic".

And then you claim that "choice proves causality, not the other way around." This is incoherent nonsense. A choice is not a standalone event

It is, because Choice can never, ever be predicted.

Because Choices don't exist (in any Physical reality), until they're made, until they're acted upon.

They can be said to exist in a completely Separate Universe, based on how you rationalize and define "Determinism".

—it’s the culmination of countless prior influences: genetics, environment, upbringing, and present stimuli.

This is your Infinite Regress fallacy, which you repeatedly back yourself into a corner with...

You’re confusing the subjective experience of making a decision with an actual break in the chain of causality. Just because you feel free doesn’t mean you are.

This is a Strawman Argument; that's merely your interpretation of Free-Will, not mine.

Finally, your assertion about "limitless frameworks of causality" is a pointless abstraction. Determinism doesn’t require infinite chains of causes; it only requires that every event has a cause within a defined framework of interactions.

But that isn't necessarily the case. Causes must be 'Determined', first! This is where your confusion lies.

An event happens first. An action happens first. AND THEN, "causes" are sought for secondarily. So you are putting the cart before the horse.

This isn’t about hypothesizing blame or constructing "limitless frameworks"—it’s about observing and understanding how physical systems behave.

Your "proof" of free will is nothing but smoke and mirrors, relying on vague appeals to intuition and a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Unless you can demonstrate how "free will" interacts with the physical world, it remains exactly what it has always been: a comforting illusion.

I can now say the same for you.

[BigMike]

Wizard22, your latest response is a spectacular display of confusion wrapped in pseudo-intellectual drivel. Let me break this down for you, although I doubt it will penetrate the fortress of wishful thinking you've built around your "free will."

First, physical properties are neither "hypothetical" nor "theoretical"—they are measurable and observable phenomena. Mass, charge, momentum, and energy are quantifiable. These aren't abstract musings; they’re the backbone of how we understand and manipulate the physical world, from designing airplanes to building computers. To dismiss them as hypothetical reveals a lack of even basic scientific literacy.

And yet, Quantum Physics cannot state with any proficiency what "Mass" or "Matter" actually is...because it is not anything at all. Rather, Human consciousness is what abstracts mass into recognizable objects. A "rock" is such, because the human brain identifies and outlines the rock apart from all other objects and the environment. Thus, a Subjective interplay is necessary to distinguish one phenomenon from the next. This is necessary to Mass and Matter as well, on any fundamental "physical" level.

This is precisely why Quantum Physics cannot unify Energy Theories...because there is no Universal Phenomenon. Hence there is no actual reason to believe in any 'Deterministic' ideology. Because you admit your full and utter dependence upon "Physical Theories". While Free-Will requires no such Dependency. If Physical Law were deterministic, and could explain causality, then that would be in line with Free-Will. But 'freedom' is not contiguous with Determinism.

Which is why you are reduced to accusing any notion of 'Freedom' as "mere illusions of the senses or cognition".

Second, your claim that "free will arises from uncaused phenomena within neural systems" is laughable. Neural systems operate through the firing of neurons, which are governed by electrochemical gradients,

Which, again through Quantum Physics, you must admit ignorance of.

ion channels, and the laws of physics. Where exactly in this deterministic cascade do you imagine a magical, "uncaused" event sneaks in? Show me the part of the brain where causality takes a coffee break.

"Determinism" is the "magic".

And then you claim that "choice proves causality, not the other way around." This is incoherent nonsense. A choice is not a standalone event

It is, because Choice can never, ever be predicted.

Because Choices don't exist (in any Physical reality), until they're made, until they're acted upon.

They can be said to exist in a completely Separate Universe, based on how you rationalize and define "Determinism".

—it’s the culmination of countless prior influences: genetics, environment, upbringing, and present stimuli.

This is your Infinite Regress fallacy, which you repeatedly back yourself into a corner with...

You’re confusing the subjective experience of making a decision with an actual break in the chain of causality. Just because you feel free doesn’t mean you are.

