Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[phyllo]

You're mistaking "choice" for metaphysical authorship—they're not the same. A deterministic system can still involve agents that discriminate between inputs and select outputs. But that selection is driven by prior causes—not conjured from nothing.

Strawman of "metaphysical authorship" and "conjuring from nothing".

When society reforms—say, shifting from punitive to rehabilitative justice—it’s not because some cosmic “chooser” overrode causality. It’s because new data, social pressure, education, and policy mechanisms aligned in just the right way to cause that outcome. That’s how real change works. Always has.

Another strawman of "cosmic 'chooser'".

You say “action requires choice from a set of options.” Sure—but the process of weighing and acting on those options doesn’t require freedom from causality.

Another strawman of "freedom from causality".

You’re just stuck trying to preserve a supernatural notion of “choice” while pretending it's just everyday behavior. But once you strip out the metaphysics, what’s left is still meaningful, still functional, still human. Just not magic.

Another strawman of "supernatural notion of 'choice'" and "magic".

[BigMike]

You're mistaking "choice" for metaphysical authorship—they're not the same. A deterministic system can still involve agents that discriminate between inputs and select outputs. But that selection is driven by prior causes—not conjured from nothing.

Strawman of "metaphysical authorship" and "conjuring from nothing".

When society reforms—say, shifting from punitive to rehabilitative justice—it’s not because some cosmic “chooser” overrode causality. It’s because new data, social pressure, education, and policy mechanisms aligned in just the right way to cause that outcome. That’s how real change works. Always has.

Another strawman of "cosmic 'chooser'".

You say “action requires choice from a set of options.” Sure—but the process of weighing and acting on those options doesn’t require freedom from causality.

Another strawman of "freedom from causality".

You’re just stuck trying to preserve a supernatural notion of “choice” while pretending it's just everyday behavior. But once you strip out the metaphysics, what’s left is still meaningful, still functional, still human. Just not magic.

Another strawman of "supernatural notion of 'choice'" and "magic".

Exactly, phyllo—and thank you for making the pattern so clear.

What I’ve argued repeatedly is that “choice” can exist within a deterministic framework—it just isn’t metaphysically free. You act like I’m making strawmen, but those “strawmen” are direct refutations of the kinds of rhetorical fog that get smuggled in when people defend “choice” without defining it. You want to say people have choice, but you dodge the mechanism behind it. I call it out.

If we agree that humans weigh inputs and act based on internal processing, then the next honest step is asking: What causes that processing? Is it random? Magical? Authored from nothing? Or is it the result of biology, upbringing, memory, environment—all shaped by prior causes? That’s not a strawman. That’s a fork in the road.

You keep trying to preserve the appearance of freedom while ignoring the causal machinery underneath it. That’s what I’m pointing at. If you don’t like terms like “supernatural” or “magic,” fine. But you still owe an explanation for what exactly you think “free” means—without slipping in mystery as the source of autonomy.

Because here’s the truth: once you admit that a person’s thoughts and choices come from something—even if it’s complex—you’ve left the realm of metaphysical freedom. You’ve entered determinism. And that’s where we can actually learn, fix, and grow. That’s not a strawman—it’s the reality you’re resisting.

[Pistolero]

Pistolero,

You keep trying to wedge your notion of will and freedom into a physical framework while sidestepping the one thing that makes your claim fall apart: causality. You don’t need to believe in a “free-floating” agent, you say—but then you claim will “participates” in shaping outcomes “intentionally.” That’s just metaphysics with a fresh coat of paint.

You say a worm chooses. That it has intent. You want that to mean agency. But what you’re really describing is feedback and response, not authorship. The worm doesn’t “choose” to move toward food because it weighed moral alternatives. It reacts to stimuli in accordance with its evolved biology. Its “intent” is a function of what its nervous system has been shaped to do, not a declaration of freedom. Same for humans—only more complex.

You ask if a man can resist his impulses. Of course. And we can trace the causes of that restraint: upbringing, values, neurochemistry, prefrontal cortex activity. You want that resistance to mean freedom, but again—it's explained behavior, not metaphysical authorship. The fact that a person can pause doesn’t mean they’re uncaused—it just means they have the cognitive machinery to process more variables before acting.

Your whole framework depends on smuggling in “intent” as if it somehow steps outside the chain of causation. It doesn’t. You say, “The will finds a focus.” But what determines the focus? You never answer that. You just point to will as if naming it explains it. That’s the move you keep making—wrapping causally entangled behavior in mystical language and calling it clarity.

