Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Age]

Fletcher, I appreciate the thoughtful tone you’ve brought to the conversation.

You're absolutely right that many religious people don’t reject all science—they accept medicine, technology, even cosmology to a point.

If absolutely any one in a philosophy forum that any "religious person" reject 'all' science, then then this is some thing very unbalanced with 'that one'.

But when science begins to challenge moral foundations like free will, eternal judgment, or the soul, that's often where the line gets drawn.

What do you even mean by 'moral foundations', exactly?

'Free will' and the 'soul' have nothing at all to do with morality, nor with judgments.

And, once and again, 'your own personal and individual definition' of the term and phrase 'free will' could never ever exist under any terms, theological nor scientific. So, 'this point' still exists.

And understandably so—because if you remove free will, the entire structure of divine reward and punishment begins to collapse.

you adult human beings in the days when this is being written, still, have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what some might call, 'divine reward and punishment' is even in relation to, exactly. So, until you people do come to understand and know what 'divine reward and punishment' is in relation to, exactly, all of 'your talk', here, is 'wasting time' and 'falling on deaf ears', as some would say.

When the word 'religion' is being defined as, a particular system of faith and/or worship, and/or a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion, then you people who are being 'religious', here, can be equal in either the 'theologies' or the 'sciences'. For the most simplest example, the 'religious', of the 'sciences', believe, absolutely, that the Universe began with or by a 'big bang', with the 'religious', of a 'theology', believe, absolutely, that the Universe began with or by a 'God'.

Both sets of you "believers" believe, absolutely, that the Universe began. And, both sets only believe what they do because 'it is written', in a book.

Both sets of "believers" are as closed as each other is. The 'religious' of 'sciences' are not necessarily any more nor any less 'religious' of 'theologies'. you are ALL as narrowed or closed as each other.

Now, I will repeat this, again:

When the words 'free will' are being defined as, Having the ability to choose, then there is not a human being that could refute nor validly and soundly argue against the Fact that you human beings 'have the ability to choose'. Therefore, 'free will' exists.

If absolutely any one would like to define the words 'free will', then you are absolutely free 'to choose' to do so.

Obviously 'free will', as defined above, here, exists, but, just as obvious, what one is able to 'choose from' is limited, and limited to 'that one's' own 'past experiences'. Which obviously then has and plays a 'deterministic' role in what can and will happen and occur in the future.

Once you human beings can comprehend and understand these irrefutable Fact, then, and only then, can and will this ridiculous 'free will' OR 'determinism' discussion 'finally end', and 'we' can move along and progress, here, towards things like, 'divine reward and punishment have absolutely nothing at all to do with the 'current and popular belief' that 'they' are about you 'individual human beings'.

The whole entire structure of 'divine reward and punishment' completely collapses any time any one of you human beings thinks or believes that 'that' is about 'you', personally. you adult human beings, here, have become so absolutely greedy and selfish that you think or believe that 'that', and literally many other things, including the 'whole world' to some of you, revolves 'around you'.

There is not a single word nor teaching in regards to the 'after life', which is about any individual human being. Even the words 'after life' have never ever had absolutely any thing to do with a single human being. And, if you all were not so selfish nor self-centric, then you would have already realized and known this.

You mention compatibilism—the idea that determinism and free will can coexist. It’s a comforting position, but it’s ultimately incoherent unless “free will” is watered down to mean nothing more than “acting in accordance with our desires,” even when those desires are themselves caused.

your absolutely 'religious belief' that 'free will' could not and never could exist is letting you down, absolutely, here, "bigmike".

But, 'this' has always been the issue with the 'religious' and the "believers".

That’s not freedom in any meaningful metaphysical sense. That’s just determinism wearing a nice suit.

There is absolutely nothing at all in the whole Universe that could make, so-called, 'meaningful metaphysical sense', to you, right "bigmike"?

As for the emotional comfort that free will provides—I hear that. I get why people resist determinism. It feels cold. It feels like surrender. But here's the twist: when you follow determinism honestly, what emerges is not nihilism, but compassion.

Talk about presenting another prime example of believing that one's own views, feelings, and/or perspectives of things is 'the same' for or from others.

Look "bigmike" when will you stop presuming that 'feel will' provides so-called 'emotional comfort'?
And, you say and claim that 'you get why people resist determinsim'. you obviously have never considered just how much this presumption of yours, here, contradicts its own self.
What do you think one could even be 'surrendering' from, exactly?
No one could nor would have a choice to nor not to so-call 'follow determinism', at all, let alone 'honestly or not'.
Compassion arises from what causes and creates compassion, and it certainly is not determinism nor free will themselves.