This is a Strawman Argument; that's merely your interpretation of Free-Will, not mine.

Finally, your assertion about "limitless frameworks of causality" is a pointless abstraction. Determinism doesn’t require infinite chains of causes; it only requires that every event has a cause within a defined framework of interactions.

But that isn't necessarily the case. Causes must be 'Determined', first! This is where your confusion lies.

An event happens first. An action happens first. AND THEN, "causes" are sought for secondarily. So you are putting the cart before the horse.

This isn’t about hypothesizing blame or constructing "limitless frameworks"—it’s about observing and understanding how physical systems behave.

Your "proof" of free will is nothing but smoke and mirrors, relying on vague appeals to intuition and a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Unless you can demonstrate how "free will" interacts with the physical world, it remains exactly what it has always been: a comforting illusion.

I can now say the same for you.

Wizard22, your response is a masterclass in evasion and misdirection. Let's get this straight: the four fundamental interactions—gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force—are the engines driving every physical process in the universe. They occur through interactions between physical entities. Unless "free will" is a physical thing, with measurable properties like mass or charge, it cannot interact with anything. It cannot drive neurons, actions, or thoughts. It cannot exist.

You attempt to smuggle "free will" into the discussion by claiming it arises magically from neural systems while simultaneously rejecting the physical laws governing those systems. This is nothing more than intellectual sleight of hand. Neural systems are electrochemical machines, and their processes are entirely explainable by the physics and chemistry of ion channels, synapses, and action potentials. If you can't identify the mechanism by which your imaginary "free will" interacts with these physical processes, your argument collapses into baseless fantasy.

Your appeal to quantum physics as some vague escape hatch for "freedom" is equally absurd. Quantum mechanics operates under probabilistic rules, but those probabilities are still governed by physical laws. There’s no room for your "uncaused choices" in this framework. And the idea that choices are "unpredictable" doesn’t mean they’re uncaused—it just means we lack complete information about the variables at play. Uncertainty is not the same as freedom.

Your claim that "causes must be determined first" before events occur is laughably backward. Causes are not post-hoc inventions—they are the physical conditions that precede and produce events. Your suggestion that events occur independently of causality is a rejection of the very fabric of physical reality.

If you want to continue defending "free will," I suggest you first define it in terms that align with observable, measurable reality. Until then, your arguments remain nothing more than rhetorical fluff, untethered to science, logic, or reason.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ah, Alexis, declaring victory and shutting the door on debate—how convenient! But if the issue were truly "settled," wouldn’t it be supported by more than a link to "common sense" and a saintly appeal to Chomsky? I mean, if you’ve got ironclad evidence that magically bypasses causality, let’s see it! Otherwise, this "debate is over" rhetoric feels less like a conclusion and more like an escape hatch. Move on? Sure, right after you explain how you define "free" in a world governed by deterministic laws. I’ll wait... deterministically, of course.

Here are my thoughts:

One, you are an intellectual neurotic, captured by an idea that is completely contrary to how you act and what you do every day and minute. You provide direct evidence of choice, but deny that you have it! You epitomize “mind-fuck”.

If what I suggest is accurate, your problem is not intellectual or physiological but rather psychological. You see and act in the world in that intuitively realized way — common sense — but deny that you are doing that, or that it is possible.

You have other established motives, I think, and we notice these in your politics and social theories. But you are fundamentally dishonest Mike. Your entire presence here is a sham, a game. You are playing your game and sucking people into it. You have discovered, or your anthropology has identified, the “true evil ones”, and if your sick project could gain purchase, you would revise education i.e. install your twisted notion of who and what is evil through very practical activism. At the psychological root of your sick game is your “atheism”. I suspect you see yourself as a saintly activist of a New Order.

By telling you what you actually are, by uncovering you, I am engaging with a far more honest intellectual praxis. You will now slink away, like a rat, or double and triple down on your theatrical production.