You say, “A choice is in reference to an objective.” Fine. Where does the objective come from? What determines which objective is pursued? You call non-choices choices. You say “even choosing not to choose is a choice.” But that’s just rhetoric. All you’re doing is labeling outputs with the language of agency while refusing to define what actually makes them “free.”

And plants willing themselves to move? Seriously? Plants don’t will anything. They grow toward light through mechanistic processes like phototropism. That’s not intention. That’s chemistry. If you think a sunflower “chooses” which way to turn, then you’ve redefined “will” so loosely that even a Roomba counts as an agent.

As for dignity—no, I don’t ground it in illusion. I don’t need the fairy tale that we are authors of ourselves. I find awe in understanding what shaped us—not in pretending we shape ourselves from nothing. You say “we can choose to improve on what our ancestors gave us.” And I say—yes, through mechanisms of learning, environment, and cause. Not through spontaneous metaphysical authorship.

You keep talking about “hypocrisy.” But I don’t claim people are self-authored. I don’t blame the man who makes a bad choice—I ask what made that choice happen. That’s not cowardice. That’s just not superstition.

And your final jab—about systemic racism, trauma, or society? Yes, determinism reaches beyond society. Genetics. Environment. Evolutionary history. All of it. That’s the point. If you understood that, you’d stop demanding personal authorship and start asking deeper questions about why things happen.

Because determinism doesn’t stop justice. It makes justice smarter. It makes morality honest. And it makes will explainable—not sacred.

When you can define 'will and 'freedom' in non metaphorical ways, get back to me.

Until then self-deceive and self-contradict, if it helps you cope with your own existence.

Free does not mean free from causality, or need, or desire.
It means access...it means options.

If you ever choose to have integrity, apply your method of beginning with the metaphysical definition, to all those concepts you find inhibit the realization of your utopian world.
You know, a world of equality, justice, peace, prosperity, humanism.....
I believe your fatalism has already assumed that the cosmos will determine it.

Without choice, you've got nothing but words, referring to other words, deferring to authorities.

I begin with the act. An act all can experience in themselves and in others.
I do not call it an illusion, and then practice mental acrobatics to justify by accusations and my objectives.

[Alexiev]

Yes, there’s evidence that policy based on causal understanding—rather than metaphysical assumptions—leads to better outcomes. Programs that treat crime as a product of environment, mental health, addiction, and poverty have measurably reduced recidivism in many places. Norway’s prison model, for instance, emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment and boasts one of the world’s lowest repeat offender rates. That’s cause-and-effect in action—not free will theology.

Now, about your church example: if attending church caused better behavior, and we could isolate that effect from confounders (like community support, routine, or guilt conditioning), then yes, it would be rational to ask whether similar benefits could be replicated—without violating rights—through secular equivalents. That’s not an endorsement of authoritarian control; it’s a call to follow evidence instead of dogma. No one is suggesting we adopt social engineering at gunpoint—but if something works, we study why.

You say we abandon the notion of free will “at our peril.” But here's the danger on the other side: if we keep pretending that people are metaphysically responsible in the ghost-in-the-machine sense, we’ll keep blaming the broken instead of fixing what broke them. That’s the real peril—protecting a useful fiction at the expense of understanding and progress.

You don't need to believe people freely authored themselves to hold them accountable. You just need a system that understands behavior as something to steer, not to moralize. Accountability doesn't die in a deterministic world—it just gets smarter.

Everyone understands that some rehabilitation programs reduce recidivism. One need not be a determinist to figure that out.

However, the useful fiction might be effective, too. Perhaps "blaming the broken" is one of those environmental factors that determines behavior. Why wouldn't it be?

Even if we accept your version of determinism (highly problematic), there is no evidence that it would improve our society or culture. The truth, if it is the truth, will not set you free. Just the opposite.

[accelafine]

It's a shame. The BigMike makes perfect sense when he sticks to science and logic. Unfortunately it all falls apart as soon as he starts banging on about 'choosing' to use that knowledge to create a 'kinder' world, where we all sing kumbaya and dye our hair blue and treat serial killers and paedophiles with the utmost tenderness (but only when they are 'trans' serial killers and paedophiles. They are very particular about this). He seems to be blind to the obvious contradiction.
Blue hair-dying was determined at the Big Bang, and unfortunately so was every other aspect of bat-shit insane wokism. If we are going to have a 'kinder' world then that was determined as well. Fortunately it was determined at the Big Bang that insane human fads don't last, and relative normalcy eventually returns (unless this truly is the tail end of us). It's the way of the Universe

[BigMike]

Pistolero,

You keep trying to wedge your notion of will and freedom into a physical framework while sidestepping the one thing that makes your claim fall apart: causality. You don’t need to believe in a “free-floating” agent, you say—but then you claim will “participates” in shaping outcomes “intentionally.” That’s just metaphysics with a fresh coat of paint.