Because if people aren't free in the traditional sense—if their actions are caused—then blame becomes misguided.

What are you even on about, here, you have the absolute freedom 'to choose' to do some thing or to not do some thing. If you really want 'to choose' otherwise, then so be it. you obviously have 'the freedom' to do so.

Punishment becomes cruel. And morality evolves into a system of understanding, prevention, and collective responsibility. That’s not just scientifically honest—it’s deeply humane.

'Trying to twist and distort things, to 'try to' get thing to 'fit in with' your own beliefs, is certainly not helping you in any way at all, here.

So yes, the gap between religion and science is about emotional needs.

What a load of dishonesty. But, if you really want to 'choose' to believe otherwise, then okay.

Now, what even are so-called 'emotional needs', exactly?

How many 'emotional needs' do you have, exactly?

And, what are your 'emotional needs', exactly?

If you do not answer and clarify these questions, then, again, what a load of dishonesty, here.

And, I have not even got to the so-called 'gap between those two things, yet.

But facing the truth doesn't have to mean losing meaning.

So, what are 'your own emotional needs', which are stopping and preventing you from facing the actual Truth of things, here, exactly?

It means building it on a more honest foundation.

How many so-called 'honest foundations' are there, to you, exactly?

And sometimes, when the comforting illusion fades, what replaces it can be something far more beautiful: a morality rooted not in judgment, but in understanding.

And, if you ever get around to letting go of your obviously very own 'comforting illusion', here, and just let it 'fade away', also, then you can and will see the 'absolute beauty', here. Which you are obviously missing out on, now.

Thanks for engaging in good faith. I’d be curious where you stand personally—do you lean more toward compatibilism, or are you still wrestling with what determinism implies for moral agency?

Because if 'you' do not 'stand' with "bigmike", then "bigmike" will 'choose' to argue and fight with 'you', here. Although "bigmike" believes, absolutely, that it had no choice at all to do anything else, otherwise.

Age, what a word salad of nonsense.

Of course 'it' is a so-called 'word salad of nonsense' because 'it' counters and refutes 'your claims'. Which you obviously will not be able to counter nor refute, at all.

You say free will is “the ability to choose,”

No I never.

you can not even begin True, Right, Accurate, and/nor Correct, here.

Now, what I actually said was;
When the words 'free will' are being defined as, Having the ability to choose, then ...

but you ignore the core question: what determines the choice?

But, 'I' nor anyone else, can not 'ignore' what has not yet even been presented.

Now, if you would like to present some so-called 'core question', 'What determines the choice?', then you are 'free' to 'now' present 'that question'.

And, if you have 'chosen' to present that question, then what does it matter what 'determines' any choice, anyway?

Obviously absolutely every thing happens because of some previous event. Once more 'I' will inform 'you' that there is not a human being who would say otherwise. So, any point you are 'trying to' make, here, by presenting such question is of no importance at all. Again, because absolutely every human being, here, knows that some thing, prior, determined any and every thing happening and occurring 'now'.

Saying we “have the ability” doesn’t answer whether that ability is free from causes.

1. The question, 'Is 'the ability' 'to choose', which every human being 'has', 'free from causes'?' has never ever been asked, here.

2. If 'that question' had ever been asked, then saying, 'Having the ability', has absolutely nothing at all to even do with 'that question'.

3. Again, because absolutely every thing that happens and occurs happens and occurs of pre-existing conditions, then obviously any and every 'ability' that you human beings have, or do not have, is because of pre-existing conditions.

4. But, so what?

That every thing is an effect of, or because of, 'before', this does not remove the Fact that you human beings 'have the ability to choose'.

You keep dancing around that with verbosity instead of facing it head-on.

Again, you are absolutely free to choose to believe whatever you like. But, just because you believe some thing is true, then that thing is true.

You babble about "divine reward" and "metaphysics" while dodging the physics.

'you' are becoming an absolute joke', here, now. 'I' only bring those words up because 'you' introduce them, in your attempts to 'try to' argue and fight for your very strongly held onto position, here.

If 'I' 'babbled about' 'those things', then it was in direct response to 'the way' that 'you' have used them.

Your writing is a fog machine—no clarity, no definitions, just noise and ego.

This is really quite funny and amusing, considering the very fact that it was 'you' who claimed that it was 'I' who defined 'some thing', here. Which, by the way, the only times you have provided any definition for 'that thing' was just in a way that is and was a complete impossibility to every one, here.

So, if you want to talk about introducing what you would call a 'fog machine', then it has come from you, which, by the way, I even asked you clarifying questions about, which you provided no clarity for. Which leaves that the actual one who has been producing 'noise', here, from 'your egotistical belief' is 'you', the one known as "bigmike". And, the one who started 'this thread'.

