Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Belinda]

Only some religious people reject science while embracing the impossible . Some other religious people sought and found a reasonable religion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Only some religious people reject science while embracing the impossible. Some other religious people sought and found a reasonable religion.

With this I agree. Religious and philosophic sobriety is possible.

[Alexiev]

BigMike post_id=766013 time=1744749890

Evil is evil and sin is sin, whatever the causes. A murderer remains a murderer, and it is small comfort to his victim that determinism led to his stabbing.

Evil is real—but it’s not metaphysical. It’s not some mystical force floating around waiting to land in someone’s chest like a demon in a horror film. “Evil” is just the label we slap on behavior we find horrifying, cruel, or destructive—and nothing about determinism denies the reality of that experience. What it denies is the fairy tale that someone could’ve just “chosen otherwise” in a vacuum, free of every influence, every cause, every variable that shaped them.

And sure, you’re right—a murder victim doesn’t get comfort from hearing that the killer was shaped, not self-authored. But justice isn’t supposed to be about comfort—it’s supposed to be about accuracy, prevention, and coherence. You don’t fix the future by mythologizing the past.

The murderer is still dangerous. The act is still horrific. Society still needs protection and consequence. But if we want fewer stabbings, fewer ruined lives, fewer repeated tragedies, we have to stop yelling “sin!” and start asking: What produced this behavior—and how do we interrupt that chain of causes?

That’s not soft. That’s smarter. And that’s the difference between retribution and reform.

Justice is not about "prevention*. It is about treating people according to their deserts. If we could predict which individual would be predetermined to commit crimes, it would still be unjust to imprison him. Of course we should try to rehabilitate criminals, but not until they have deserved our interference with their lives by committing crimes.

Also, perhaps blaming them for their choices is part of the cultural landscape that "determines" those choices.

[BigMike]

You’ve just seen a flurry of passionate responses, sharp jabs, and philosophical counterpunches — and maybe you’re wondering what all this heat is really about.

It’s about this:

Do we actually choose who we are? Or are we the product of everything that came before us?

This isn’t some dry academic debate. It’s a direct challenge to the story we’ve all been told about ourselves — the idea that you are the author of your life, that you freely choose your beliefs, your actions, your morals. That at some core level, there’s a “you” behind the scenes making the decisions.

But the evidence, from every serious discipline that studies human behavior — physics, neuroscience, psychology, philosophy — tells a different story.

Let’s strip it down:

Physics gives us no room for free will.

Everything we know about matter, motion, energy, and information — the bedrock of reality — shows us a world of cause and effect. Whether it’s fully deterministic or probabilistically fuzzy, nothing escapes this causal web. There is no force of “will” that breaks the laws of physics. No mechanism that allows a mind to hover outside the system and intervene. The “chooser” never shows up.

Neuroscience shows decisions happen before we’re aware of them.

In repeated experiments, our brains begin to prepare decisions before we become aware of having made them. The conscious “I” is late to the party. It doesn’t decide — it witnesses. It just narrates the outcome.

The idea that “you” are in control dissolves under the microscope. What we call “will” is the downstream result of unconscious processing — shaped by genes, brain chemistry, habits, and environment.

Cognitive science shows how we justify — not originate — our behavior.

Whether it’s bias, priming, split-brain studies, or the interpreter module, the evidence piles up: most of our behavior is automatic. And when asked “Why did you do that?”, we come up with post-hoc explanations. Plausible. Convincing. And often completely disconnected from the real causes.

We feel like we’re choosing. But we’re not. We’re explaining — after the fact — what our brains already set in motion.

Philosophy seals the deal: If your choices are caused, they’re not free.

And if they’re not caused, they’re random — which isn’t freedom either. There’s no third option. No magic hole in logic where a ghost slips in and authors decisions out of thin air.

So what do we conclude?

That free will — the kind most people believe in — doesn’t exist.
That the “you” reading this didn’t choose their desires, fears, habits, beliefs, or values.
That your every thought was shaped — by the world, by your biology, by your past.
And that everyone else is just as shaped.

This isn’t nihilism. This is clarity.
It doesn’t mean we abandon morality — it means we ground it.
It doesn’t mean we stop holding people accountable — it means we stop pretending they authored themselves.
It doesn’t mean we shrug at injustice — it means we finally know how to fix it: by changing causes, not blaming souls.

[Impenitent]

...This isn’t nihilism. This is clarity....

translucent clarity... but seeing nothing isn't nihilism...

-Imp

[phyllo]

Do we actually choose who we are? Or are we the product of everything that came before us?

This isn’t some dry academic debate. It’s a direct challenge to the story we’ve all been told about ourselves — the idea that you are the author of your life, that you freely choose your beliefs, your actions, your morals. That at some core level, there’s a “you” behind the scenes making the decisions.

But the evidence, from every serious discipline that studies human behavior — physics, neuroscience, psychology, philosophy — tells a different story.

Let's strip it down this way:

Is there a 'you'?

Do 'you' make decisions? If not 'you' then who or what?

If your brain makes decisions, then does it matter if it's done consciously or unconsciously? Either way, it's your decision.

[accelafine]

The only people it matters to are crazy religious nuts, the ones always banging on about 'free will'. Without those two little words their entire world view falls apart at the seams.

[Belinda]

You’ve just seen a flurry of passionate responses, sharp jabs, and philosophical counterpunches — and maybe you’re wondering what all this heat is really about.

