Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[henry quirk]

Even if the whole world went determinist, defendants would still be held culpable for what they've done and face consequences.

If the whole world went determinist -- that is: if everyone truly believed they were meat machines -- no one would bear any responsibility for any action. Every kindness would be dismissed and every atrocity excused.

There'd be no trials or (a striving for) justice. There would be vengeance and mindless retribution only.

[Alexiev]

Even if the whole world went determinist, defendants would still be held culpable for what they've done and face consequences.

If the whole world went determinist -- that is: if everyone truly believed they were meat machines -- no one would bear any responsibility for any action. Every kindness would be dismissed and every atrocity excused.

There'd be no trials or (a striving for) justice. There would be vengeance and mindless retribution only.

Why? Wouldn't we still want to protect ourselves (even if this desire was predetermined) from murder and mayhem?

[Skepdick]

Why? Wouldn't we still want to protect ourselves (even if this desire was predetermined) from murder and mayhem?

Determinism erases any distinction between wants and don't-wants. You simply have no say in the matter.

Your wants are another's don't wants and both are the product of physics playing out.

To paraphrase Schopenhauer: You can do what you want, but you can't choose what you want. And if we get together and decide we want to make the belief in determinism punishable by death - blame physics.

The consequence of determinism is that the will/ought distinction is erased too. There's no difference between what WILLL happen and what OUGHT to happen. Because what WILL happen has already been determined, and since you have no free will nothing other than what WILL happen CAN happen.

The entire enterprise of moral reasoning rests upon the belief that something other than what will happen can and ought to happen; so there's no moral discourse to be had on determinism.

A determinist moralist is a troll.

[henry quirk]

Why? Wouldn't we still want to protect ourselves (even if this desire was predetermined) from murder and mayhem?

I think Skep explained it well. If we're meat machines our desire to self-protect, and how we do so, is all, fundamentally, nuthin' but the result of mindless particles smacking into mindless particles.

On the other hand: If we're free wills our desire to self-protect, and how we choose to do so, is metaphysical and, I think, rooted in our deep-the-bone intuition of having a real moral claim to ourselves.

[Alexiev]

Why? Wouldn't we still want to protect ourselves (even if this desire was predetermined) from murder and mayhem?

I think Skep explained it well. If we're meat machines our desire to self-protect, and how we do so, is all, fundamentally, nuthin' but the result of mindless particles smacking into mindless particles.

On the other hand: If we're free wills our desire to self-protect, and how we choose to do so, is metaphysical and, I think, rooted in our deep-the-bone intuition of having a real moral claim to ourselves.

I don't buy it. Reality -- as the post-modernists point out -- differs depending on the point of view. Since we don't know the future, we act as if we have free will whether God knows what we will choose to do or not. Our choices remain choices, and to the extent they are unconstrained by external forces (our own neurons don't count) they are "free". What possible difference could it make to morality whether an omniscient God knows before hand what we will choose to do? Since we don't know, from our perspective we are freely making choices.

After a fair shuffle, it is predetermined which card will be dealt off the top of the deck. But since the gambler can't see the other side of the cards, he thinks there is a 1/52 chance that it will be the Ace of Spades. Is he delusional? Of course not. Similarly, those of us who cannot see the future will act as if we have freedom of choice whether an omniscient God knows what we will do or not. As I've argued before, we say, "John freely chose to go to the store yesterday." The sentence is reasonable and coherent, even though no other choice can be made.

The Greeks believed in fate -- but that didn't prevent them from having moral codes. Why would it? WE can do only what we do, and we can choose only what we choose. These limits are clear, but they don't preclude freedom of will or moral choices.

By the way, I am not assuming determinism. I have no idea about that. I'm just suggesting that it is compatible with free choice.

[henry quirk]

I don't buy it.

As a free will, that's up to you; as a meat machine, it's not.

[BigMike]

Let’s cut straight to the heart of this nonsense—no preamble, no pleasantries, just the raw facts laid bare. The level of misunderstanding around determinism and its implications, especially when it collides with cherished notions of free will, is staggering. It’s like trying to teach calculus to someone who insists basic arithmetic is a conspiracy.