And no, people don't believe in the Big Bang "just because it's written in a book." They believe it because it's supported by measurable, testable, predictive evidence.

What 'we' have, here, is another "believer" who 'tries to' 'justify' its own beliefs, as being based upon 'actual evidence'.

"believers" in 'the sciences' or in 'the theologies" are all the same.

If you really want to choose to keep believing that the whole absolute Universe 'began', and 'began' at or with a 'big bang', because 'the beginning' of absolutely Everything is measurable, testable, and is 'predictive evidence', then by all means keep 'choosing' to believe 'this'.

But, you obviously have no other choice than to believe that the whole Universe 'began', right?

Just like your "fellow believers" who also believe, absolutely, that the Universe 'began', and which 'their belief' is based on 'evidence', from 'a book', as well.

You confuse evidence with dogma because you’ve never grasped the difference.

Again, your absolutely Dishonesty is not helping you one little bit, here.

In fact, 'your dishonesty', here, is showing and revealing quite a lot 'about' 'you'.

You’re not debating. You’re rambling. Loudly. And badly.

Once again for the very slow of learning and understanding, here,

'I do not do debate'.

One day 'this' will, finally, get 'into' 'these posters', here.

Again, just like the "theology religion believer" believes the Universe 'began', so to do the "science religion believer" believes the Universe 'began'. And, it is because the "believers" are believing what they all are, here, why 'these human beings', back when this was being written, took so, so long to 'catch up', comprehend, understand, see, and know, HERE.

Now, the reason why you did not answer and clarify 'my questions' posed, and asked 'to you', and did not even attempt to any thing that I said and pointed out, here, about your beliefs and claims, here, is because if you did answer and clarify, then your inconsistencies and/or contradictions would come to light, and, again, you did not even 'try to' 'attempt' to counter what I pointed out because you are just not able to.

[Belinda]

You’re here for theater.

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Henry, thanks for the Shakespeare—always a crowd favorite among those who mistake poetic despair for philosophical depth.

But let me clarify something: quoting Macbeth doesn’t make your fatalism any less shallow. That passage is about a man unraveling, coming to terms with the collapse of meaning. You’re holding it up like a banner, as if it is meaning. But nihilism isn’t insight—it’s what’s left when insight is resisted.

You want everything to either sparkle with mystery or burn with doom. But reality isn’t a stage. It's not a performance. It's a system—intricate, causal, comprehensible. You just don’t like that it doesn’t bend to your old myths about soul and will and cosmic justice.

So keep quoting Shakespeare if it makes you feel profound. But don’t confuse literary beauty with metaphysical truth. One moves hearts. The other moves particles.

And I’m not here to strut or fret. I’m here to cut through the noise and get to the facts. Even if they don’t rhyme.

Yes, and anyway the melancholy Jaques (As You Like It) conceded that Touchstone the Fool had better insight than he. Life as life is more absurd than tragic.

Any man who hands over his personal responsibility to his pillow- talking woman is idiotic.

[attofishpi]

Name-calling tells me you have nothing, have a nice fantasy life!

Yes, well, simple people that think they comprehend what is required on a PHILOSOPHY forum (LOGIC) and can't answer a very simple binary logical proposition tend to get on my nerves..

Any INTELLIGENT atheists upon the forum want to attempt to actually answer the following:

Which of these two men are the WISER? Which has the opportunity for greater KNOWLEDGE?

Man A: Atheist
Man B: Theist

Both these men are of equal intelligence, both have access to all the scientific comprehension and theories known to man.

ANSWER: Man B: Theist

Y?

..because the theist simply accepted that IF GOD exists, then it would be advantageous to have faith in ITS existence, since this GOD entity stated faith in ITS existence was a prerequisite to knowing of ITS (GODs) existence. Ergo, the theist has the ability to become more knowledge-able of the true nature of reality.

Do you (ANY intelligent ATHEIST) disagree?

Where and when, exactly, has it ever been stated absolutely anywhere that the prerequisite to knowing of God's existence was by 'having faith in God's existence'?

Are 'you' actually able to answer and clarify this question?

Hebrews 11:6 (KJV)

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

John 14:6-7 (KJV)

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him."*

[Age]

Yes, well, simple people that think they comprehend what is required on a PHILOSOPHY forum (LOGIC) and can't answer a very simple binary logical proposition tend to get on my nerves..

Any INTELLIGENT atheists upon the forum want to attempt to actually answer the following:

Which of these two men are the WISER? Which has the opportunity for greater KNOWLEDGE?

Man A: Atheist
Man B: Theist

Both these men are of equal intelligence, both have access to all the scientific comprehension and theories known to man.

