Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexiev]

You haven’t said whether you disagree with the core facts I’ve laid out—that human behavior is caused, that the brain operates under physical law, that our choices emerge from antecedent conditions we didn’t choose.

You haven’t explained what exactly is “missing” from that framework—what metaphysical or poetic gloss you think makes the truth more complete, more coherent, or more useful.

You haven’t pointed to anything I’ve said that is false—only that you find it “absolutist,” or “mathematical,” or that it fails to flatter the lyrical sensibilities you seem to prize over clarity.

And now you want to frame this entire exchange as some pseudo-Calvinist passion play—where I’m a wild-eyed truth-monger raging in the temple, and you’re what exactly? The wistful skeptic? The bemused sage? The chorus of irony watching from the wings?

Give me a break.

I asked you to stay on target. You swerved.

I asked you to engage the ideas. You deflected.

I asked you to clarify your objection. You opted for poetry and snark.

So let me ask again—and I dare you to answer plainly this time:

Do you disagree with the claim that everything we think, feel, and do is caused?

If not, what is your real objection—clarity? Honesty? Following those facts to where they lead?

Because if your problem isn’t with the facts, but only with the style in which they’re presented, then it’s not my worldview you’re resisting—it’s your own implications that you’re unwilling to face.

You keep saying, “Mike, I understand.” But what I see is evasion. What I hear is a man doing verbal gymnastics to avoid putting his worldview on the line.

So no more theater. No more deflection. No more snide applause from the balcony.

What, exactly, do you think I got wrong?
If you can’t answer that, then maybe—just maybe—you’re the one out of moves.

You are the one who dodges and deflects, Mike. I've answered your questions many times, but because you don't like my answers you misrepresent them and then repeat yourself.

One more try: whether "everything we think, feel, and do is caused" depends on what we mean be :caused". Your modernist world view (in which the whole is "explained" or "caused" by the parts) suggests that correlations between physical events in the parts (neurons firing in the brain, for example) constitute "causes". But in general English usage, a "cause" is a handle we can manipulate.

When a car goes around a curve in the road too fast and slides off the road and crashes, what causes the crash? To the driver, the crash is caused by driving too fast; to the road engineer, the cause is insufficient banking; to the tire manufacturer the cause is bad tread on the tires. Each seeks a handle he can manipulate. To say the cause is the chain reaction inevitable from the Big Bang is meaningless, whether or not it is correct.

Of course everything we think, feel and do is correlated with neurons firing in our brains. So what? Where does an acknowledgement of that get us? Is it reasonable to use the word "cause" to describe that correlation?

To the Modernist, the whole is "explained" or "caused" by its parts. Fine. That's one way of looking at things. But although that perspective is sometimes valuable, sometimes it isn't. It doesn't help the driver who crashed the car avoid to another crash to think the Big Bang caused the crash. He's better off thinking he made a decision to drive too fast. It doesn't help a general to think battles are won or lost because of the Big Bang. He's better off looking at specific tactics, or the morale of the troops.

Correlation is not causation. What we mean by "cause" is not inevitable correlation, but a handle we can manipulate. The experimental scientist manipulates the variable, and calls it a "cause". He is correct in his use of language, even though infinite other conditions are necessary to the "effect".

The man who decides to go to the store thinks he went to the store because he freely decided to do so. He is correct, whatever the.preconditions that, for the lat 13 billion years, may have (we don't and can't kniw) made his decision inevitable.

[BigMike]

You haven’t said whether you disagree with the core facts I’ve laid out—that human behavior is caused, that the brain operates under physical law, that our choices emerge from antecedent conditions we didn’t choose.

You haven’t explained what exactly is “missing” from that framework—what metaphysical or poetic gloss you think makes the truth more complete, more coherent, or more useful.

You haven’t pointed to anything I’ve said that is false—only that you find it “absolutist,” or “mathematical,” or that it fails to flatter the lyrical sensibilities you seem to prize over clarity.

And now you want to frame this entire exchange as some pseudo-Calvinist passion play—where I’m a wild-eyed truth-monger raging in the temple, and you’re what exactly? The wistful skeptic? The bemused sage? The chorus of irony watching from the wings?

Give me a break.

I asked you to stay on target. You swerved.

I asked you to engage the ideas. You deflected.

I asked you to clarify your objection. You opted for poetry and snark.

So let me ask again—and I dare you to answer plainly this time:

Do you disagree with the claim that everything we think, feel, and do is caused?

If not, what is your real objection—clarity? Honesty? Following those facts to where they lead?

Because if your problem isn’t with the facts, but only with the style in which they’re presented, then it’s not my worldview you’re resisting—it’s your own implications that you’re unwilling to face.

You keep saying, “Mike, I understand.” But what I see is evasion. What I hear is a man doing verbal gymnastics to avoid putting his worldview on the line.

