Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

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.

Yes, there's a "you" — a physical, causal system shaped by genetics, environment, and experience.
But no, *you* don't sit outside that system, freely authoring decisions.

Your brain processes inputs and produces outputs. That’s not freedom — it’s function.
And calling it “your” decision doesn’t change the fact that you didn’t choose the causes that shaped it.

[BigMike]

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.

That’s a thoughtful reply, Belinda — and I completely agree with your final point: criminal justice should be about understanding and changing causes, not indulging in retribution.

But it's worth noting that the religious concepts of sin, condemnation, and eternal punishment suggest that God, at least in traditional doctrine, is very familiar with blame. In fact, He appears to have invented it. The whole premise of divine judgment depends on the assumption that humans could have done otherwise — and chose not to.

Determinism simply rejects that fantasy. It says: if we want a better world, we need better causes — not eternal finger-pointing.

[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.

Yes, there's a "you" — a physical, causal system shaped by genetics, environment, and experience.
But no, *you* don't sit outside that system, freely authoring decisions.

Your brain processes inputs and produces outputs. That’s not freedom — it’s function.
And calling it “your” decision doesn’t change the fact that you didn’t choose the causes that shaped it.

Great, that's progress.

So we have persons, agents, making decisions, selecting between choices, performing actions.

That leaves the debate whether it is free or not.

[BigMike]

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.

Yes, there's a "you" — a physical, causal system shaped by genetics, environment, and experience.
But no, *you* don't sit outside that system, freely authoring decisions.

Your brain processes inputs and produces outputs. That’s not freedom — it’s function.
And calling it “your” decision doesn’t change the fact that you didn’t choose the causes that shaped it.

Great, that's progress.

So we have persons, agents, making decisions, selecting between choices, performing actions.

That leaves the debate whether it is free or not.

Exactly — and even Roombas make decisions. The debate isn’t about whether systems choose between options, but whether those choices are uncaused. They're not. They're shaped. Just like ours.

[seeds]

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?

It seems pretty obvious that we had absolutely no choice when it came to the manifestation of our personal "I Am-ness" which sits at the throne of our mind and consciousness and represents the locus (or focal point) of our sense of "selfness."

Furthermore, it is also obvious that from the very instant that the proverbial "lights" came on in our minds at the moment of birth, the information storage medium that we call a "brain" from which our minds emerged,...

(which, other than containing operating "programs," so to speak, that work to control vital body processes such as "...breathing, heart rate, blood pressure, digestion, and even basic reflexes like swallowing and blinking..." — AI Overview)

...pretty much started out as almost being completely blank in terms of the memories derived from input from the external world.

And the point is that you, BigMike, are making the egregious error of insisting that "who we are" is somehow dependent on the deterministic-like influences of the sum-total of the memories of our life experiences.

Sure, there's no denying the possibility that the veritable "galaxy" of memories that surrounds our central consciousness (surrounds our "I Am-ness") is what greatly influences (determines) the decisions we make,...

...however, that's not who we really are.

No, I suggest that who we each "really" are, is that singularly unique, self-aware, free-willed - "agent"/"I Am-ness"/"soul" - that was somehow awakened into existence at the moment of birth via what seems to be the process of "Strong Emergence" from the human brain.

There's probably a better analogy,...

...but the point is that the accrued memories that seem to have a deterministic, "cause and affect-like" influence on our decision-making processes are no more a literal part of "who we really are" than that of some random gaming software is a literal part of what computer hard drives really are.

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.

You're kidding us, right?

Your entire deterministic ("humans are soulless machines") schtick is nihilistic through-and-through, for what it ultimately implies is that life (in the long run) is meaningless, in that there is no long-term purpose for any of us as individuals.

You seem to have some kind of naïve and utopian-ish vision that if everyone simply adopts the philosophy of determinism, then we...

(including the Trumps, and the Putins, and the Kim Jong Uns of the world)

...are all going to join hands and sing John Lennon's song "Imagine" ("...and the world will be as one...").

Nonsense!!!