ANSWER: Man B: Theist

Y?

..because the theist simply accepted that IF GOD exists, then it would be advantageous to have faith in ITS existence, since this GOD entity stated faith in ITS existence was a prerequisite to knowing of ITS (GODs) existence. Ergo, the theist has the ability to become more knowledge-able of the true nature of reality.

Do you (ANY intelligent ATHEIST) disagree?

Where and when, exactly, has it ever been stated absolutely anywhere that the prerequisite to knowing of God's existence was by 'having faith in God's existence'?

Are 'you' actually able to answer and clarify this question?

Hebrews 11:6 (KJV)

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Are/were you not yet aware of the actual difference between 'please' and 'know'?

As can be clearly seen in that 'passage' and/or 'message' the word 'know' is nowhere to been seen, and thus does not even exist.

John 14:6-7 (KJV)

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

And, again, when the meaning of the words, 'the second coming of "jesus" ', are actually revealed, then what this 'passage' or 'message' actual means will be 'known', but, still, no use of the 'know' word anywhere in there.

If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him."*

Once more it is like you have completely and utterly completely failed to understand the actual question I posed, and asked you.

Again, Where and when, exactly, has it ever been stated absolutely anywhere that the prerequisite to knowing of God's existence was by 'having faith in God's existence'?

Look "attofishpi" you claimed:
God stated, 'faith in Its existence was a prerequisite to knowing of Its existence'.

So, when and where, exactly, has God, supposedly, stated:

'Faith in My existence is a prerequisite to 'knowing' of My existence', exactly?

Surely you can, 'now', see how and why what you provided, here, fails completely in providing any thing about 'faith' being needed, in order to 'know'.

[attofishpi]

My GOD u r stupid. Everything has to be EXPLICIT for you - look that word up and see if you understand the point I am making.

[seeds]

_______

The reason I keep bringing up the following to BigMike,...

So, how about it, BigMike?

What is your "measurable" and "falsifiable" explanation for the existence of the "...unfathomably ordered and stable setting..." that, again, had to be in place before evolution "...could even begin to carry out the incremental steps that led to the manifestation of brains..."?

...(of which he keeps evading, btw) is because he just doesn't seem to understand that before he can declare that internal "agents" of mind who are in possession of "free will," do not exist,...

...and that all of reality is purely deterministic in nature,...

...he must first prove - beyond any reasonable doubt - that this Great "Machine" that we call a universe, hasn't been purposely designed to simply "appear" to be deterministic in nature, by a higher "Agent" of mind who is in possession of "free will."

I mean, we can envision the software-like (coded) processes of DNA as being deterministic in nature.

However, that doesn't rule-out the possibility of the existence of an initial "Coder" of the software of DNA, which (by design) is allowed to freely recombine in innumerable ways that can then yield-forth multifarious lifeforms...

...(all "conveniently" powered by an absolute perfect source of energy that we call a sun).

The point is that the entire universe - as a whole - may have a software-like ("DNA-ish-like") informational underpinning that, yes, utilizes highly deterministic processes to move the cogs and gears of the "Great Machine,"...

...but nevertheless has been designed by a living "Agent" of mind who is in possession of "free will."

When not ignoring my posts, BigMike will of course insist that because there is no tangible evidence for the existence of a higher "Agent/Designer/Coder" of this "Great Machine,"...

...then that's proof enough for him that no such "Agent" could possibly be real.

And that brings me back to this...

So, how about it, BigMike?

What is your "measurable" and "falsifiable" explanation for the existence of the "...unfathomably ordered and stable setting..." that, again, had to be in place before evolution "...could even begin to carry out the incremental steps that led to the manifestation of brains..."?

The thing that gets me is that even though the materialists/atheists can clearly see how evolution can lead to higher and higher levels of being and consciousness,...

...they nevertheless cannot seem to extrapolate from that,...

...that if the ever-ascending process of the evolution of life, mind, and consciousness has quite possibly been going on as far back as eternity itself,...

...then why is it so hard to imagine that a lifeform could have evolved to the point of being able to create a universe out of the living fabric of its very own being?

Indeed, in all of past eternity, it would only have been necessary for one initial Being to evolve to such a point, and, from then on, said Being could simply replicate itself...

(in a purely "natural" and "organic" manner)

...by mentally "conceiving" its own offspring ("in its own image") within itself.

Now just couple that notion with the fact that quantum theory suggests that the material features of the universe appear to be constructed from what seems to be an extremely advanced and highly ordered version of the same fundamental substance that forms our own thoughts and dreams,...

...and you at least have some anecdotal evidence for the possibility of what I am speculatively suggesting.

