Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[henry quirk]

For most of human history, people universally believed:
- The sun moves around the Earth (self-evident to the naked eye).
- Illness is caused by spirits or curses (self-evident before germ theory).
- Kings rule by divine right (self-evident in feudal societies).

Neither of us can legitimately say those notions were universally accepted or believed. We can only say some folks accepted or believed those things. Unlike free will which everyone knows they have or are (even you).

the "ridiculous idea" that man is a biological machine governed by physical laws is not recent at all.

The notion man is solely a biological machine governed by physical laws is recent and it is ridiculous.

So, I’ll repeat the actual standard for self-evidence: if something were truly self-evident, it would not require social reinforcement, tradition, or cultural conditioning—it would be immediately and universally apparent to any rational mind, across time and place.

Yes, exactly. Universally, as far back as you wanna go, all men, everywhere, recognize themselves as free wills. The ridiculous idea that man is a meat machine is a recent thing, not at all universally accepted and not self-evident.

If free will were actually self-evident, I wouldn’t have to keep asking for a single, testable case of an uncaused choice—and getting nothing but dodges in return.

Go look in the mirror: you are that single, testable case of an *self-caused choice

*None of us free willists say your choices are uncaused.

[Belinda]

For most of human history, people universally believed:
- The sun moves around the Earth (self-evident to the naked eye).
- Illness is caused by spirits or curses (self-evident before germ theory).
- Kings rule by divine right (self-evident in feudal societies).

Neither of us can legitimately say those notions were universally accepted or believed. We can only say some folks accepted or believed those things. Unlike free will which everyone knows they have or are (even you).

the "ridiculous idea" that man is a biological machine governed by physical laws is not recent at all.

The notion man is solely a biological machine governed by physical laws is recent and it is ridiculous.

So, I’ll repeat the actual standard for self-evidence: if something were truly self-evident, it would not require social reinforcement, tradition, or cultural conditioning—it would be immediately and universally apparent to any rational mind, across time and place.

Yes, exactly. Universally, as far back as you wanna go, all men, everywhere, recognize themselves as free wills. The ridiculous idea that man is a meat machine is a recent thing, not at all universally accepted and not self-evident.

If free will were actually self-evident, I wouldn’t have to keep asking for a single, testable case of an uncaused choice—and getting nothing but dodges in return.

Go look in the mirror: you are that single, testable case of an *self-caused choice

*None of us free willists say your choices are uncaused.

Henry, you mean your choices are caused, and who could disagree with you! But what you don't understand is what philosophers call "free will" is not caused at all by preceding events.

If philosphical free will were the case Henry or I could make a choice as freely when we are drunk as when we are sober.

[henry quirk]

If philosphical free will were the case Henry or I could make a choice as freely when we are drunk as when we are sober.

No, B. That's not what libertarian free will/agent causation theory sez. I believe you know that's not what libertarian free will/agent causation theory sez. So: why are you makin' crap up?

Henry, you mean your choices are caused

No, B. I specifically said self-caused. Mike is the cause of his choices.

[Immanuel Can]

For most of human history, people universally believed:
- The sun moves around the Earth (self-evident to the naked eye).
- Illness is caused by spirits or curses (self-evident before germ theory).
- Kings rule by divine right (self-evident in feudal societies).

Neither of us can legitimately say those notions were universally accepted or believed. We can only say some folks accepted or believed those things. Unlike free will which everyone knows they have or are (even you).

the "ridiculous idea" that man is a biological machine governed by physical laws is not recent at all.

The notion man is solely a biological machine governed by physical laws is recent and it is ridiculous.

So, I’ll repeat the actual standard for self-evidence: if something were truly self-evident, it would not require social reinforcement, tradition, or cultural conditioning—it would be immediately and universally apparent to any rational mind, across time and place.

Yes, exactly. Universally, as far back as you wanna go, all men, everywhere, recognize themselves as free wills. The ridiculous idea that man is a meat machine is a recent thing, not at all universally accepted and not self-evident.

If free will were actually self-evident, I wouldn’t have to keep asking for a single, testable case of an uncaused choice—and getting nothing but dodges in return.

Go look in the mirror: you are that single, testable case of an *self-caused choice

*None of us free willists say your choices are uncaused.

Henry, you mean your choices are caused, and who could disagree with you! But what you don't understand is what philosophers call "free will" is not caused at all by preceding events.

Not ENTIRELY caused by nothing but preceding physical events.

The caveat is important, B. "Free" does not imply "without contributing factors" or "without any prior circumstances." Those are present, and they are somewhat involved in constraining the choices available. Nobody questions that.

All it implies is that the choice of action that proceeds is not forced to be only one thing, but is selected by the actor from at least two (and usually more) possibilities that can be actualized.