Let me be blunt: determinism is not a philosophical side hustle. It’s a cornerstone of our scientific understanding. The universe operates under physical laws—immutable, consistent, and uncompromising. Every atom, every synapse in your brain, every fleeting thought you believe you’ve “freely” chosen is simply the inevitable consequence of these laws in motion. If you’re uncomfortable with that, take it up with reality—it’s not going to care.

Now, there’s this incessant argument that determinism somehow strips away morality, responsibility, or meaning. Let’s squash that misconception right now. Determinism doesn’t erase responsibility; it redefines it. A deterministic framework says this: you don’t blame the avalanche for crushing the village—you figure out why it happened, then build systems to prevent it. That’s what accountability looks like when you accept that causation, not free-floating agency, is the real engine behind human behavior.

And the claim that morality collapses without free will? That’s nonsense, plain and simple. Morality isn’t a divine mandate tethered to the myth of choice; it’s an evolved mechanism for social cohesion. It’s about reducing harm, fostering cooperation, and building a functioning society—not about handing out cosmic gold stars for “good behavior.”

But what really grinds my gears is this hand-wringing over determinism leading to nihilism or barbarism. No, accepting determinism doesn’t make us heartless robots. It challenges us to be better—more rational, more empathetic, more focused on fixing root causes than indulging in outdated notions of punishment and blame. It’s not about abandoning humanity; it’s about understanding it more deeply.

So, to everyone clinging to free will like it’s a life raft in a sea of chaos: let it go. The raft is an illusion, and the sea? That’s just the universe doing what it’s always done—obeying the rules, indifferent to whether you understand them or not. Embrace determinism, not as a threat, but as an opportunity to evolve beyond the myths we’ve told ourselves for centuries. Anything less is just noise.

[henry quirk]

Every atom, every synapse in your brain, every fleeting thought you believe you’ve “freely” chosen is simply the inevitable consequence of these laws in motion.

That may very well be the case. If it is then we are as we necessarily must be. I advocate for libertarian free will not becuz I'm wrong (or right) but simply becuz it's what I, as an aggregate of particles, necessarily must do. You advocate for determinism not becuz you're right (or wrong) but simply becuz it's what you, as an aggregate of particles, necessarily must do. If we're meat machines neither of us have any choice about it.

That's determinism. Of course, you aren't really a determinist: you're a compatibilist, which is, as I say, nonsensical (cuz you wanna have your cake and eat it too).

[henry quirk]

determinism leading to nihilism or barbarism

If we're meat machines, it doesn't matter. What we do necessarily must be.

If we're free wills, believing we're meat machines can only lead to atrocity.

[Skepdick]

Let’s cut straight to the heart of this nonsense—no preamble, no pleasantries, just the raw facts laid bare. The level of misunderstanding around determinism and its implications

If you think anyone's misunderstanding anything - blame the laws of physics.

Let me be blunt: determinism is not a philosophical side hustle. It’s a cornerstone of our scientific understanding. The universe operates under physical laws—immutable, consistent, and uncompromising. Every atom, every synapse in your brain, every fleeting thought you believe you’ve “freely” chosen is simply the inevitable consequence of these laws in motion. If you’re uncomfortable with that, take it up with reality—it’s not going to care.

So take it up with reality then.

If you don't like the understanding physics has produced in the minds of others write to reality@nobodycares.com

[henry quirk]

reality@nobodycares.com

[accelafine]

determinism leading to nihilism or barbarism

If we're meat machines, it doesn't matter. What we do necessarily must be.

If we're free wills, believing we're meat machines can only lead to atrocity.

You need to stop using that term. It's ridiculous. 'Meat' has a very specific meaning. The only time we could become meat is if something came along and decided it was going to eat us. As a matter of fact at the quantum level we don't exist at all. Quarks don't care about meat

[Alexiev]

Let’s cut straight to the heart of this nonsense—no preamble, no pleasantries, just the raw facts laid bare. The level of misunderstanding around determinism and its implications, especially when it collides with cherished notions of free will, is staggering. It’s like trying to teach calculus to someone who insists basic arithmetic is a conspiracy.