Admittedly, even if what I am suggesting is true, we are nevertheless still confronted with the intractable mystery of not only why there is "somethingness" as opposed to "nothingness,"...

...but also, how the initial "somethingness" acquired the conditions that would allow for the evolution of life, mind, and consciousness.

As I've expressed in several prior postings, the sheer mystery of why there is "somethingness" as opposed to "nothingness" is so profound that I have often wondered if even God knows the answer.
_______

[Dubious]

I won’t say that truth is “just as much” subjective as it is objective. Our perception of truth is certainly filtered through language, culture, psychology, and authority. But the truth itself—the causal structure of the world, the forces that shape events, the biology that drives behavior—is not “created” by opinion. It exists. It operates. And it can be tested, falsified, refined. That is the lifeblood of science. Of justice. Of sanity.

You are describing truth in the ideal, unpolluted by language, culture, psychology and authority. Such a version of human affairs never existed. More often it succumbs to sentiment being much more comforting to the human psyche than its cold, idealistic purity could ever recompense.

Truth, as you describe it, is much closer to the cold mechanistic processes of nature than among fallible humans where such a version as you portray never existed. Even within Bayesian logic which includes science, truth was never the objective but the probability of something being true, which never yields or amounts to truth per se in any absolute sense whether it be positive or negative. Within that context, truth only exists as an entry within an index of probabilities, causing it to be perspectival rather than absolute.

Not least, because truth, as you mention, can be tested, falsified, refined, it can never yield to any truth denotation as long as that process is ongoing as measured in Bayesian terms. Humanly applied, truth is never solitary but connected to that which expresses it. In addition, justice can only relate to truth in a moral sense causing it again to be humanly defined.

Our perspectives on truth are very different and cannot be easily defined in a single sentence. I can't imagine saying more on the subject than has already been said.

[BigMike]

I won’t say that truth is “just as much” subjective as it is objective. Our perception of truth is certainly filtered through language, culture, psychology, and authority. But the truth itself—the causal structure of the world, the forces that shape events, the biology that drives behavior—is not “created” by opinion. It exists. It operates. And it can be tested, falsified, refined. That is the lifeblood of science. Of justice. Of sanity.

You are describing truth in the ideal, unpolluted by language, culture, psychology and authority. Such a version of human affairs never existed. More often it succumbs to sentiment being much more comforting to the human psyche than its cold, idealistic purity could ever recompense.

Truth, as you describe it, is much closer to the cold mechanistic processes of nature than among fallible humans where such a version as you portray never existed. Even within Bayesian logic which includes science, truth was never the objective but the probability of something being true, which never yields or amounts to truth per se in any absolute sense whether it be positive or negative. Within that context, truth only exists as an entry within an index of probabilities, causing it to be perspectival rather than absolute.

Not least, because truth, as you mention, can be tested, falsified, refined, it can never yield to any truth denotation as long as that process is ongoing as measured in Bayesian terms. Humanly applied, truth is never solitary but connected to that which expresses it. In addition, justice can only relate to truth in a moral sense causing it again to be humanly defined.

Our perspectives on truth are very different and cannot be easily defined in a single sentence. I can't imagine saying more on the subject than has already been said.

Dubious, you're right that truth as an ideal is often polluted by human bias, but that's precisely why we need a method—not just intuition, not just consensus, but structured investigation. What you call "cold" or "mechanistic" isn't a flaw—it's a feature. Nature is indifferent, and our job is to cut through illusions, not cater to them.

You mention Bayesian reasoning like it undermines truth. It doesn’t. It’s a framework for probabilistic convergence—a method for getting closer to reality despite imperfect knowledge. No serious scientist claims absolute certainty. That’s not a weakness—it’s intellectual integrity.

And here’s where your position gets dangerous: when you treat truth as inherently perspectival, you blur the line between opinion and fact. That’s not humble—it’s a gateway to manipulation. If anything can be “true for you,” then everything becomes debatable—even gravity, climate science, or history. That’s how we get vaccine denial, election conspiracies, and pseudoscience: the weaponization of doubt.

This is why the logical principle of ex falso quodlibet matters. Once you accept a contradiction—a falsehood—as truth, anything can follow. If one lie is protected, it infects every conclusion downstream. That’s not philosophy. That’s collapse.

So no—I won’t call truth “perspectival.” I’ll call our access to it limited, yes, but I’ll also insist that there is a truth. One reality. One set of physical laws. And every time we get closer to it, real lives improve. That’s not a comforting illusion. That’s the payoff for doing the work.