So, for example, you were constrained and limited by Henry's message as to what possible replies would be appropriate. But you selected among the various possibilities that you deemed potentially relevant, and then you created your message. Your message wasn't pre-determined to be only the one you typed: you chose it, from a wide range of possible options. You could have agreed with Henry, aimed to refute Henry, or tried to modify what he said -- which is what you selected.

[Belinda]

If philosphical free will were the case Henry or I could make a choice as freely when we are drunk as when we are sober.

No, B. That's not what libertarian free will/agent causation theory sez. I believe you know that's not what libertarian free will/agent causation theory sez. So: why are you makin' crap up?

Henry, you mean your choices are caused

No, B. I specifically said self-caused. Mike is the cause of his choices.

Okay then, but what is H's self? Take Henry's self for instance.Is Henry's self the same when H was a baby, a youth, an adult? Is Henry's self the same self if H becomes a double amputee, or demented? Is H's self the same self if Henry gets drunk, or loses his temper?

Henry can point to all his body parts and his internal organs and his bones and muscles. But H cannot point to his self.

[henry quirk]

I'm a hylomorph: an admixture of spirit and substance, co-equal, neither sufficient on its own.

So, when I point to myself I am indeed pointing to my self.

[seeds]

If philosphical free will were the case Henry or I could make a choice as freely when we are drunk as when we are sober.

No, B. That's not what libertarian free will/agent causation theory sez. I believe you know that's not what libertarian free will/agent causation theory sez. So: why are you makin' crap up?

Henry, you mean your choices are caused

No, B. I specifically said self-caused. Mike is the cause of his choices.

Okay then, but what is H's self? Take Henry's self for instance.Is Henry's self the same when H was a baby, a youth, an adult?

Yes, absolutely (as is Belinda's self).

Is Henry's self the same self if H becomes a double amputee, or demented?

Yes, absolutely (as is Belinda's self).

Is H's self the same self if Henry gets drunk, or loses his temper?

Yes, absolutely (as is Belinda's self).

Henry's self (as was Belinda's self) was fully established...

(emerged from the living fabric of the brain and made permanent and eternal)

...at the moment of birth.

Henry can point to all his body parts and his internal organs and his bones and muscles. But H cannot point to his self.

I'm pretty sure that René Descartes "pointed to the self" a long time ago with his famous assertion regarding the "I Am."
_______

[henry quirk]

[BigMike]

For most of human history, people universally believed:
- The sun moves around the Earth (self-evident to the naked eye).
- Illness is caused by spirits or curses (self-evident before germ theory).
- Kings rule by divine right (self-evident in feudal societies).

Neither of us can legitimately say those notions were universally accepted or believed. We can only say some folks accepted or believed those things. Unlike free will which everyone knows they have or are (even you).

the "ridiculous idea" that man is a biological machine governed by physical laws is not recent at all.

The notion man is solely a biological machine governed by physical laws is recent and it is ridiculous.

So, I’ll repeat the actual standard for self-evidence: if something were truly self-evident, it would not require social reinforcement, tradition, or cultural conditioning—it would be immediately and universally apparent to any rational mind, across time and place.

Yes, exactly. Universally, as far back as you wanna go, all men, everywhere, recognize themselves as free wills. The ridiculous idea that man is a meat machine is a recent thing, not at all universally accepted and not self-evident.

If free will were actually self-evident, I wouldn’t have to keep asking for a single, testable case of an uncaused choice—and getting nothing but dodges in return.

Go look in the mirror: you are that single, testable case of an *self-caused choice

*None of us free willists say your choices are uncaused.

Henry, you’re trying to have it both ways.

First, you reject the idea that past consensus equals truth when it undermines your argument (“we can’t say those beliefs were universally accepted”), but then you immediately claim universal recognition as your foundation for free will (“all men, everywhere, recognize themselves as free wills”). That’s textbook cherry-picking—past consensus only counts when it suits you.

Now, let’s deal with your big claim:

“Go look in the mirror: you are that single, testable case of a self-caused choice.”

This is nothing but wordplay. If your choices are caused, then they are determined by prior states of the universe. If they are self-caused, then you’re saying you are the origin of causality—which is just repackaged libertarian free will and, frankly, nonsense.

If none of your choices are uncaused, then every decision you make is determined by prior factors—biology, environment, past experiences, even random quantum fluctuations if you want to go there. So what exactly do you think "free will" means? Because so far, you’re just dodging behind fuzzy definitions.

Let’s be precise:
- If "free will" means uncaused choices, you need to show one.
- If "free will" means self-caused choices, you need to explain how a person can be their own first cause without invoking magic.
- If "free will" means doing what you want, then congratulations—you’ve just described a deterministic system behaving exactly as its internal and external conditions dictate.

So which is it, Henry? Because every time we press, free will believers like you pull back from defining exactly what you're defending.

[promethean75]

"Okay then, but what is H's self? Take Henry's self for instance.Is Henry's self the same when H was a baby, a youth, an adult? Is Henry's self the same self if H becomes a double amputee, or demented? Is H's self the same self if Henry gets drunk, or loses his temper?"

