Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[henry quirk]

accelafine

HA!

Failure makes for strange bedfellows.

Be mindful, veg: Mike likes 'em mail order.

[henry quirk]

It’s over. Mike, move on please.

It Can't Be Bargained With. It Can't Be Reasoned With... And It Absolutely Will Not Stop, Ever... -Kyle Reese

[Alexis Jacobi]

I assume that Reese said that about “determinists”?

[henry quirk]

I assume that Reese said that about “determinists”?

A machine, not unlike the one Mike imagines himself to be.

[Wizard22]

Wizard22, causes are not isolated entities or abstractions—they are interactions, and fundamentally, these interactions always involve one or more of the four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, or the weak nuclear force. Causality is not an epistemological framework we impose on reality; it’s a description of the physical interactions we observe.

For example, when two objects collide, their behavior isn’t guided by arbitrary frameworks but by electromagnetic interactions at the molecular level, alongside gravitational effects. Similarly, human behavior emerges from the interaction of countless physical, chemical, and biological processes, each governed by these same fundamental forces.

Your assertion that frameworks of causes are merely epistemological overlooks this physical reality. Even if our understanding evolves, the underlying interactions—mediated by these universal forces—remain consistent. Intelligence, whether in amoebas, dolphins, or humans, doesn’t create “freedom” from causality. It’s simply the result of more complex neural interactions governed by the same physical principles. Even an "omniscient being," if it existed, would not escape these constraints but would operate with complete understanding of them.

The deterministic framework isn't a "belief" or subjective lens; it's a reflection of how every cause-and-effect relationship in the universe has been observed to function. If you think intelligence introduces a “higher” notion of free will, point to an instance where physical interactions stop determining outcomes. Until then, your argument hinges on redefining freedom, not demonstrating it.

viewtopic.php?t=43419

[BigMike]

The issue has been settled. There is no doubt. Absolutely none. You, me, that asshole over there: we make choices and we have agency — within constraints. In that sensecwe are free. As St Chomsky said, it is a matter of common sense.

There is no more debate needed. It’s over. Mike, move on please.

Ah, Alexis, declaring victory and shutting the door on debate—how convenient! But if the issue were truly "settled," wouldn’t it be supported by more than a link to "common sense" and a saintly appeal to Chomsky? I mean, if you’ve got ironclad evidence that magically bypasses causality, let’s see it! Otherwise, this "debate is over" rhetoric feels less like a conclusion and more like an escape hatch. Move on? Sure, right after you explain how you define "free" in a world governed by deterministic laws. I’ll wait... deterministically, of course.

[BigMike]

Wizard22, causes are not isolated entities or abstractions—they are interactions, and fundamentally, these interactions always involve one or more of the four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, or the weak nuclear force. Causality is not an epistemological framework we impose on reality; it’s a description of the physical interactions we observe.

For example, when two objects collide, their behavior isn’t guided by arbitrary frameworks but by electromagnetic interactions at the molecular level, alongside gravitational effects. Similarly, human behavior emerges from the interaction of countless physical, chemical, and biological processes, each governed by these same fundamental forces.

Your assertion that frameworks of causes are merely epistemological overlooks this physical reality. Even if our understanding evolves, the underlying interactions—mediated by these universal forces—remain consistent. Intelligence, whether in amoebas, dolphins, or humans, doesn’t create “freedom” from causality. It’s simply the result of more complex neural interactions governed by the same physical principles. Even an "omniscient being," if it existed, would not escape these constraints but would operate with complete understanding of them.

The deterministic framework isn't a "belief" or subjective lens; it's a reflection of how every cause-and-effect relationship in the universe has been observed to function. If you think intelligence introduces a “higher” notion of free will, point to an instance where physical interactions stop determining outcomes. Until then, your argument hinges on redefining freedom, not demonstrating it.

viewtopic.php?t=43419

Wizard22, your rambling ode to "freedom" misses the fundamental point entirely: nothing, absolutely nothing, interacts without physical properties. The so-called "freedom" you're attributing to biological organisms isn't some magical force outside the four fundamental interactions of physics—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. These are the engines driving everything in the universe, from the swirling of galaxies to the firing of neurons in your brain.

So, where does your "free will" fit in? Does it have mass? Charge? Spin? No? Then what is it supposed to be interacting with? Because if it can’t push a single atom, let alone direct complex systems, it simply doesn’t exist.

Your poetic waxing about organisms having "freedom" based on intelligence or complexity is laughably naive. Intelligence, imagination, and knowledge are all physical processes. They’re rooted in neural networks, biochemical signals, and evolutionary adaptations—all of which are fully constrained by cause and effect. A neuron doesn't fire because it "freely decides" to—it fires because of a cascade of physical and chemical interactions.

And your attempt to refute determinism by invoking "infinite regress"? That’s not just a misunderstanding of the concept—it’s a complete failure to grasp how causality works. Determinism doesn’t require infinite regress; it acknowledges that causes are interconnected through physical processes and interactions. You don't need "infinite causes" to understand that every event has a precursor governed by observable laws.