[Ben JS]

Alexiev,

I think you're sincere in the arguments you present - so I will respond in kind.
I want to present the relevance of the argument - not convince you to adopt the position.
The questions I ask are rhetorical, for you to ask yourself - not for you to answer me.
As I may respond, but don't plan to.

we must (and do) act as if we have free choices whether these choices have been "destined" from the time of the Big Bang or not.

Did you know people can participate in actions, even if they believe their actions aren't free?
They can still function, and still find value in functioning, whilst believing their actions are not free.
And, as this is case, where then does this 'must' or necessity you claim, arise from?

Why, do you, believe we must act as if our choices are free?
And what, do you, think the difference between acting like one's actions are free, and one's actions aren't free, look like?
Because if you don't think there's a difference, that would again bring into question this 'must' you introduced, as both outcomes would be the same.

I know a key difference, and I intend to detail that lower in this post.
If you do believe there is a key difference, then ought we not address it -
question whether it ought be one way or the other?

What good does it do to claim the Big Bang "causes" bubonic plague? Isn't it more reasonable to look for a handle we can manipulate?

If we're trying to influence the predicted trajectory of the future, as everyone with intent is,
then you are right in recognizing the value of determining what our actions can affect, and what they can't affect - which 'handles' are accessible to us.

However, there are multiple things we want to do. And to disregard a piece of information, may lead us to make poorer decisions.
I make the case to you, it's more reasonable to consider not only the ways you can alter the environment, but also the origins of the environment.

Why, you might ask?

Justice.

[justice: the quality of being fair and reasonable]

There are many ways you can alter the environment, but not all methods are as just.
We're not only looking to get fast results, we're looking to get the best results.
One of the metrics, typically valued in the pursuit of justice, is considering the welfare of all parties.

So, to disregard the welfare of one party, because it makes decisions easier - is not justice.

In pursuit of justice, we don't just stop at proximate cause.
We try to take into consideration ALL factors that have contributed to an outcome -
in order to arrive at the most just 'handles' to interact with,
and the method by which we should interact with these 'handles',
in light of all our understanding and pursuit of fairness to all parties.

Proportionality of response is key to justice.
Death for any infraction, would lower infractions -
it's an effective response, if evaluating by one metric..
but there's more than one metric to consider, when seeking justice.

In a world of determinism,
if people's actions are genuinely caused before the actor existed,
then infringing upon their wellbeing to the minimal degree to ensure the absence of future infractions,
is more just - than lashing out at them for that which was never in their capacity to alter.

The only argument for severe treatment, is from the perspective of deterrents - and that's another conversation.

Science works by identifying proximate causes;

Science doesn't stop at proximate causes.
If you remember, you already spoke of the big bang theory.
Why do scientists speak about that, if according to you,
it's the furthest thing from the proximal cause?

If we want to make easy,
less informed decisions,
we can stop at proximate causes - yes.

justice works by blaming people for some of their decisions.

[justice: the quality of being fair and reasonable]
[justice system: the institutions that are central to resolving conflicts arising over alleged violations]

So, it appears your claiming at least one of two things:

1: You believe justice is arrived at by blaming people for some of their decisions
2: You believe the justice system functions by blaming people for some of their decisions

On 1:

One can acknowledge how someone's actions contributed to an outcome, without blaming them.

[blame: To find fault with; criticize / To consider responsible]

Through the lens of determinism, they are not genuinely able to respond differently than they did.
We can criticize harmful motivations, and unhealthy actions - without blaming a person for having them.
One does not need to cast blame, in order to seek an alternative predicted trajectory for a scenario -
to seek to influence the environment, to align with what one believes will lead to a healthier predicted trajectory.

On 2:

The justice system can function without the focus of casting blame or retaliation.
It can function by determining future risks, and what 'handles' contributed primarily to an outcome.
It's objective, can be finding the balance between reducing the risks of future harms -
while minimizing the infringement on the wellbeing of all parties involved.

Again - blame is not necessary.

Whether these decisions were inevitable is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Not recognizing relevance is different than it being absent.

Condemning someone for the flows of time appears like foolishness.

-

Seeking retaliation against individuals,
because the retaliator can't endure the injustice of existence.
The individual is the 'handle' they twist in rage,
their misguided response to the tragedy of misfortune.
They attack, who they know to be innocent,
as existence is beyond their purview.

'Hate the game, not the player' -
but I don't encourage hate at all.

=

That being said,
I'll leave you with this:
(which I'd rather you watch than read my post, if you're only going to do one)

Sam Harris detailing the above, better, in the first 8 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFazP2nBIqQ

[Pistolero]

Justice, for these cowards, is to punish a man you claim had no choice other than to do as he did, and no free-will to have done otherwise.
Like God of Abraham, punishes Adam for doing what god created him to be able to do, knowing that he will do it.
So, in effect these cowards are punishing cosmic order, by punishing the man that was determined, and had no choice, but to do as he did.