If anything, if the world's despotic pigs are convinced that our momentary "blips" of existence on this planet is all there is to life, then why shouldn't they just go ahead and let their worst instincts be their M.O., and grab for as much wealth and power as they can get their greedy clutches on?
_______

[Gary Childress]

If anything, if the world's despotic pigs are convinced that our momentary "blips" of existence on this planet is all there is to life, then why shouldn't they just go ahead and let their worst instincts be their M.O., and grab for as much wealth and power as they can get their greedy clutches on?
_______

From the looks of it, the world's "despotic pigs" already have that view. And some of them seem to have religious affiliations. I mean, Slavery in the US was justified in some circles by people who used whatever interpretations of the Bible. The Holy Roman Empire doesn't seem like it was all that "holy". Netanyahu is quite a marvel, too. Maybe what the world needs is for people to wake up and realize just how fucked we all are in life. I don't know. Nothing else seems to work.

\_('_')_/

[Dubious]

If anything, if the world's despotic pigs are convinced that our momentary "blips" of existence on this planet is all there is to life, then why shouldn't they just go ahead and let their worst instincts be their M.O., and grab for as much wealth and power as they can get their greedy clutches on?
_______

From the looks of it, the world's "despotic pigs" already have that view. And some of them seem to have religious affiliations. I mean, Slavery in the US was justified in some circles by people who used whatever interpretations of the Bible. The Holy Roman Empire doesn't seem like it was all that "holy". Netanyahu is quite a marvel, too. Maybe what the world needs is for people to wake up and realize just how fucked we all are in life. I don't know. Nothing else seems to work.

We only have ourselves to blame for that. That should be the first thing to wake up to!

[Dubious]

Criminal justice is more effective the more it sorts the causes of the crime and the less it punishes the criminal.

In a number of cases that may be true. But there are many who enjoy killing, raping even of minors and then disposing of everyone after they're through. That is true in both war and peace, but especially war where everything is permitted. What many don't understand, due to their great love of humanity and all that BS, is that people produce a lot of trash humans who deserve nothing more than to be permanently eliminated...and depending on the crime, old style.

[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?

It seems pretty obvious that we had absolutely no choice when it came to the manifestation of our personal "I Am-ness" which sits at the throne of our mind and consciousness and represents the locus (or focal point) of our sense of "selfness."

Furthermore, it is also obvious that from the very instant that the proverbial "lights" came on in our minds at the moment of birth, the information storage medium that we call a "brain" from which our minds emerged,...

(which, other than containing operating "programs," so to speak, that work to control vital body processes such as "...breathing, heart rate, blood pressure, digestion, and even basic reflexes like swallowing and blinking..." — AI Overview)

...pretty much started out as almost being completely blank in terms of the memories derived from input from the external world.

And the point is that you, BigMike, are making the egregious error of insisting that "who we are" is somehow dependent on the deterministic-like influences of the sum-total of the memories of our life experiences.

Sure, there's no denying the possibility that the veritable "galaxy" of memories that surrounds our central consciousness (surrounds our "I Am-ness") is what greatly influences (determines) the decisions we make,...

...however, that's not who we really are.

No, I suggest that who we each "really" are, is that singularly unique, self-aware, free-willed - "agent"/"I Am-ness"/"soul" - that was somehow awakened into existence at the moment of birth via what seems to be the process of "Strong Emergence" from the human brain.

There's probably a better analogy,...

...but the point is that the accrued memories that seem to have a deterministic, "cause and affect-like" influence on our decision-making processes are no more a literal part of "who we really are" than that of some random gaming software is a literal part of what computer hard drives really are.

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.

You're kidding us, right?

Your entire deterministic ("humans are soulless machines") schtick is nihilistic through-and-through, for what it ultimately implies is that life (in the long run) is meaningless, in that there is no long-term purpose for any of us as individuals.

You seem to have some kind of naïve and utopian-ish vision that if everyone simply adopts the philosophy of determinism, then we...

(including the Trumps, and the Putins, and the Kim Jong Uns of the world)

...are all going to join hands and sing John Lennon's song "Imagine" ("...and the world will be as one...").

Nonsense!!!