You say a worm chooses. That it has intent. You want that to mean agency. But what you’re really describing is feedback and response, not authorship. The worm doesn’t “choose” to move toward food because it weighed moral alternatives. It reacts to stimuli in accordance with its evolved biology. Its “intent” is a function of what its nervous system has been shaped to do, not a declaration of freedom. Same for humans—only more complex.

You ask if a man can resist his impulses. Of course. And we can trace the causes of that restraint: upbringing, values, neurochemistry, prefrontal cortex activity. You want that resistance to mean freedom, but again—it's explained behavior, not metaphysical authorship. The fact that a person can pause doesn’t mean they’re uncaused—it just means they have the cognitive machinery to process more variables before acting.

Your whole framework depends on smuggling in “intent” as if it somehow steps outside the chain of causation. It doesn’t. You say, “The will finds a focus.” But what determines the focus? You never answer that. You just point to will as if naming it explains it. That’s the move you keep making—wrapping causally entangled behavior in mystical language and calling it clarity.

You say, “A choice is in reference to an objective.” Fine. Where does the objective come from? What determines which objective is pursued? You call non-choices choices. You say “even choosing not to choose is a choice.” But that’s just rhetoric. All you’re doing is labeling outputs with the language of agency while refusing to define what actually makes them “free.”

And plants willing themselves to move? Seriously? Plants don’t will anything. They grow toward light through mechanistic processes like phototropism. That’s not intention. That’s chemistry. If you think a sunflower “chooses” which way to turn, then you’ve redefined “will” so loosely that even a Roomba counts as an agent.

As for dignity—no, I don’t ground it in illusion. I don’t need the fairy tale that we are authors of ourselves. I find awe in understanding what shaped us—not in pretending we shape ourselves from nothing. You say “we can choose to improve on what our ancestors gave us.” And I say—yes, through mechanisms of learning, environment, and cause. Not through spontaneous metaphysical authorship.

You keep talking about “hypocrisy.” But I don’t claim people are self-authored. I don’t blame the man who makes a bad choice—I ask what made that choice happen. That’s not cowardice. That’s just not superstition.

And your final jab—about systemic racism, trauma, or society? Yes, determinism reaches beyond society. Genetics. Environment. Evolutionary history. All of it. That’s the point. If you understood that, you’d stop demanding personal authorship and start asking deeper questions about why things happen.

Because determinism doesn’t stop justice. It makes justice smarter. It makes morality honest. And it makes will explainable—not sacred.

When you can define 'will and 'freedom' in non metaphorical ways, get back to me.

Until then self-deceive and self-contradict, if it helps you cope with your own existence.

Free does not mean free from causality, or need, or desire.
It means access...it means options.

If you ever choose to have integrity, apply your method of beginning with the metaphysical definition, to all those concepts you find inhibit the realization of your utopian world.
You know, a world of equality, justice, peace, prosperity, humanism.....
I believe your fatalism has already assumed that the cosmos will determine it.

Without choice, you've got nothing but words, referring to other words, deferring to authorities.

I begin with the act. An act all can experience in themselves and in others.
I do not call it an illusion, and then practice mental acrobatics to justify by accusations and my objectives.

Pistolero, the irony here is staggering.

You accuse me of deferring to authority, relying on “words referring to words,” while you anchor your worldview in a completely undefined “act” that somehow proves itself—no evidence, no mechanism, just your internal conviction that because you experience something, it must be what it feels like. That’s not philosophy. That’s just introspective dogma dressed up as insight.

You say “free does not mean free from causality.” Then what, exactly, does it mean? You keep waving around terms like “access” and “options” as if those explain anything. A vending machine has options. A chess algorithm has access to moves. Do they have freedom? Of course not. What matters is not whether multiple outcomes exist, but whether the system determining those outcomes could have operated otherwise under the exact same conditions. And the answer is no. Not in you, not in me, not in anything governed by physical law.

You keep insisting you begin with the act. That’s just another dodge. Observation is not explanation. A man acts. A dog acts. A plant reacts. So what? The act doesn’t tell us whether the mechanism behind it is free or caused—it only tells us that it happened. You take that surface-level experience, project metaphysical significance onto it, and then claim it’s self-evident. That’s not a philosophical position—it’s just feeling-as-proof.

You think I’m the one spinning fantasies, when all I’m doing is asking you to trace the process. Where do intentions come from? Where do desires arise? What shapes the values that inform your choices? And every time I ask, you retreat into poetic declarations and vague appeals to integrity and dignity—while refusing to touch the core issue: If your choices are shaped by causes you didn’t author, what makes them free?