They say the opposite of what they do.

The motive is to protect themselves from the implications of agency.
To preserve the scapegoat.
Something to accuse and blame for all the bad things that happened to them. They seek absolution.

[Belinda]

I won’t say that truth is “just as much” subjective as it is objective. Our perception of truth is certainly filtered through language, culture, psychology, and authority. But the truth itself—the causal structure of the world, the forces that shape events, the biology that drives behavior—is not “created” by opinion. It exists. It operates. And it can be tested, falsified, refined. That is the lifeblood of science. Of justice. Of sanity.

You are describing truth in the ideal, unpolluted by language, culture, psychology and authority. Such a version of human affairs never existed. More often it succumbs to sentiment being much more comforting to the human psyche than its cold, idealistic purity could ever recompense.

Truth, as you describe it, is much closer to the cold mechanistic processes of nature than among fallible humans where such a version as you portray never existed. Even within Bayesian logic which includes science, truth was never the objective but the probability of something being true, which never yields or amounts to truth per se in any absolute sense whether it be positive or negative. Within that context, truth only exists as an entry within an index of probabilities, causing it to be perspectival rather than absolute.

Not least, because truth, as you mention, can be tested, falsified, refined, it can never yield to any truth denotation as long as that process is ongoing as measured in Bayesian terms. Humanly applied, truth is never solitary but connected to that which expresses it. In addition, justice can only relate to truth in a moral sense causing it again to be humanly defined.

Our perspectives on truth are very different and cannot be easily defined in a single sentence. I can't imagine saying more on the subject than has already been said.

Mike describes truth from the modernism stance: Dubious's stance is post-modern.
While postmodernism is true it's too insubstantial to live by and resembles fence-sitting if adopted as a dogma.

Modernism and its refined and most robust practice, science, is the best we can do. And we must act!

[BigMike]

Justice, for these cowards, is to punish a man you claim had no choice other than to do as he did, and no free-will to have done otherwise.
Like God of Abraham, punishes Adam for doing what god created him to be able to do, knowing that he will do it.
So, in effect these cowards are punishing cosmic order, by punishing the man that was determined, and had no choice, but to do as he did.

They say the opposite of what they do.

The motive is to protect themselves from the implications of agency.
To preserve the scapegoat.
Something to accuse and blame for all the bad things that happened to them. They seek absolution.

Pistolero, you've got it exactly backward.

Determinists don't punish the man who was determined—we investigate what caused him to act that way and work to change those causes. That’s not scapegoating. That’s problem-solving. That’s reform.

You're confusing retribution with prevention. Retribution says: "You deserve to suffer." Determinism says: "Let’s understand how this happened so we can prevent it from happening again." One clings to blame. The other looks for solutions.

If a child grows up in violence, poverty, or trauma, a determinist doesn’t shrug and say “evil soul.” A determinist asks: What social, psychological, or neurological conditions shaped this outcome? What can we do to alter the inputs?

This isn’t cowardice. It’s responsibility—with eyes open.

So no, we’re not “punishing the cosmic order.” We’re trying to break cycles by refusing to pretend people magically author themselves from nothing. That’s not absolution. That’s progress.

[Pistolero]

Justice, for these cowards, is to punish a man you claim had no choice other than to do as he did, and no free-will to have done otherwise.
Like God of Abraham, punishes Adam for doing what god created him to be able to do, knowing that he will do it.
So, in effect these cowards are punishing cosmic order, by punishing the man that was determined, and had no choice, but to do as he did.

They say the opposite of what they do.

The motive is to protect themselves from the implications of agency.
To preserve the scapegoat.
Something to accuse and blame for all the bad things that happened to them. They seek absolution.

Pistolero, you've got it exactly backward.

Determinists don't punish the man who was determined—we investigate what caused him to act that way and work to change those causes. That’s not scapegoating. That’s problem-solving. That’s reform.

Therefore, you can choose to change what has been determined.
You have free-will.
The moment you agreed that you had more than one option, you admitted you had a choice.

If a child grows up in violence, poverty, or trauma, a determinist doesn’t shrug and say “evil soul.” A determinist asks: What social, psychological, or neurological conditions shaped this outcome? What can we do to alter the inputs?

That's psychology 101.
Some violence has no such traumatic past.

Life is not entirely reactive, it is also proactive.
Not 'free from' what has been determined, but 'free to...shape what will be determined' - slave/master psychology..

This isn’t cowardice. It’s responsibility—with eyes open.