Your entire argument is built on vague abstractions and wishful thinking. Freedom, as you describe it, is nothing more than a delusion born of ignorance about the physical forces that govern the universe. Until your "free will" can be shown to have any physical properties or interactions, it remains as nonexistent as the unicorns in your daydreams.

[Wizard22]

Wizard22, your rambling ode to "freedom" misses the fundamental point entirely: nothing, absolutely nothing, interacts without physical properties. The so-called "freedom" you're attributing to biological organisms isn't some magical force outside the four fundamental interactions of physics—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. These are the engines driving everything in the universe, from the swirling of galaxies to the firing of neurons in your brain.

So, where does your "free will" fit in? Does it have mass? Charge? Spin? No? Then what is it supposed to be interacting with? Because if it can’t push a single atom, let alone direct complex systems, it simply doesn’t exist.

Your poetic waxing about organisms having "freedom" based on intelligence or complexity is laughably naive. Intelligence, imagination, and knowledge are all physical processes. They’re rooted in neural networks, biochemical signals, and evolutionary adaptations—all of which are fully constrained by cause and effect. A neuron doesn't fire because it "freely decides" to—it fires because of a cascade of physical and chemical interactions.

And your attempt to refute determinism by invoking "infinite regress"? That’s not just a misunderstanding of the concept—it’s a complete failure to grasp how causality works. Determinism doesn’t require infinite regress; it acknowledges that causes are interconnected through physical processes and interactions. You don't need "infinite causes" to understand that every event has a precursor governed by observable laws.

Your entire argument is built on vague abstractions and wishful thinking. Freedom, as you describe it, is nothing more than a delusion born of ignorance about the physical forces that govern the universe. Until your "free will" can be shown to have any physical properties or interactions, it remains as nonexistent as the unicorns in your daydreams.

"Physical Properties" are purely hypothetical and theoretical entities. They only exist insofar as they can be proved through Scientific experimentation and replication of events. So your premises don't have any legs to stand on.

Furthermore, there is more immediate 'proof' of freedom and Free-Will inside every human choice, than outside of it. So Free-Will obviously arises from Un-caused phenomena within neural systems. This is further evidenced by limitless frameworks of Causality. There is no limit to Causality, and so any number of "Causes" can be accused, blamed, or hypothesized for any and all actions.

Choice proves Causality, not the other way around.

[Belinda]

Wizard22, your rambling ode to "freedom" misses the fundamental point entirely: nothing, absolutely nothing, interacts without physical properties. The so-called "freedom" you're attributing to biological organisms isn't some magical force outside the four fundamental interactions of physics—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. These are the engines driving everything in the universe, from the swirling of galaxies to the firing of neurons in your brain.

So, where does your "free will" fit in? Does it have mass? Charge? Spin? No? Then what is it supposed to be interacting with? Because if it can’t push a single atom, let alone direct complex systems, it simply doesn’t exist.

Your poetic waxing about organisms having "freedom" based on intelligence or complexity is laughably naive. Intelligence, imagination, and knowledge are all physical processes. They’re rooted in neural networks, biochemical signals, and evolutionary adaptations—all of which are fully constrained by cause and effect. A neuron doesn't fire because it "freely decides" to—it fires because of a cascade of physical and chemical interactions.

And your attempt to refute determinism by invoking "infinite regress"? That’s not just a misunderstanding of the concept—it’s a complete failure to grasp how causality works. Determinism doesn’t require infinite regress; it acknowledges that causes are interconnected through physical processes and interactions. You don't need "infinite causes" to understand that every event has a precursor governed by observable laws.

Your entire argument is built on vague abstractions and wishful thinking. Freedom, as you describe it, is nothing more than a delusion born of ignorance about the physical forces that govern the universe. Until your "free will" can be shown to have any physical properties or interactions, it remains as nonexistent as the unicorns in your daydreams.

"Physical Properties" are purely hypothetical and theoretical entities. They only exist insofar as they can be proved through Scientific experimentation and replication of events. So your premises don't have any legs to stand on.

Furthermore, there is more immediate 'proof' of freedom and Free-Will inside every human choice, than outside of it. So Free-Will obviously arises from Un-caused phenomena within neural systems. This is further evidenced by limitless frameworks of Causality. There is no limit to Causality, and so any number of "Causes" can be accused, blamed, or hypothesized for any and all actions.

Choice proves Causality, not the other way around.

Wizard, you do try but your ideas and use of English are too vague, and basic education in academic philosophy would help you to tighten up and edit what you want to express.
"There is no limit to Causality, and so any number of "Causes" can be accused, blamed, or hypothesized for any and all actions."(Wizard) is good and I agree. I share your broad view of causal determinism. But you don't understand that absolute Free Will is not natural and if FW events did exist those events would be miraculous.

