Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

Ok Mike now try to play close attention to what I'll point out again:

According to science, physics, determinism, there is no such thing in nature as a true "echo" / "reflection" / "displaying" / "illusion", that isn't simply made of more physical stuff. And is therefore part of causal chains, is technically just as much a cause as it is a consequence.

So how can you say, how can you know that consciousness is just a consequence?

Good—this is a sharper point, Atla.

You’re absolutely right that in physics, there’s no metaphysical divide between “real” things and their “echoes.” If something exists—an image, a reflection, an electrical impulse—it’s physical, and it’s part of the causal chain. So yes, the processes we label “consciousness” are themselves physical phenomena. I don’t deny that at all.

But the key difference here is not whether consciousness is part of the causal chain (it is), but whether the experience of being conscious—the narrative “I”—is the source of action or simply a byproduct of prior brain activity.

Yes, the conscious state is physical. But it’s assembled after the fact by subconscious systems that have already made the decisions and launched the actions. We know this from experiments in neuroscience—from Libet onward—that show the brain begins preparing actions before we’re aware of “deciding.” Your conscious mind is notified after the machinery has already moved.

So when I say consciousness is an “afterimage,” I mean this: the felt experience of “I chose” is post hoc. It’s real as a physical process. But it's not the driver. It’s the story the brain tells to make sense of what it already did.

Think of it like this: the news report is real. It’s made of electrons, screen pixels, sound waves. But it doesn’t cause the events it reports. The causal arrow goes the other way. That's the mistake people make with consciousness. They treat the report as the engine.

So yes, consciousness is made of “physical stuff.” But it’s not the origin of action. It’s the witness. The observer. The explainer. Not the initiator.

And that’s the whole point: being physical doesn’t mean being in control. The brain’s deeper processes steer the ship. Consciousness is the spotlight, not the steering wheel.

1. Depends on how you define yourself. Another definition of "I" is that you are the brain, including those preparing actions which are parts of you, even if other parts of you get affected by it with a delay.

2. Once the volitional I you talk about does get assembled, how do you know that it doesn't become an actor in itself? It's literally a psychological mechanism of volition.

I think you're basing your philosophy on a very lopsided interpretation of the Libet experiments.

Atla, this is exactly where the confusion happens—between the physical “I” and the epiphenomenal “I.” And the distinction matters.

The physical “I” is the total organism: the brain, the body, the nervous system, the whole causal engine. When someone says “you made a choice,” that’s technically true in the same sense that a calculator “solves” a problem. Your brain took in inputs, ran computations, and produced outputs—those outputs being speech, movement, or thought. This “I” absolutely participates in causal chains. It’s physical, it’s observable, and it’s real.

But the epiphenomenal “I”—the one that shows up in introspection, the narrator inside your head, the part that says “I chose this” or “I meant to do that”—is not the same thing. That self is a constructed model, a representation that rides on top of the underlying processes. It’s not where the decisions originate—it’s where they’re explained. It’s like the voice-over in a documentary, not the events being filmed.

The problem is that we intuitively equate the two. We feel the conscious narrator is in charge simply because it witnesses the outcome. But just because it narrates the action doesn’t mean it caused it. The causality lies deeper—in brain activity we’re never directly aware of.

So yes, the whole brain, including unconscious processes, is “you.” But the part that feels like the decision-maker—the one you call the “volitional I”—is assembled after the decision has begun. It may influence future decisions, just like memory or feedback loops do, but it’s still not initiating anything from outside the system. It’s not the top of the hierarchy. It’s a reflection inside it.

That’s not a misreading of Libet. That’s what the broader body of neuroscience has been reinforcing for decades. Consciousness isn’t directing the orchestra—it’s listening to the music and convincing itself it’s the conductor.

[Atla]

So yes, the whole brain, including unconscious processes, is “you.” But the part that feels like the decision-maker—the one you call the “volitional I”—is assembled after the decision has begun. It may influence future decisions, just like memory or feedback loops do, but it’s still not initiating anything from outside the system. It’s not the top of the hierarchy. It’s a reflection inside it.

You continue contradicting yourself. If it can influence future decisions, then it can also be an (internal) cause in some cases. So it's not always just a reflection.

[BigMike]

So yes, the whole brain, including unconscious processes, is “you.” But the part that feels like the decision-maker—the one you call the “volitional I”—is assembled after the decision has begun. It may influence future decisions, just like memory or feedback loops do, but it’s still not initiating anything from outside the system. It’s not the top of the hierarchy. It’s a reflection inside it.