You and those who read you must attempt to see through this elaborated sham, the game you are playing.

Myself, I have already explained that though conditioning, habit, background and “historical trajectory” are REAL, that it is simply OBVIOUS that we have access to a unique capability to conceptualize choices.

I do not need to prove it through a linguistic proof, you fool, I demonstrate it just as you do at every moment.

In my view? The real topic here is BigMike as neurotic subject. So the conversation moves out of strict philosophical debate to an examination of how a man with your bizarre conceptual order has arrived in our present and what this portends.

All this can be discussed civilly of course, but “we” have to become more honest, more circumspect certainty.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ah, Alexis, declaring victory and shutting the door on debate …

No, closing the door to neurotic ideation (BigMike as sham actor) and opening debate about the real issues at play.

Not an end to the discussion, rather a shift in focus that opens the conversation to far more relevant issues and considerations.

If you want to continue defending "free will," I suggest you first define it in terms that align with observable, measurable reality. Until then, your arguments remain nothing more than rhetorical fluff, untethered to science, logic, or reason.

Neurotic construct par excellence!

[Atla]

Maybe what we've learned from these determinism vs free will threads is that most people are confused by big numbers. There are about 86 billion neurons in a human brain. There are about 12 million billion billion atoms in a human brain.

Average Joe can imagine like 3 billiard balls bouncing around. And that's the mental image he uses to think about the free will vs determinism issue.

That's absolutely not how it is. We are talking about billion billions of components and more, it's humanly impossible to even remotely imagine it. There are so many components in there with so much complexity that volition, choice fits in there under determinism.

[Immanuel Can]

There are so many components in there with so much complexity that volition, choice fits in there under determinism.

That explanation doesn't really work. It's an attempt to answer by way of quantity a problem of quality. In other words, a category error.

The idea that consciousness can emerge from unconscious matter if enough complexity isn't plausible. If a pile of 10 rocks is not conscious, a pile of 10,000 rocks isn't even a touch closer to becoming conscious: it's just more of the same, which is unconscious matter.

What needs to be explained is how unconscious matter becomes mind. That's a difference of quality, not quantity.

[Atla]

There are so many components in there with so much complexity that volition, choice fits in there under determinism.

That explanation doesn't really work. It's an attempt to answer by way of quantity a problem of quality. In other words, a category error.

The idea that consciousness can emerge from unconscious matter if enough complexity isn't plausible. If a pile of 10 rocks is not conscious, a pile of 10,000 rocks isn't even a touch closer to becoming conscious: it's just more of the same, which is unconscious matter.

What needs to be explained is how unconscious matter becomes mind. That's a difference of quality, not quantity.

I was talking about free will vs determinism, not consciousness vs matter. The second one can't be solved in Western philosophy.

[Immanuel Can]

There are so many components in there with so much complexity that volition, choice fits in there under determinism.

That explanation doesn't really work. It's an attempt to answer by way of quantity a problem of quality. In other words, a category error.

The idea that consciousness can emerge from unconscious matter if enough complexity isn't plausible. If a pile of 10 rocks is not conscious, a pile of 10,000 rocks isn't even a touch closer to becoming conscious: it's just more of the same, which is unconscious matter.

What needs to be explained is how unconscious matter becomes mind. That's a difference of quality, not quantity.

I was talking about free will vs determinism, not consciousness vs matter. The second one can't be solved in Western philosophy.

But they're the same problem. Determinism depends on "matter," or on some other such physical concept being the only thing in play. If there is such a thing as "consciousness" (and how can there not be, given what we are doing right at this very moment), then its necessary relation with free will is quite obvious: "will" is an expression of consciousness, not of mere matter.

So if the question of consciousness cannot be solved in philosophy ("Western" or otherwise), then neither can Determinism be asserted.

[Atla]

That explanation doesn't really work. It's an attempt to answer by way of quantity a problem of quality. In other words, a category error.