Let me be blunt: determinism is not a philosophical side hustle. It’s a cornerstone of our scientific understanding. The universe operates under physical laws—immutable, consistent, and uncompromising. Every atom, every synapse in your brain, every fleeting thought you believe you’ve “freely” chosen is simply the inevitable consequence of these laws in motion. If you’re uncomfortable with that, take it up with reality—it’s not going to care.

Now, there’s this incessant argument that determinism somehow strips away morality, responsibility, or meaning. Let’s squash that misconception right now. Determinism doesn’t erase responsibility; it redefines it. A deterministic framework says this: you don’t blame the avalanche for crushing the village—you figure out why it happened, then build systems to prevent it. That’s what accountability looks like when you accept that causation, not free-floating agency, is the real engine behind human behavior.

And the claim that morality collapses without free will? That’s nonsense, plain and simple. Morality isn’t a divine mandate tethered to the myth of choice; it’s an evolved mechanism for social cohesion. It’s about reducing harm, fostering cooperation, and building a functioning society—not about handing out cosmic gold stars for “good behavior.”

But what really grinds my gears is this hand-wringing over determinism leading to nihilism or barbarism. No, accepting determinism doesn’t make us heartless robots. It challenges us to be better—more rational, more empathetic, more focused on fixing root causes than indulging in outdated notions of punishment and blame. It’s not about abandoning humanity; it’s about understanding it more deeply.

So, to everyone clinging to free will like it’s a life raft in a sea of chaos: let it go. The raft is an illusion, and the sea? That’s just the universe doing what it’s always done—obeying the rules, indifferent to whether you understand them or not. Embrace determinism, not as a threat, but as an opportunity to evolve beyond the myths we’ve told ourselves for centuries. Anything less is just noise.

I agree that the hand-wringing is nonsensical, because determinism does not limit freedom of choice. Words have meanings. "Free" means unconstrained by other people. It does not mean "able to fly by flapping one's arms". People can be "free" and remain constrained by the "laws of physics". This is so obvious that it's staggering that some people seem unable to understand. "Choice" refers to "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities". One can "face" possibilities even if it is predetermined which will be chosen. "Face" means "be aware of". I don't understand why this appears difficult. We can be aware of possibilities although only one will be "chosen". That's why we can use "choice" in the past tense.

Nonetheless, your notion that scientific determinism is the sin qua non of understanding is equally incomprehensible. First of all, the universe may or may not "operate under immutable laws". That's a religious, "cosmic clockmaker" perspective. The laws of physics are not principles controlling the universe -- they are descriptions of how the universe works created by us humans. Apples don't fall because of the "laws of gravity". The laws of gravity were invented because apples fall.

Here's a poem I wrote when my son was studying physics:

Reflections on the Laws of Nature

Apples knew not which way to fall,
Objects in motion were apt to stall,
Reactions were opposite, but not equal,
(If this verse is confusing, read the sequel)

Things accelerated when no force
Acted upon them (out of balance, of course)
In short, nature's laws weren't so high fallutin'
Before being discovered by Sir Isaac Newton.

[henry quirk]

You need to stop using that term.

If I'm a meat machine then I have no choice in the matter: I'm doin' what I necessarily must do.

The only time we could become meat is if something came along and decided it was going to eat us.

Yes, exactly.

[Immanuel Can]

determinism leading to nihilism or barbarism

If we're meat machines, it doesn't matter. What we do necessarily must be.

If we're free wills, believing we're meat machines can only lead to atrocity.

You need to stop using that term. It's ridiculous. 'Meat' has a very specific meaning.

It does have a very specific meaning. It means the physical part of the brain, minus anything else. And that is exactly what the Materialists say is all that exists. So the very reasonable question that Henry is reminding us of, is "How could mere meat do what only can be done by consciousness?" And that's a healthy reminder in the context of this discussion.

So I say, let him use it. It's a healthy reminder of exactly what's being proposed by the Materialists. And if that embarasses them as reductional, then they should be embarassed. Their assertions are quite silly, actually.