You continue contradicting yourself. If it can influence future decisions, then it can also be an (internal) cause in some cases. So it's not always just a reflection.

Right—and here’s where the rubber meets the road, Atla.

Yes, if a part of the brain—like the narrative self or the “volitional I”—feeds back into the system and alters future brain states, then of course it participates in causality. But here’s the thing: that doesn’t make it uncaused or free in any metaphysical sense. It just means it’s another step in the causal chain.

Everything that influences anything else is itself influenced. That’s the heart of determinism. A cause isn’t a magical origin point—it’s just a node in a vast, unbroken web of interactions. And even causes are caused. Even your so-called “volitional I,” if it nudges future behavior, only does so because of prior inputs—genetics, past experiences, environment, and current brain states.

So yes, your conscious self might play a causal role in what happens next. But it’s never the author of its own state. It can only operate based on what it is at that moment—and what it is at that moment is fully determined by what came before.

It’s not a contradiction. It’s the elegance of a system where every part influences every other, but none of them escape the web. The “I” is a link in the chain, not the hand that forged it.

[Atla]

So yes, the whole brain, including unconscious processes, is “you.” But the part that feels like the decision-maker—the one you call the “volitional I”—is assembled after the decision has begun. It may influence future decisions, just like memory or feedback loops do, but it’s still not initiating anything from outside the system. It’s not the top of the hierarchy. It’s a reflection inside it.

You continue contradicting yourself. If it can influence future decisions, then it can also be an (internal) cause in some cases. So it's not always just a reflection.

Right—and here’s where the rubber meets the road, Atla.

Yes, if a part of the brain—like the narrative self or the “volitional I”—feeds back into the system and alters future brain states, then of course it participates in causality. But here’s the thing: that doesn’t make it uncaused or free in any metaphysical sense. It just means it’s another step in the causal chain.

Everything that influences anything else is itself influenced. That’s the heart of determinism. A cause isn’t a magical origin point—it’s just a node in a vast, unbroken web of interactions. And even causes are caused. Even your so-called “volitional I,” if it nudges future behavior, only does so because of prior inputs—genetics, past experiences, environment, and current brain states.

So yes, your conscious self might play a causal role in what happens next. But it’s never the author of its own state. It can only operate based on what it is at that moment—and what it is at that moment is fully determined by what came before.

It’s not a contradiction. It’s the elegance of a system where every part influences every other, but none of them escape the web. The “I” is a link in the chain, not the hand that forged it.

Yes, so do you understand now that it's perfectly normal for someone to view his/her "I" as a cause? Just bound by determinism.

[BigMike]

You continue contradicting yourself. If it can influence future decisions, then it can also be an (internal) cause in some cases. So it's not always just a reflection.

Right—and here’s where the rubber meets the road, Atla.

Yes, if a part of the brain—like the narrative self or the “volitional I”—feeds back into the system and alters future brain states, then of course it participates in causality. But here’s the thing: that doesn’t make it uncaused or free in any metaphysical sense. It just means it’s another step in the causal chain.

Everything that influences anything else is itself influenced. That’s the heart of determinism. A cause isn’t a magical origin point—it’s just a node in a vast, unbroken web of interactions. And even causes are caused. Even your so-called “volitional I,” if it nudges future behavior, only does so because of prior inputs—genetics, past experiences, environment, and current brain states.

So yes, your conscious self might play a causal role in what happens next. But it’s never the author of its own state. It can only operate based on what it is at that moment—and what it is at that moment is fully determined by what came before.

It’s not a contradiction. It’s the elegance of a system where every part influences every other, but none of them escape the web. The “I” is a link in the chain, not the hand that forged it.

Yes, so do you understand now that it's perfectly normal for someone to view his/her "I" as a cause? Just bound by determinism.

Yes—exactly that, Atla.

It's entirely normal—and even accurate—for someone to say, “I caused this,” as long as they understand that the “I” isn’t some sovereign ghost in the machine. It’s a caused cause. A product of prior events, conditions, biology, and learning, now participating in the ongoing flow of causality.

Saying “I caused it” is like saying “this gear turned that one”—it’s part of the chain. The confusion only comes when people inject free will into the picture, imagining the “I” as something metaphysically exempt from the system it sits inside. That’s the illusion. Not agency itself—but the belief that agency is uncaused.

So yes, your “I” can cause things. But it never floats above the chain. It is the chain—just one luminous knot in the unfolding weave.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Mike, in your recent post to me you demonstrated the “sermonic” aspect of your quasi-religious stance.