So no more theater. No more deflection. No more snide applause from the balcony.

What, exactly, do you think I got wrong?
If you can’t answer that, then maybe—just maybe—you’re the one out of moves.

You are the one who dodges and deflects, Mike. I've answered your questions many times, but because you don't like my answers you misrepresent them and then repeat yourself.

One more try: whether "everything we think, feel, and do is caused" depends on what we mean be :caused". Your modernist world view (in which the whole is "explained" or "caused" by the parts) suggests that correlations between physical events in the parts (neurons firing in the brain, for example) constitute "causes". But in general English usage, a "cause" is a handle we can manipulate.

When a car goes around a curve in the road too fast and slides off the road and crashes, what causes the crash? To the driver, the crash is caused by driving too fast; to the road engineer, the cause is insufficient banking; to the tire manufacturer the cause is bad tread on the tires. Each seeks a handle he can manipulate. To say the cause is the chain reaction inevitable from the Big Bang is meaningless, whether or not it is correct.

Of course everything we think, feel and do is correlated with neurons firing in our brains. So what? Where does an acknowledgement of that get us? Is it reasonable to use the word "cause" to describe that correlation?

To the Modernist, the whole is "explained" or "caused" by its parts. Fine. That's one way of looking at things. But although that perspective is sometimes valuable, sometimes it isn't. It doesn't help the driver who crashed the car avoid to another crash to think the Big Bang caused the crash. He's better off thinking he made a decision to drive too fast. It doesn't help a general to think battles are won or lost because of the Big Bang. He's better off looking at specific tactics, or the morale of the troops.

Correlation is not causation. What we mean by "cause" is not inevitable correlation, but a handle we can manipulate. The experimental scientist manipulates the variable, and calls it a "cause". He is correct in his use of language, even though infinite other conditions are necessary to the "effect".

The man who decides to go to the store thinks he went to the store because he freely decided to do so. He is correct, whatever the.preconditions that, for the lat 13 billion years, may have (we don't and can't kniw) made his decision inevitable.

Alexiev, thank you for trying again—but let’s get something clear:

Your entire response hinges on conflating language conventions with ontological claims. When you say “cause” is just a “handle we can manipulate,” you’re talking about pragmatic language, not the structure of reality. You're describing how humans talk about things—not what actually makes those things happen.

Let me unpack it.

You say “the cause” of a crash depends on who you ask—the driver, the engineer, the tire company. But that’s not because causality is vague or subjective. It’s because humans are storytelling creatures, slicing causal chains at the most convenient node. It’s shorthand. Not metaphysics.

The car crash had a real chain of causes: friction coefficients, velocity, tire composition, steering angle, and yes—every atom and interaction involved. The subjective “handle” someone grabs—“I was going too fast”—is a linguistic overlay we slap on top of a vastly more complex web of causes.

And here’s where you dodge:

When I say “everything we think, feel, and do is caused,” I’m not talking about whether it’s helpful to tell a soldier “the Big Bang made you do it.” I’m saying: ontologically, from a physics perspective, there is no uncaused node in the system. There is no free-floating chooser standing outside the laws of nature. There is no “you” operating as a first cause. Every “decision” is an output of a system whose inputs you didn’t select.

That’s not “modernism.” That’s just the science of systems and brains and physical law.

So you ask, “Where does acknowledging that get us?” It gets us honesty. It gets us humility. It gets us a framework where we stop blaming people for being born into systems that shaped them like clay. It gets us closer to truth, even if it’s inconvenient.

Let’s not pretend this is about the usefulness of language. This is about whether you accept that every single thought you have is the result of prior causes.

So once again:

Yes, people can act.
Yes, we can identify local causes and call them “decisions.”
But no, those decisions are not metaphysically free.

And no amount of poetic hand-waving or semantic sidestepping will change that.

So if you’re arguing that we shouldn’t say “everything is caused” just because it makes people uncomfortable or because it isn’t “useful” in everyday speech—then what you’re rejecting isn’t science.

You’re rejecting truth because it’s inconvenient.

And if that’s the hill you want to die on, fine. But don’t pretend it's a high one.

[Belinda]

You simply don't understand what philosophers mean by 'free will'.

I know exactly what I'm about when I refer to myself, or you, or Mike, as a free will. And what I'm about is perfectly in keeping with libertarian free will/agent causality.

It's generally understood that jargon is best reserved for specialists. You are not a specialist philosopher. What you mean is that you are a free person not that you are a 'free will'.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But history is not totally interpretative. Besides their interpretation, theories include scientific facts.

But our “relationship with this mysterious universe” is interpretive. As is our sense of duty and destiny.

I can think of no one who over the course of this extensive conversation has ever negated the facts of biology or of physics. Their critique has been against interpretive elements.