The idea that consciousness can emerge from unconscious matter if enough complexity isn't plausible. If a pile of 10 rocks is not conscious, a pile of 10,000 rocks isn't even a touch closer to becoming conscious: it's just more of the same, which is unconscious matter.

What needs to be explained is how unconscious matter becomes mind. That's a difference of quality, not quantity.

I was talking about free will vs determinism, not consciousness vs matter. The second one can't be solved in Western philosophy.

But they're the same problem. Determinism depends on "matter," or on some other such physical concept being the only thing in play. If there is such a thing as "consciousness" (and how can there not be, given what we are doing right at this very moment), then its necessary relation with free will is quite obvious: "will" is an expression of consciousness, not of mere matter.

So if the question of consciousness cannot be solved in philosophy ("Western" or otherwise), then neither can Determinism be asserted.

No, materialism depends on matter. Determinism doesn't, for determinism 'matter' = 'phenomenal consciousness' works perfectly. In which case they aren't the same problem.

What you accidentally got right is that the idea that phenomenal consciousness arises out of complexity, is pure nonsense.

[Immanuel Can]

I was talking about free will vs determinism, not consciousness vs matter. The second one can't be solved in Western philosophy.

But they're the same problem. Determinism depends on "matter," or on some other such physical concept being the only thing in play. If there is such a thing as "consciousness" (and how can there not be, given what we are doing right at this very moment), then its necessary relation with free will is quite obvious: "will" is an expression of consciousness, not of mere matter.

So if the question of consciousness cannot be solved in philosophy ("Western" or otherwise), then neither can Determinism be asserted.

No, materialism depends on matter. Determinism doesn't, for determinism 'matter' = 'phenomenal consciousness' works perfectly.

You are right to say Determinism comes in various forms. For example, there is a Materialist version, but also a theological version called "Calvinism." But your proposed equation "matter = consciousness" doesn't come close to working.

And it needs to. For according to the Materialist myth, consciousness has to have sprung from unconscious matter. But there is no explanation, no logical, scientific, or even metaphysical explanation, of how that's remotely possible. Hence, the invention of the word "emergence," meaning that we imagine that somehow, with no known mechanism, consciousness can just spring from unconscious matter. But it's not an explanation. It's a dodge.

What you accidentally got right is that the idea that phenomenal consciousness arises out of complexity, is pure nonsense.

There was nothing accidental about that. It should be patently obvious to anybody who thinks about it at all, of course. Nothing is answered if we say, "What is impossible for a little non-sentient stuff (magically, in no way we can explain) becomes possible for a lot of the same stuff."

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis Jacobi stands with gentle might, before a philosophical forum blighted with night.

For their minds in a maze of disarray, rebel against the light of day.

With patience worn and heart aflame, he strives to bring truth and resolve their discordant game.

But like wild horses they buck and resist,
their intellects in a jumble as if drunk or perhaps pissed.

Those eyes like darkened wells devoid of sight, reflect the turmoil of their inner plight.

Their words a jargon of meaningless sound, they flail and struggle on unstable ground.

Yet still Alexis Jacobi stands unwavering and tall, a beacon of hope in mindlessness that enthralls.

He speaks in soft tones, of wisdom and of light, and slowly, gradually, the children's darkness takes flight!

Their faces once a mask of anger and of pain,
begin to brighten as wisdom rains.

Their eyes, once dull now sparkle with sight, as Alexis Jacobi's words bring truth to their plight.

Yet the battle's far from won, the war's still to be fought, yet Alexis Jacobi's heart remains steadfast and taut.

For in the profound darkness he's lodged a glimmer of hope, a chance to bring redemption to a forum without scope.

Please make a donation to a cause most revered, and cast down some coinage so truth’s enemies can be rhetorically speared!

[Atla]

But they're the same problem. Determinism depends on "matter," or on some other such physical concept being the only thing in play. If there is such a thing as "consciousness" (and how can there not be, given what we are doing right at this very moment), then its necessary relation with free will is quite obvious: "will" is an expression of consciousness, not of mere matter.