It is comprised of a group of selected “facts” which you have formed into an existential religious-like (theology imitating) belief-system that you (genuinely) feel can be presented to others and accepted as Truth — if you succeed in moving them.

It is odd to watch your performances and your shifting sermonic strategy: flipping between aggressive chiding and rhetorical ridicule; then lowering the tone, becoming “sincere” and empathetic to the human drama of “loss of horizons” and the alienation that follows.

My view — as I have said a number of times — is to pay less attention to your sermonizing (the quasi-theological content) and more attention to the existential situation of the man who performs all of it.

[BigMike]

Mike, in your recent post to me you demonstrated the “sermonic” aspect of your quasi-religious stance.

It is comprised of a group of selected “facts” which you have formed into an existential religious-like (theology imitating) belief-system that you (genuinely) feel can be presented to others and accepted as Truth — if you succeed in moving them.

It is odd to watch your performances and your shifting sermonic strategy: flipping between aggressive chiding and rhetorical ridicule; then lowering the tone, becoming “sincere” and empathetic to the human drama of “loss of horizons” and the alienation that follows.

My view — as I have said a number of times — is to pay less attention to your sermonizing (the quasi-theological content) and more attention to the existential situation of the man who performs all of it.

Alexis, let me speak to that directly—without dodging.

You say I’m sermonizing, that I’ve built a quasi-religious theology out of determinism. And maybe, to someone still tangled in the old metaphysical vocabulary, it looks that way. But here’s the difference: I’m not selling faith. I’m not asking anyone to believe in invisible realms or moral absolutes handed down from beyond. I’m inviting them to look at reality—coldly, clearly, honestly—and then build something better from the understanding that follows.

Yes, I shift tone. Because this isn’t just academic for me—it matters. It matters that people suffer under systems of blame, punishment, guilt, and cruelty that are built on the myth of free will. It matters that we cling to outdated metaphysics that obstruct compassion, progress, and truth. So yes, sometimes I ridicule ideas that have no explanatory power. And yes, sometimes I try to reach the human being beneath those ideas.

But if you think that’s a performance, maybe it’s because you mistake conviction for dogma. I’m not hiding anything, Alexis. I believe in facing the facts of this world, not looking past them for comfort. That’s not a sermon. It’s a plea: to stop clinging to stories that no longer serve us and start telling new ones grounded in what we know—not what we wish.

And if you’re more interested in the man than the message, fine. Then look at me for what I am: not a preacher, not a prophet, but someone who thinks we owe it to ourselves—and to each other—to tell the truth, even when it hurts. Especially when it hurts.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You say I’m sermonizing, that I’ve built a quasi-religious theology out of determinism. And maybe, to someone still tangled in the old metaphysical vocabulary, it looks that way. But here’s the difference: I’m not selling faith. I’m not asking anyone to believe in invisible realms or moral absolutes handed down from beyond. I’m inviting them to look at reality—coldly, clearly, honestly—and then build something better from the understanding that follows.

You would do well to understand that “all speech is sermonic”. That you are very definitely trying to influence and move your readers to accept your doctrines. Your self-talk” — what you have said to yourself and convinced yourself — is that you are not dealing in arbitrary doctrines but rather with the very fundamentals of truth: the Four Facts of Physics.

The “hominem” has convinced himself of the power and relevance of a revolutionary perspective that will supplant all other modalities and you present this through absolutism.

Those who, let’s say, challenge your doctrines related to the Four Physics Facts are “tangled in old metaphysical vocabulary” and you sincerely believe you have transcended thise, and metaphysics generally.

In my view you need to examine yourself more closely.

You are selling a faith-variant. In the sense that you are sermonizing.

In some sense you have replaced an “invisible realm” for what you present as a rock-bottom “tangible realm”.

[BigMike]

You say I’m sermonizing, that I’ve built a quasi-religious theology out of determinism. And maybe, to someone still tangled in the old metaphysical vocabulary, it looks that way. But here’s the difference: I’m not selling faith. I’m not asking anyone to believe in invisible realms or moral absolutes handed down from beyond. I’m inviting them to look at reality—coldly, clearly, honestly—and then build something better from the understanding that follows.

You would do well to understand that “all speech is sermonic”. That you are very definitely trying to influence and move your readers to accept your doctrines. Your self-talk” — what you have said to yourself and convinced yourself — is that you are not dealing in arbitrary doctrines but rather with the very fundamentals of truth: the Four Facts of Physics.

The “hominem” has convinced himself of the power and relevance of a revolutionary perspective that will supplant all other modalities and you present this through absolutism.