Choice does not "prove causality" . If choice proved causality then choices by people who are hallucinating would "prove causality".

[Wizard22]

Wizard, you do try but your ideas and use of English are too vague, and basic education in academic philosophy would help you to tighten up and edit what you want to express.

I'm here to argue to the point, and use interlocution to persuade my opponents.

Academia is for grifters; I want the knowledge not the recognition or a paycheck.

[Gary Childress]

I still wonder if there isn't something more to human actions than cause and effect.

As I pointed out in a post a while back, when I think of cause and effect as it applies to living beings, I think of one person slapping another person and then the other person slapping them back. To me, that would be the prototypical idea of cause and effect in social interactions. However, what if you slap someone and instead of slapping you back (and in spite of the anger swelling up in them) there is a sudden presence of a kind response from them. Or think of a person who rescues a drowning child only to lose their own life by drowning themselves in the process of raising the child to safety. Such acts are rare but they are not unheard of. What would account for that in a causal sense?

I know we can hypothesize of someone being "conditioned" or learning to respond to someone else slapping them with returning a hug. However, when I think of "determinism" I think of necessity. A billiard ball strikes another billiard ball and causes it to roll into a hole in the table. However, it seems a billiard ball will never move out of the way of an oncoming cue ball. Nor will it turn around and give it a hug. But it seems like we humans can break causal chains which inanimate matter cannot do. We can make decisions that seem counter to the sorts of behavior of matter in motion.

[Wizard22]

I still wonder if there isn't something more to human actions than cause and effect.

As I pointed out in a post a while back, when I think of cause and effect as it applies to living beings, I think of one person slapping another person and then the other person slapping them back. To me, that would be the prototypical idea of cause and effect in social interactions. However, what if you slap someone and instead of slapping you back (and in spite of the anger swelling up in them) there is a sudden presence of a kind response from them. Or think of a person who rescues a drowning child only to lose their own life by drowning themselves in the process of raising the child to safety. Such acts are rare but they are not unheard of. What would account for that in a causal sense?

I know we can hypothesize of someone being "conditioned" or learning to respond to someone else slapping them with returning a hug. However, when I think of "determinism" I think of necessity. A billiard ball strikes another billiard ball and causes it to roll into a hole in the table. However, it seems a billiard ball will never move out of the way of an oncoming cue ball. Nor will it turn around and give it a hug. But it seems like we humans can break causal chains which inanimate matter cannot do. We can make decisions that seem counter to the sorts of behavior of matter in motion.

Humans want Freedom. That means we are 'determined' to be un-determined, defiance, spite.

It is the will to Randomness and Chaos that leads to radically new behaviors, possibilities, and paradigms.

Determinism is very similar to, or the exact same as, Tyranny.

[Belinda]

Wizard, you do try but your ideas and use of English are too vague, and basic education in academic philosophy would help you to tighten up and edit what you want to express.

I'm here to argue to the point, and use interlocution to persuade my opponents.

Academia is for grifters; I want the knowledge not the recognition or a paycheck.

But use of academia saves you the trouble of reinventing the wheel. Academia is not for making you rich or famous!

[Belinda]

I still wonder if there isn't something more to human actions than cause and effect.

As I pointed out in a post a while back, when I think of cause and effect as it applies to living beings, I think of one person slapping another person and then the other person slapping them back. To me, that would be the prototypical idea of cause and effect in social interactions. However, what if you slap someone and instead of slapping you back (and in spite of the anger swelling up in them) there is a sudden presence of a kind response from them. Or think of a person who rescues a drowning child only to lose their own life by drowning themselves in the process of raising the child to safety. Such acts are rare but they are not unheard of. What would account for that in a causal sense?

I know we can hypothesize of someone being "conditioned" or learning to respond to someone else slapping them with returning a hug. However, when I think of "determinism" I think of necessity. A billiard ball strikes another billiard ball and causes it to roll into a hole in the table. However, it seems a billiard ball will never move out of the way of an oncoming cue ball. Nor will it turn around and give it a hug. But it seems like we humans can break causal chains which inanimate matter cannot do. We can make decisions that seem counter to the sorts of behavior of matter in motion.

Humans want Freedom. That means we are 'determined' to be un-determined, defiance, spite.

It is the will to Randomness and Chaos that leads to radically new behaviors, possibilities, and paradigms.

Determinism is very similar to, or the exact same as, Tyranny.

But the will to randomness and chaos would have you using psychedelic drugs in the hope of gaining new behaviours, possibilities, and paradigms.

I can only guess you mean something more like "the will to lateral thinking and happy accidents"

[Wizard22]

But use of academia saves you the trouble of reinventing the wheel. Academia is not for making you rich or famous!

Neither does Academia invent the wheel the first time around. You have to go 'outside' the currently accepted paradigms to innovate.

But the will to randomness and chaos would have you using psychedelic drugs in the hope of gaining new behaviours, possibilities, and paradigms.

Or just workout your Imagination muscles.