To understand Mike (I say) we have to understand what is, I think fundamentally, his anti-clericalism. There is an emotional underground that is expressed in extreme adamancy of an exclusive interpretation of those “facts”. A thousand times it has been labeled as “reductive”.

Also, and this is important, he genuinely believes that when he acts in the world that he is merely and solely a “rolling rock” and that he has no agency. One must examine this belief, this applied interpretation, from a (genuine) philosophical stance.

When one examines it through Carlyle’s lens there its actual root is unveiled. It is a psychological position. And through this interpretive predicate Mike sermonizes the unruly world, lost in its erroneous fantasies and mistaken interpretations.

And he employs a “counter-meming” which looks awfully much like a transvaluation of the content of Christian sermonizing. I thought Ben demonstrated this nicely. He paints Mike as the lonely Prophet of Truth among demonic hyenas!

For Heaven’s sake!

[Alexis Jacobi]

The subjective “handle” someone grabs—“I was going too fast”—is a linguistic overlay we slap on top of a vastly more complex web of causes.

No Mike. The cause of the crash was simply and plainly that the driver drove too fast.

Other factors can certainly be examined. But the basic truth is the driver exceeded the proper velocity.

I suggest you rein-in your own linguistic overlay.

[Belinda]

But history is not totally interpretative. Besides their interpretation, theories include scientific facts.

But our “relationship with this mysterious universe” is interpretive. As is our sense of duty and destiny.

I can think of no one who over the course of this extensive conversation has ever negated the facts of biology or of physics. Their critique has been against interpretive elements.

To understand Mike (I say) we have to understand what is, I think fundamentally, his anti-clericalism. There is an emotional underground that is expressed in extreme adamancy of an exclusive interpretation of those “facts”. A thousand times it has been labeled as “reductive”.

Also, and this is important, he genuinely believes that when he acts in the world that he is merely and solely a “rolling rock” and that he has no agency. One must examine this belief, this applied interpretation, from a (genuine) philosophical stance.

When one examines it through Carlyle’s lens there its actual root is unveiled. It is a psychological position. And through this interpretive predicate Mike sermonizes the unruly world, lost in its erroneous fantasies and mistaken interpretations.

And he employs a “counter-meming” which looks awfully much like a transvaluation of the content of Christian sermonizing. I thought Ben demonstrated this nicely. He paints Mike as the lonely Prophet of Truth among demonic hyenas!



For Heaven’s sake!

That's hyperbole. Mike , besides being a forum persona , is also a real person. Mike, you, and I , are more or less free agents as personas and as real people. Our relative powers as free agents correlate with our freedoms to choose. Some people are more free than others, as you must in all reason agree. Love of truth makes us more free than does love of ignorance or lies.
Intellect is not the only path to freedom, beauty too makes us free agents .

[Alexis Jacobi]

There is no free-floating chooser standing outside the laws of nature.

Yes, there is. You just described that person
And that capability because you conceived the possibility and structured it into your statement.

We exist unquestionably within causality and casual chains set in motion long before us. And through our conceiving power we indeed stand apart (that is a metaphor) if only with slight power, but with some power.

It is wise to say that no one freely floats outside of the causal world — we are enmeshed in the world.

The question is What sort of agency we do have (and how to use it).

[Alexis Jacobi]

Our relative powers as free agents correlate with our freedoms to choose.

I certainly can go along with that.

[Atla]

Just curious BigMike, are you an INTP?

[Alexiev]

You haven’t said whether you disagree with the core facts I’ve laid out—that human behavior is caused, that the brain operates under physical law, that our choices emerge from antecedent conditions we didn’t choose.

You haven’t explained what exactly is “missing” from that framework—what metaphysical or poetic gloss you think makes the truth more complete, more coherent, or more useful.

You haven’t pointed to anything I’ve said that is false—only that you find it “absolutist,” or “mathematical,” or that it fails to flatter the lyrical sensibilities you seem to prize over clarity.

And now you want to frame this entire exchange as some pseudo-Calvinist passion play—where I’m a wild-eyed truth-monger raging in the temple, and you’re what exactly? The wistful skeptic? The bemused sage? The chorus of irony watching from the wings?

Give me a break.

I asked you to stay on target. You swerved.

I asked you to engage the ideas. You deflected.

I asked you to clarify your objection. You opted for poetry and snark.

So let me ask again—and I dare you to answer plainly this time:

Do you disagree with the claim that everything we think, feel, and do is caused?

If not, what is your real objection—clarity? Honesty? Following those facts to where they lead?

Because if your problem isn’t with the facts, but only with the style in which they’re presented, then it’s not my worldview you’re resisting—it’s your own implications that you’re unwilling to face.

You keep saying, “Mike, I understand.” But what I see is evasion. What I hear is a man doing verbal gymnastics to avoid putting his worldview on the line.

So no more theater. No more deflection. No more snide applause from the balcony.