Those who, let’s say, challenge your doctrines related to the Four Physics Facts are “tangled in old metaphysical vocabulary” and you sincerely believe you have transcended thise, and metaphysics generally.

In my view you need to examine yourself more closely.

You are selling a faith-variant. In the sense that you are sermonizing.

In some sense you have replaced an “invisible realm” for what you present as a rock-bottom “tangible realm”.

Alexis, if you're going to keep calling what I present a "faith-variant" or a form of "doctrine," then let’s cut to the chase:

What, exactly, have I said that you think is false?

Not what you find distasteful. Not what you think is “sermonic.” Not what offends your poetic sensibilities. I’m asking plainly: what claim have I made about reality that you believe is factually incorrect? Is it that all events have causes? That consciousness arises from physical processes? That moral responsibility, as traditionally conceived, collapses under the weight of determinism?

I’m not interested in your feelings about tone or delivery. I want to know where, in your view, the facts themselves break down.

Because if you can’t point to a single thing I’ve said that’s untrue—only that it’s emotionally uncomfortable or ideologically disruptive—then maybe what you’re actually defending isn’t truth at all, but your preferred illusions. And maybe it’s time to admit that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What, exactly, have I said that you think is false?

I think you deal in partial truths (i.e. certain things, facts more properly) which result in a very incomplete picture of man. You negate a phenomenal amount (that is, exclude).

I said this from the beginning: yours is a strange agglomeration if physics facts, mathematical logic of an imitative sort, and a new anthropology.

Here it is in a proverbial nutshell:

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.

That’s a picture of BigMike the “hominem”.

[Pistolero]

Determinism is an evolution of the Abrahamic dogma.
God's Will becomes Cosmic Determinism.
God's Commandment becomes nature's laws.
God's absoluteness becomes cosmic order, allowing nothing to be able to do what has not been determined.
Innocence is becoming worthy of salvation.

No need for a savior because free-will is absent and choice is illusory.
Adam's sin is not required to explain evil.
Evil is part of the Demiurge - Judaism.

America is infected.

[BigMike]

What, exactly, have I said that you think is false?

I think you deal in partial truths (i.e. certain things, facts more properly) which result in a very incomplete picture of man. You negate a phenomenal amount (that is, exclude).

I said this from the beginning: yours is a strange agglomeration if physics facts, mathematical logic of an imitative sort, and a new anthropology.

Here it is in a proverbial nutshell:

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.

That’s a picture of BigMike the “hominem”.

Alexis, let’s stay on target.

You called my description of reality a “partial truth.” Fine—then let me ask directly:

Do you agree with the “partial truths” I laid out? That the brain operates under deterministic laws? That we don’t control our desires in some metaphysical vacuum? That our decisions emerge from a cascade of causes we didn’t choose?

Because if you do agree, then we’re not debating facts—we’re debating whether you're comfortable following those facts to their logical conclusion.

So tell me: what exactly is “missing” from that picture? What does your addition bring to the table that makes the truth more complete? More coherent? More useful?

And as for the “proverbial nutshell” you cited—what, specifically, do you object to? Do you think that snippet is wrong in content? Or just too blunt for your taste?

Because if you’re not rejecting the facts, but only resenting the clarity with which they’re expressed, then the issue here isn’t my worldview—it’s your reluctance to face the implications of your own admitted reality.

[Pistolero]

'Will' is one of the determining causes.
Quantum physics places Newtonian Physics in doubt.
Life participants, intentionally, in what is being determined.
Conflicting ideals is another aspect of natural selection.
Genes to Memes

Most could not endure the 'death of god.'
Not the loss of a paternal authority.... some rejoiced.
What they could not live without is the scapegoat aspect of the dogma.
They need something to blame for their own bad choices.

[Pistolero]

What is missing in your delusions of absolute order, is the chaos factor.
You assume that existence is entirely and completely ordered - a remnant of your religious addiction.

Though the Laws on Nature describe order, they do not describe energies that lack order.
Chaos is the factor that explains how life emerges, as if out of nowhere and nothing.

Cosmogony....of the ancients.
Out of chaos the Titans were born.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Mike, our fundamental picture of “reality” does not jibe. And as I plainly said when you came back here a few days ago: I am not the opponent you seek to work out your doctrines.

[Who, may I ask, do you feel you’ve forged agreements with here? What is your impression of why many don’t go along with you?]

I understand your position — that is, the elements of the position you present. So perhaps this will enable you to feel “heard”.

You are asking me to continue to engage with you and this could only amount to repeating what I’ve already written (no part of which you can accept!)