If anything, if the world's despotic pigs are convinced that our momentary "blips" of existence on this planet is all there is to life, then why shouldn't they just go ahead and let their worst instincts be their M.O., and grab for as much wealth and power as they can get their greedy clutches on?
_______

Seeds, let me respond clearly.

Yes, there is an “I Am-ness” — a conscious point of reference, a sense of self. But that awareness doesn’t float above the physical system. It emerges from it. You say it’s not the sum of memories or experience, but then what exactly is it? Where does it come from? You speculate it arises via “strong emergence,” yet offer no testable mechanism for how this “agent” steps outside cause and effect to become something metaphysically distinct.

You compare memories influencing decisions to software not being part of the hard drive — but that analogy proves my point, not yours. The software runs on the hardware. Change the code, and the output changes. Likewise, change experience or biology, and the behavior changes. The system doesn't need to be a ghost to be an agent. It just needs structure. And it has one.

As for morality and meaning: determinism doesn't erase them — it grounds them. You ask, if we didn’t author ourselves, why should we care? But morality isn’t about some eternal scoreboard. It’s about outcomes. About minimizing suffering, maximizing cooperation, and building sustainable societies. You don’t need a “soul” to care. You need empathy, understanding, and shared incentives.

And to your final point: if despots like Trump or Putin think this life is all there is, why not give in to greed and domination?

Great question. Now ask: from their perspective, haven’t they already learned that domination pays off? That greed is rewarded? That bullying triggers internal reward systems — dopamine, serotonin, cortisol relief — conditioned by past experience, upbringing, and the society that shaped them?

They act as they do because it feels good, because their environments trained them to see that behavior as effective. They weren’t born evil. They were built that way by systems and interactions that rewarded dominance over cooperation.

If we want to change behavior, we must change what behaviors are rewarded. That’s not nihilism. That’s realism. And it works.

[Belinda]

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.

That’s a thoughtful reply, Belinda — and I completely agree with your final point: criminal justice should be about understanding and changing causes, not indulging in retribution.

But it's worth noting that the religious concepts of sin, condemnation, and eternal punishment suggest that God, at least in traditional doctrine, is very familiar with blame. In fact, He appears to have invented it. The whole premise of divine judgment depends on the assumption that humans could have done otherwise — and chose not to.

Determinism simply rejects that fantasy. It says: if we want a better world, we need better causes — not eternal finger-pointing.

Not my God! My God is not the old Jahweh who invented Free Will . I pick and choose which traditions are good and which bad.My God is a determinist , no-blame God.

[phyllo]

That leaves the debate whether it is free or not.

Exactly — and even Roombas make decisions. The debate isn’t about whether systems choose between options, but whether those choices are uncaused. They're not. They're shaped. Just like ours.

Okay, but this is about free-will, not uncaused-will.

The issue is whether the decisions are 'free' based on some reasonable sense of the word 'free'.

Decisions can be 'free' even if they are entirely caused.


I will use the decisions in a game of chess as an example.

If it is played over the internet, then the computer will strictly enforce the rules of the game. So there is no need to consider illegal moves which may occur in an over the board game.

The rules and the goal of the game were established before the player was born.

So in any given position, the player may have a choice of let's say 20 moves.

How is the decision made?

He learned the game for another player, a book or a video. These were chance occurrences out of his control. He saw some strategy and tactics in a book, from a player, by observing games. Largely out of his control.

He has some genetic capacity for learning, calculating moves, recognizing patterns, memorizing. Out of his control.

However, when he is selecting a move, he is picking the one he thinks will attain his goal based on configuration of the pieces on the board and on the limitations of his skill and knowledge. He is making the decision, which is in his control.

This appears to be a free choice. I don't why it wouldn't be unless 'free' is defined so narrowly that any interaction with the world is deemed to be 'unfree'.

So even though it can be said that everything surrounding the game was caused, I would say the selection of the move shows free-will. Not libertarian free-will, not uncaused free-will, but a reasonable and practical free-will.

[BigMike]

That leaves the debate whether it is free or not.

Exactly — and even Roombas make decisions. The debate isn’t about whether systems choose between options, but whether those choices are uncaused. They're not. They're shaped. Just like ours.