That’s the question. And you still haven’t answered it.

[Pistolero]

Note to Others inspired by Mary Lands, my dear friend and mentor.

Plant wilfulness, albeit primitive and feeble, still exhibits intentionality.
Wilfulness.
Plants are less free, because they have less power. Less options.
Nevertheless, they can choose to bore through or go around an obstacle, blocking their movement towards their objective.
A stone, on the other hand, has no choice, because ti has no will. It cannot bore through or go around anything.
all a stone can do is follow the path of least resistance.

A river, flows along paths of less resistance. Salmon swim against the current, more resistance, towards their objective.
The path they take is determined by their strength and their previous choices.
Not all Salmon take the exact same path, because not all salmon have the exact same strength nor have they all made the same choices.

[accelafine]

Absence of 'free will' doesn't mean absence of intelligence.

[Pistolero]

The postmodern needs evidence for the act?

See...you assume a mechanism...a ghost in the machine.
The mechanism is need, desire....an ideal.
This does not disprove choice. It motivates it.
Choice, again, is about options, No two men choose the same path towards the same objective.
They are free to choose and with every choice they participate in determining their next set of options.

Your objective is absolution of all men.
A way of including all choices into what is considered determined - willed by god, determined by cosmos.
Another postmodern Marxist, like Mary.

Will your absolution include pedophiles and necrophiles?
How many mental disorders will your system justify before it collapses?

Determinism supports races, by the way.
Just saying.
and why are you disparaging me?
Do I have a choice?
Has not god/cosmos determined you to see the truth and I to be blind to it?
My past trauma is at fault.

[Pistolero]

Absence of 'free will' doesn't mean absence of intelligence.

Absence of free-will makes intelligence irrelevant.
There's no advantage to big brains if choice is an illusion and an intelligent man cannot choose or will a better way, compared to a dumb-ass.
intelligence is advantageous BECAUSE of choice.
Higher intelligence, better judgements, expressed as actions and choices.

[accelafine]

Absence of 'free will' doesn't mean absence of intelligence.

Absence of free-will makes intelligence irrelevant.
There's no advantage to big brains if choice is an illusion and an intelligent man cannot choose or will a better way, compared to a dumb-ass.
intelligence is advantageous BECAUSE of choice.
Higher intelligence, better judgements, expressed as actions and choices.

That's not true. Intelligent humans (and stupid ones) will do what they do regardless, or do you believe that genetic mutation and natural selection are 'choices'?

[BigMike]

Yes, there’s evidence that policy based on causal understanding—rather than metaphysical assumptions—leads to better outcomes. Programs that treat crime as a product of environment, mental health, addiction, and poverty have measurably reduced recidivism in many places. Norway’s prison model, for instance, emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment and boasts one of the world’s lowest repeat offender rates. That’s cause-and-effect in action—not free will theology.

Now, about your church example: if attending church caused better behavior, and we could isolate that effect from confounders (like community support, routine, or guilt conditioning), then yes, it would be rational to ask whether similar benefits could be replicated—without violating rights—through secular equivalents. That’s not an endorsement of authoritarian control; it’s a call to follow evidence instead of dogma. No one is suggesting we adopt social engineering at gunpoint—but if something works, we study why.

You say we abandon the notion of free will “at our peril.” But here's the danger on the other side: if we keep pretending that people are metaphysically responsible in the ghost-in-the-machine sense, we’ll keep blaming the broken instead of fixing what broke them. That’s the real peril—protecting a useful fiction at the expense of understanding and progress.

You don't need to believe people freely authored themselves to hold them accountable. You just need a system that understands behavior as something to steer, not to moralize. Accountability doesn't die in a deterministic world—it just gets smarter.

Everyone understands that some rehabilitation programs reduce recidivism. One need not be a determinist to figure that out.

However, the useful fiction might be effective, too. Perhaps "blaming the broken" is one of those environmental factors that determines behavior. Why wouldn't it be?

Even if we accept your version of determinism (highly problematic), there is no evidence that it would improve our society or culture. The truth, if it is the truth, will not set you free. Just the opposite.

That’s a fair challenge, Alexiev—but it misses a key distinction.

You're right that one doesn’t need to be a determinist to support rehabilitation. But determinism isn't just a helpful philosophical lens—it’s a framework that demands we stop mistaking behavior for “sin” or “evil” and start seeing it as effect. It forces consistency. It eliminates the double standard where we treat success as earned but failure as chosen. That’s not a minor upgrade. That’s a moral and practical revolution.