So if the question of consciousness cannot be solved in philosophy ("Western" or otherwise), then neither can Determinism be asserted.

No, materialism depends on matter. Determinism doesn't, for determinism 'matter' = 'phenomenal consciousness' works perfectly.

You are right to say Determinism comes in various forms. For example, there is a Materialist version, but also a theological version called "Calvinism." But your proposed equation "matter = consciousness" doesn't come close to working.

And it needs to. For according to the Materialist myth, consciousness has to have sprung from unconscious matter. But there is no explanation, no logical, scientific, or even metaphysical explanation, of how that's remotely possible. Hence, the invention of the word "emergence," meaning that we imagine that somehow, with no known mechanism, consciousness can just spring from unconscious matter. But it's not an explanation. It's a dodge.

What you accidentally got right is that the idea that phenomenal consciousness arises out of complexity, is pure nonsense.

There was nothing accidental about that. It should be patently obvious to anybody who thinks about it at all, of course. Nothing is answered if we say, "What is impossible for a little non-sentient stuff (magically, in no way we can explain) becomes possible for a lot of the same stuff."

Take that up with the materialists, I'm not one.

[BigMike]

Discussions about free will often spiral into tangents, with participants fixating not on the evidence against its existence but on the implications of accepting its absence. A favorite diversion is to ask, "What does a world without free will mean for morality, responsibility, or meaning?" rather than addressing the central argument: that free will is an illusion incompatible with the physical laws governing the universe.

Free will cannot exist because nonphysical entities, by their very definition, cannot interact with the physical world. Neurons, synapses, and the intricate web of electrochemical processes in the brain operate under the constraints of the four fundamental interactions—gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. These interactions are governed by immutable conservation laws, which dictate that energy and momentum cannot be created or destroyed. For "free will" to exist, it would need to operate outside these interactions, bypassing the physical constraints of the brain and nervous system. Such a claim implies a violation of the conservation laws and requires the existence of an entirely new, unobserved force capable of influencing matter without being part of the known physical framework. This is not just improbable; it is fundamentally impossible based on everything we know about the universe.

Rejecting the evidence for determinism because its implications are unsettling is as irrational as an ostrich sticking its head in the sand to avoid danger. Disliking the consequences of a truth does not make that truth any less valid. Denial of determinism often stems from a deep emotional discomfort—people are reluctant to relinquish the comforting illusion that they are autonomous agents, completely in control of their choices. But clinging to comforting illusions does not change reality. Instead of asking, "What does it mean if free will doesn't exist?" we should be asking, "What does the evidence tell us about the nature of reality?" From there, we can work toward understanding how to construct a just and empathetic society within the framework of determinism.

[Immanuel Can]

No, materialism depends on matter. Determinism doesn't, for determinism 'matter' = 'phenomenal consciousness' works perfectly.

You are right to say Determinism comes in various forms. For example, there is a Materialist version, but also a theological version called "Calvinism." But your proposed equation "matter = consciousness" doesn't come close to working.

And it needs to. For according to the Materialist myth, consciousness has to have sprung from unconscious matter. But there is no explanation, no logical, scientific, or even metaphysical explanation, of how that's remotely possible. Hence, the invention of the word "emergence," meaning that we imagine that somehow, with no known mechanism, consciousness can just spring from unconscious matter. But it's not an explanation. It's a dodge.

What you accidentally got right is that the idea that phenomenal consciousness arises out of complexity, is pure nonsense.

There was nothing accidental about that. It should be patently obvious to anybody who thinks about it at all, of course. Nothing is answered if we say, "What is impossible for a little non-sentient stuff (magically, in no way we can explain) becomes possible for a lot of the same stuff."

Take that up with the materialists, I'm not one.

And that's fine. But if you're a Determinist, then you'll need a mechanism to explain what's going on. If it's not, like Mike, "physical forces," what is making things happen?