Okay, but this is about free-will, not uncaused-will.

The issue is whether the decisions are 'free' based on some reasonable sense of the word 'free'.

Decisions can be 'free' even if they are entirely caused.


I will use the decisions in a game of chess as an example.

If it is played over the internet, then the computer will strictly enforce the rules of the game. So there is no need to consider illegal moves which may occur in an over the board game.

The rules and the goal of the game were established before the player was born.

So in any given position, the player may have a choice of let's say 20 moves.

How is the decision made?

He learned the game for another player, a book or a video. These were chance occurrences out of his control. He saw some strategy and tactics in a book, from a player, by observing games. Largely out of his control.

He has some genetic capacity for learning, calculating moves, recognizing patterns, memorizing. Out of his control.

However, when he is selecting a move, he is picking the one he thinks will attain his goal based on configuration of the pieces on the board and on the limitations of his skill and knowledge. He is making the decision, which is in his control.

This appears to be a free choice. I don't why it wouldn't be unless 'free' is defined so narrowly that any interaction with the world is deemed to be 'unfree'.

So even though it can be said that everything surrounding the game was caused, I would say the selection of the move shows free-will. Not libertarian free-will, not uncaused free-will, but a reasonable and practical free-will.

That’s a fair and thoughtful framing, phyllo. And I agree: if by “free will” you simply mean the ability to make choices within constraints—based on reasoning, knowledge, and personal strategy—then yes, that’s perfectly compatible with determinism.

But that’s not what most people mean when they defend free will. What they mean is: they could have done otherwise in the exact same situation, with the same brain, same influences, and same state of the world. That’s where the conflict arises.

In your chess example, the player is caused to choose one of 20 legal moves. He weighs the options, evaluates consequences, and picks the one that seems best given his current goals and capacities. But his evaluation process, preferences, and even his “style of play” are all shaped by prior causes—his biology, training, and life experience. The decision is his, yes—but not uncaused. That’s all I’ve been arguing.

So if we’re talking about practical autonomy, agency within a system, or choosing based on internal reasoning, then I’m with you. But let’s not confuse that with metaphysical authorship, which is what I reject—and what most defenses of “free will” sneak in the back door.

Sound fair?

[phyllo]

Sure.

One needs a clear definition from everyone in the conversation, otherwise we are often not talking about the same thing at all.

[iambiguous]

...if by “free will” you simply mean the ability to make choices within constraints—based on reasoning, knowledge, and personal strategy—then yes, that’s perfectly compatible with determinism.

But only perhaps in noting how others construe determinism in different ways. In particular, those hard determinists who reject the possibility that responsibility -- moral responsibility in particular -- is compatible with a brain that is entirely in sync with the laws of matter?

On the other hand, we still don't actually know what that means. Well, unless, say, someone here can link us to the definitive resolution.

But that’s not what most people mean when they defend free will. What they mean is: they could have done otherwise in the exact same situation, with the same brain, same influences, and same state of the world. That’s where the conflict arises.

Actually, from my own frame of mind "here and now", the conflicts revolve more around The Gap and Rummy's Rule. We just don't know how wide this gap is...from a crack in the sidewalk to the Grand Canyon.

[seeds]

If anything, if the world's despotic pigs are convinced that our momentary "blips" of existence on this planet is all there is to life, then why shouldn't they just go ahead and let their worst instincts be their M.O., and grab for as much wealth and power as they can get their greedy clutches on?
_______

From the looks of it, the world's "despotic pigs" already have that view. And some of them seem to have religious affiliations. I mean, Slavery in the US was justified in some circles by people who used whatever interpretations of the Bible. The Holy Roman Empire doesn't seem like it was all that "holy". Netanyahu is quite a marvel, too. Maybe what the world needs is for people to wake up and realize just how fucked we all are in life. I don't know. Nothing else seems to work.

We only have ourselves to blame for that. That should be the first thing to wake up to!

You got that right!

But in our defense, the level of consciousness we've been allotted to try and make it through this temporary nut house, isn't much to work with.
_______