You ask, “What if blaming the broken is itself just another causal input that helps?” Sure, in some contexts, shame might shape behavior—but we need to ask: at what cost? If we know that shame-driven systems often worsen mental health, entrench cycles of abuse, or disproportionately harm the already vulnerable, then maintaining them just because they’re “inputs too” is intellectually lazy. Everything’s an input—but some inputs do more harm than good.

As for your final point—no, determinism doesn’t promise freedom in the feel-good sense. It offers something better: clarity. You say “the truth won’t set us free.” And you’re right—it won’t make us gods. But it will free us from delusion. And that matters. Because the fiction of self-authorship is what props up punitive justice, systemic neglect, and social cruelty disguised as “personal responsibility.”

Determinism doesn’t erase meaning. It just grounds it in reality. And that’s not a loss. That’s where actual progress begins.

[BigMike]

It's a shame. The BigMike makes perfect sense when he sticks to science and logic. Unfortunately it all falls apart as soon as he starts banging on about using that knowledge to create a 'kinder' world, where we all sing kumbaya and dye our hair blue and treat serial killers and paedophiles with the utmost tenderness (but only when they are 'trans' serial killers and paedophiles. They are very particular about this).
Blue hair-dying was determined at the Big Bang, and unfortunately so was every other aspect of bat-shit insane wokism. If we are going to have a 'kinder' world then that was determined as well. Fortunately it was determined at the Big Bang that insane human fads don't last, and relative normalcy eventually returns (unless this truly is the tail end of us). It's the way of the Universe

Sure—we could absolutely decide, collectively, to go full state-of-nature. Hobbes laid that vision out pretty clearly: in a world without a shared framework for justice or cooperation, humans exist in a condition of war—every man against every man. In that state, no one has any reason to trust anyone else, because everyone has a “natural right” to do whatever they think necessary to preserve themselves. And that’s how you end up with life being, in his words, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

That’s one way to go. And yes—it’s fully compatible with determinism.

But so is the alternative. We could also decide—again, deterministically—to shape a society that minimizes harm, encourages empathy, and reduces needless suffering. Not because we’re free to choose in some metaphysical sense, but because we’re part of a causal system that can respond to evidence, incentives, and feedback.

Both outcomes—brutality or compassion—are on the table in a deterministic universe. The difference is which feedback loops we reinforce. Which causes we amplify. Which incentives we design.

If it was determined at the Big Bang that we'd build a better, more humane society—then so be it. That’s still worth pushing for, not because we’re magicians, but because pushing is part of the process.

[Pistolero]

That's not true. Intelligent humans (and stupid ones) will do what they do regardless, or do you believe that genetic mutation and natural selection are 'choices'?

No, they may have the same objectives, but they will choose different methods....more effective strategies.
In general, intelligence places something other than pleasure and survival as the primary objective.
Base men always place survival and pleasure at the pinnacle of their motivations.

Freedom only means options.
Self-control is part of what multiplies options.

--------------------------------------------------------
Do you see the type that always rejects free-will?
An unconscious strategy to reduce resistance to their utopian objectives.
Collectivism's greatest threat is human agency. this is one of the reasons Marxism failed, over and over and over again.
Selfish genes, evolve into selfish memes.


How did the Architect put it to Neo, in the Matrix.
He built the perfect system but it always failed...why?
The anomaly is systemic....and it breaks down..
What is the anomaly...
The problem is...choice.

In man will reaches its highest power - Man is the freest of all wills.
That's why collectivists must undermine the very concept of choice, to socially engineer the ideal slave.

Look at all those who deny it.

[Pistolero]

The transsexual Jews had it right.

Neo: Why am I here?

The Architect: Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.

Neo: You haven’t answered my question.

The Architect: Quite right. Interesting. That was quicker than the others.

The responses of other Neos appear on the monitors: “Others? What others? How many? Answer me!”

The Architect: The matrix is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly to the emergence of the next, in which case this is the sixth version.

Again, the responses of the other Ones appear on the monitors: “Five versions? Three? I’ve been lied too. This is bullshit.”

Neo: There are only two possible explanations: either no one told me, or no one knows.

The Architect: Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly’s systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.

Once again, the responses of other Neos appear on the monitors: “You can’t control me! Fuck you! I’m going to kill you! You can’t make me do anything!

Neo: Choice. The problem is choice.

What problem prevents these Neo-Marxist postmoderns from creating their Matrix-like intersubjective Utopia?
Choice.
Choice and biologically based diversity.

When god was declared dead, mankind stepped in to fill the power vacuum....
Humanity = god.
Collectivized humanity becomes an omnipotent god, in their fantasies.