These are excellent questions and greek philosophers labored for centuries over the Ship of Henry problem.

[Immanuel Can]

"Okay then, but what is H's self? Take Henry's self for instance.Is Henry's self the same when H was a baby, a youth, an adult? Is Henry's self the same self if H becomes a double amputee, or demented? Is H's self the same self if Henry gets drunk, or loses his temper?"

These are excellent questions and greek philosophers labored for centuries over the Ship of Henry problem.

If Henry were his physical material, then there would be no Henry. All the molecules in Henry's body have, at one time or another, been replaced. This is the problem with things like Materialism: they have to completely dismiss the whole idea of the self, since whatever it is is in a constant state of flux and change...or reintroduce the idea of the self in a way not at all coherent with things like Materialism, Naturalism or Physicalism.

But essentially, if you think there is a Henry, or an IC or a Prom, then you have to accept that the material realm is not the sum and total of the real. One would have to believe that identity is not grounded in mere physicality, but in something more abstract or (*gasp*) spiritual than that. If we can say that Henry the youth and Henry the elder, or Henry the whole-bodied and Henry the double-amputee are "the same person," then whatever we're saying about his personhood, his self, his identity is NOT a product of the physical realm.

And this is yet another reason why none of us lives as Determinists: it would mean we couldn't even recognize other people as "themselves." But we all do. And we're not all being lunatics, when we do; we're onto something. So what is it we are intuiting? That's the important question.

[henry quirk]

Henry, you’re trying to have it both ways.

Past consensus is not synonymous with universal recognition.

If they are self-caused, then you’re saying you are the origin of causality

Yes, I, like you, am the cause of my actions. I've said this several times. Where were you that this is news to you?

which is just repackaged libertarian free will

No, it is libertarian free will. I've said this several times. Where were you that this is news to you?

If "free will" means self-caused choices you need to explain how a person can be their own first cause without invoking magic.

As I say...

If all you admit is the material, the only evidences and explanations you'll accept are material, even when those evidences and explanations fail -- as they always do -- to explain anything and, ultimately, are evidences for nuthin' at all.

addendum: It's not that I haven't offered evidences (evidences more substantial than anything you've offered) across multiple threads. You dismiss it all. Not refute, not offer an alternative, you just dismiss without explanation or cause. Anyone with a mind to can see this for himself in a casual review of just this thread.

[BigMike]

Henry, you’re trying to have it both ways.

Past consensus is not synonymous with universal recognition.

If they are self-caused, then you’re saying you are the origin of causality

Yes, I, like you, am the cause of my actions. I've said this several times. Where were you that this is news to you?

which is just repackaged libertarian free will

No, it is libertarian free will. I've said this several times. Where were you that this is news to you?

If "free will" means self-caused choices you need to explain how a person can be their own first cause without invoking magic.

As I say...

If all you admit is the material, the only evidences and explanations you'll accept are material, even when those evidences and explanations fail -- as they always do -- to explain anything and, ultimately, are evidences for nuthin' at all.

addendum: It's not that I haven't offered evidences (evidences more substantial than anything you've offered) across multiple threads. You dismiss it all. Not refute, not offer an alternative, you just dismiss without explanation or cause. Anyone with a mind to can see this for himself in a casual review of just this thread.

Henry, you keep insisting that you're the cause of your own actions, but you never explain how that’s possible without violating causality. That’s the problem.

You claim self-causation, but causation requires a prior state. So when you say "I am the cause of my actions," you’re skipping over the most important question: what caused the cause? If your choices are determined by prior factors, then they aren’t "free" in the sense you claim. If they aren’t determined by prior factors, then they’re uncaused events, which makes no sense unless you’re sneaking in some metaphysical magic.

Your addendum is just more hand-waving:
- You claim I "dismiss" your evidence, but I ask you repeatedly for a single, testable example of a free, uncaused choice.
- You provide nothing but assertions and complaints about materialism.
- Then you accuse me of ignoring your arguments, when in reality, you’re the one avoiding the challenge.

So let’s make it simple:

If your position is that free will exists but cannot be demonstrated empirically, then you are making an untestable metaphysical claim, no different from someone insisting that ghosts are real but conveniently never show up under controlled conditions.

If, on the other hand, you believe you can prove that people are the self-caused origin of their choices, then show the mechanism. Explain how a person generates a choice independent of all prior influences, brain states, and environmental conditions.

Until you do, you’re not arguing against determinism—you’re just insisting that you don’t like its implications.

[Atla]

I'm part of the causal chain. My present choices are determined by past things. Future things are determined by my present choices.

[BigMike]

I'm part of the causal chain. My present choices are determined by past things. Future things are determined by my present choices.

Exactly. You're part of the causal chain, not outside of it. Your choices are determined, not self-caused in some magical, first-mover sense. Nothing about that process requires "free will"—just cause and effect unfolding as it must.