Responsibility implies that a man could have chosen to act differently.
Then he had free-will, his choice was not an illusion, but was actual....it participated in determining his future.

So no, we’re not “punishing the cosmic order.” We’re trying to break cycles by refusing to pretend people magically author themselves from nothing. That’s not absolution. That’s progress.

So, you're trying to change what has been determined.....to determine something different.
That, is an admission of agency.
Free-will.

Our judgments, expressed as actions, and choices, PARTICIPATE, along with those of others, and with cosmic forces, in determining the future.
Life is not an impotent, innocent, bystander, but a willful participant.
will is what separates the living from the non-living.

And that was my point.

[BigMike]

Justice, for these cowards, is to punish a man you claim had no choice other than to do as he did, and no free-will to have done otherwise.
Like God of Abraham, punishes Adam for doing what god created him to be able to do, knowing that he will do it.
So, in effect these cowards are punishing cosmic order, by punishing the man that was determined, and had no choice, but to do as he did.

They say the opposite of what they do.

The motive is to protect themselves from the implications of agency.
To preserve the scapegoat.
Something to accuse and blame for all the bad things that happened to them. They seek absolution.

Pistolero, you've got it exactly backward.

Determinists don't punish the man who was determined—we investigate what caused him to act that way and work to change those causes. That’s not scapegoating. That’s problem-solving. That’s reform.

Therefore, you can choose to change what has been determined.
You have free-will.
The moment you agreed that you had more than one option, you admitted you had a choice.

If a child grows up in violence, poverty, or trauma, a determinist doesn’t shrug and say “evil soul.” A determinist asks: What social, psychological, or neurological conditions shaped this outcome? What can we do to alter the inputs?

That's psychology 101.
Some violence has no such traumatic past.

Life is not entirely reactive, it is also proactive.
Not 'free from' what has been determined, but 'free to...shape what will be determined' - slave/master psychology..

This isn’t cowardice. It’s responsibility—with eyes open.

Responsibility implies that a man could have chosen to act differently.
Then he had free-will, his choice was not an illusion, but was actual....it participated in determining his future.

So no, we’re not “punishing the cosmic order.” We’re trying to break cycles by refusing to pretend people magically author themselves from nothing. That’s not absolution. That’s progress.

So, you're trying to change what has been determined.....to determine something different.
That, is an admission of agency.
Free-will.

Our judgments, expressed as actions, and choices, PARTICIPATE, along with those of others, and with cosmic forces, in determining the future.
Life is not an impotent, innocent, bystander, but a willful participant.
will is what separates the living from the non-living.

And that was my point.

Pistolero, your reply reveals a basic misunderstanding of what determinism actually asserts.

No determinist denies that we act. What we reject is the idea that these actions are freely chosen in some metaphysical, uncaused vacuum. Actions still happen. Decisions still occur. But they are caused—by biology, environment, conditioning, memory, and moment-to-moment inputs. That doesn’t erase agency—it explains it.

You say: “You’re trying to change what has been determined. That’s an admission of agency.”
Yes—caused agency, not free agency. There’s a difference.

You ask: “Can we choose to change what has been determined?” No. We don’t change the past—we respond to it. And that response is itself determined by who we are and what shaped us. We are part of the causal chain. We’re not floating outside of it making magical “free” decisions.

When a thermostat turns on the heat, is it making a “free choice”? No—it’s responding to causes: a drop in temperature, a signal from the sensor. It acts—but it doesn’t choose freely. That doesn’t make the system meaningless. It makes it explainable.

Same goes for humans. Memory, learning, emotion, and reflection shape our responses—but those, too, are products of cause and effect. Your claim that determinism eliminates responsibility confuses origination with participation. A river doesn’t choose its shape, but it still flows. And we can still build levees.

So yes—our actions matter. But they aren’t “freely chosen” in the mystical sense. They are links in a causal chain. Pretending otherwise doesn’t empower us—it confuses us.

You’re trying to smuggle in metaphysical free will by redefining participation as freedom. But under scrutiny, your version collapses into determinism too—just poorly explained.

[Pistolero]

If will is part of what determines an effect, then it has agency....it has freedom to whatever degree its powers allow.

A man with a traumatic past still has a choice not to act violently. He is not excused because he always has a CHOICE.
Choice is not illusory.
He has agency. Freedom of will does not require a supernatural being.
All life has a will, and all life has a degree of freedom equal to its awareness and its powers.
It has intent....choice.

A choice need not be unaffected by the past.....by need, by desire.....We do not have to be gods to be free.
We have a degree of freedom equal to our powers.
The moment you agreed that choice matters, you agreed that man has freedom to choose between two or more options, and his choice participates in determining his fate.