It’s about this:

Do we actually choose who we are? Or are we the product of everything that came before us?

This isn’t some dry academic debate. It’s a direct challenge to the story we’ve all been told about ourselves — the idea that you are the author of your life, that you freely choose your beliefs, your actions, your morals. That at some core level, there’s a “you” behind the scenes making the decisions.

But the evidence, from every serious discipline that studies human behavior — physics, neuroscience, psychology, philosophy — tells a different story.

Let’s strip it down:

Physics gives us no room for free will.

Everything we know about matter, motion, energy, and information — the bedrock of reality — shows us a world of cause and effect. Whether it’s fully deterministic or probabilistically fuzzy, nothing escapes this causal web. There is no force of “will” that breaks the laws of physics. No mechanism that allows a mind to hover outside the system and intervene. The “chooser” never shows up.

Neuroscience shows decisions happen before we’re aware of them.

In repeated experiments, our brains begin to prepare decisions before we become aware of having made them. The conscious “I” is late to the party. It doesn’t decide — it witnesses. It just narrates the outcome.

The idea that “you” are in control dissolves under the microscope. What we call “will” is the downstream result of unconscious processing — shaped by genes, brain chemistry, habits, and environment.

Cognitive science shows how we justify — not originate — our behavior.

Whether it’s bias, priming, split-brain studies, or the interpreter module, the evidence piles up: most of our behavior is automatic. And when asked “Why did you do that?”, we come up with post-hoc explanations. Plausible. Convincing. And often completely disconnected from the real causes.

We feel like we’re choosing. But we’re not. We’re explaining — after the fact — what our brains already set in motion.

Philosophy seals the deal: If your choices are caused, they’re not free.

And if they’re not caused, they’re random — which isn’t freedom either. There’s no third option. No magic hole in logic where a ghost slips in and authors decisions out of thin air.

So what do we conclude?

That free will — the kind most people believe in — doesn’t exist.
That the “you” reading this didn’t choose their desires, fears, habits, beliefs, or values.
That your every thought was shaped — by the world, by your biology, by your past.
And that everyone else is just as shaped.

This isn’t nihilism. This is clarity.
It doesn’t mean we abandon morality — it means we ground it.
It doesn’t mean we stop holding people accountable — it means we stop pretending they authored themselves.
It doesn’t mean we shrug at injustice — it means we finally know how to fix it: by changing causes, not blaming souls.

We ground morality by choosing to harmonise with what seems to be the case or what is most probably the case, modified by what we would like to be the case

Blame does not exist in Heaven. This world is not Heaven and in this world social control is necessary. Criminal justice is more effective the more it sorts the causes of the crime and the less it punishes the criminal.

[Pistolero]

Life is past made present...interpreted as appearance.
The present is what we experience as existence.
The present is dynamic, and interactive.
It is in the present where free-will can participate in determining the future.
This does not require the denial of the past (nature), nor control over the present (nurture). All it requires is control over yourself.
Self is a boat, being pulled down a river.
Will is the rudder selecting a path.
The man on the wheel is consciousness.

In the Platonic psyche paradigm of the charioteer....the passions are the dark an white horses, the reigns are the will, and the charioteer is reason.

[Belinda]

Life is past made present...interpreted as appearance.
The present is what we experience as existence.
The present is dynamic, and interactive.
It is in the present where free-will can participate in determining the future.
This does not require the denial of the past (nature), nor control over the present (nurture). All it requires is control over yourself.
Self is a boat, being pulled down a river.
Will is the rudder selecting a path.
The man on the wheel is consciousness.

In the Platonic psyche paradigm of the charioteer....the passions are the dark an white horses, the reigns are the will, and the charioteer is reason.

There is no such substance as 'Free Will'. What a "Free Will " choice is , is a random choice.

In your boat analogy, the man on the wheel is a degree of reason . The boat is an identifiable individual.

[Pistolero]

No substance, dear.
I've explained all that.

'Will' is not a thing.
There are no things, outside the mind.

Eeeesh.... like pulling teeth from a dying corpse.

[Belinda]

No substance, dear.
I've explained all that.

'Will' is not a thing.
There are no things, outside the mind.

Eeeesh.... like pulling teeth from a dying corpse.

Neither 'free will' nor self is an ontic substance from the stance of an idealist(immaterialist). Idealism includes ideas of ontic substance.

[Alexis Jacobi]

At the very least, Señor Pistolero, your phrasings have resonance in my understanding of things. A very good — and necessary — response to BigMike. But more importantly to an ideology taking strong shape in our present.

[Pistolero]

I diagnose the root of philosophy...the man.

Philosophy is an exploration of man and his relationship with existence.
Language being how this relationship manifests.

What is language.Art
What is art?
Representational.
it either represents reality as man perceives it, embellishing it somewhat, or it represents how man reacts to reality.

Postmodernism produces the second kind of art.
Reactionary.

[Belinda]

I diagnose the root of philosophy...the man.

Philosophy is an exploration of man and his relationship with existence.
Language being how this relationship manifests.

What is language.Art
What is art?
Representational.
it either represents reality as man perceives it, embellishing it somewhat, or it represents how man reacts to reality.

Postmodernism produces the second kind of art.
Reactionary.

You attach your thought to a sole attribute and ignore other attributes in the following areas : art, language, philosophy.