What, exactly, do you think I got wrong?
If you can’t answer that, then maybe—just maybe—you’re the one out of moves.

You are the one who dodges and deflects, Mike. I've answered your questions many times, but because you don't like my answers you misrepresent them and then repeat yourself.

One more try: whether "everything we think, feel, and do is caused" depends on what we mean be :caused". Your modernist world view (in which the whole is "explained" or "caused" by the parts) suggests that correlations between physical events in the parts (neurons firing in the brain, for example) constitute "causes". But in general English usage, a "cause" is a handle we can manipulate.

When a car goes around a curve in the road too fast and slides off the road and crashes, what causes the crash? To the driver, the crash is caused by driving too fast; to the road engineer, the cause is insufficient banking; to the tire manufacturer the cause is bad tread on the tires. Each seeks a handle he can manipulate. To say the cause is the chain reaction inevitable from the Big Bang is meaningless, whether or not it is correct.

Of course everything we think, feel and do is correlated with neurons firing in our brains. So what? Where does an acknowledgement of that get us? Is it reasonable to use the word "cause" to describe that correlation?

To the Modernist, the whole is "explained" or "caused" by its parts. Fine. That's one way of looking at things. But although that perspective is sometimes valuable, sometimes it isn't. It doesn't help the driver who crashed the car avoid to another crash to think the Big Bang caused the crash. He's better off thinking he made a decision to drive too fast. It doesn't help a general to think battles are won or lost because of the Big Bang. He's better off looking at specific tactics, or the morale of the troops.

Correlation is not causation. What we mean by "cause" is not inevitable correlation, but a handle we can manipulate. The experimental scientist manipulates the variable, and calls it a "cause". He is correct in his use of language, even though infinite other conditions are necessary to the "effect".

The man who decides to go to the store thinks he went to the store because he freely decided to do so. He is correct, whatever the.preconditions that, for the lat 13 billion years, may have (we don't and can't kniw) made his decision inevitable.

Alexiev, thank you for trying again—but let’s get something clear:

Your entire response hinges on conflating language conventions with ontological claims. When you say “cause” is just a “handle we can manipulate,” you’re talking about pragmatic language, not the structure of reality. You're describing how humans talk about things—not what actually makes those things happen.

Let me unpack it.

You say “the cause” of a crash depends on who you ask—the driver, the engineer, the tire company. But that’s not because causality is vague or subjective. It’s because humans are storytelling creatures, slicing causal chains at the most convenient node. It’s shorthand. Not metaphysics.

The car crash had a real chain of causes: friction coefficients, velocity, tire composition, steering angle, and yes—every atom and interaction involved. The subjective “handle” someone grabs—“I was going too fast”—is a linguistic overlay we slap on top of a vastly more complex web of causes.

And here’s where you dodge:

When I say “everything we think, feel, and do is caused,” I’m not talking about whether it’s helpful to tell a soldier “the Big Bang made you do it.” I’m saying: ontologically, from a physics perspective, there is no uncaused node in the system. There is no free-floating chooser standing outside the laws of nature. There is no “you” operating as a first cause. Every “decision” is an output of a system whose inputs you didn’t select.

That’s not “modernism.” That’s just the science of systems and brains and physical law.

So you ask, “Where does acknowledging that get us?” It gets us honesty. It gets us humility. It gets us a framework where we stop blaming people for being born into systems that shaped them like clay. It gets us closer to truth, even if it’s inconvenient.

Let’s not pretend this is about the usefulness of language. This is about whether you accept that every single thought you have is the result of prior causes.

So once again:

Yes, people can act.
Yes, we can identify local causes and call them “decisions.”
But no, those decisions are not metaphysically free.

And no amount of poetic hand-waving or semantic sidestepping will change that.

So if you’re arguing that we shouldn’t say “everything is caused” just because it makes people uncomfortable or because it isn’t “useful” in everyday speech—then what you’re rejecting isn’t science.

You’re rejecting truth because it’s inconvenient.

And if that’s the hill you want to die on, fine. But don’t pretend it's a high one.

I have no desire to die on any hill. Nor am I "rejecting" anything. You are forgetting (or ignoring) what I've written previously. Science works as I suggest. Experimental scientists list the variable as a "cause", not the Big Bang. That's because the variable is the handle we can manipulate.

As I've repeated many times, we must (and do) act as if we have free choices whether these choices have been "destined" from the time of the Big Bang or not. That's why the normal use of "cause" is not a conflating of language conventions with ontological claims. Instead, it is an attempt to make science useful. What good does it do to claim the Big Bang "causes" bubonic plague? Isn't it more reasonable to look for a handle we can manipulate? After all, we have antibiotics that cure the disease, developed because we know bacteria "cause" disease. (Of course we also know that infection with bacteria makes some people ill, but not other people. So many factors are necessary and sufficient to cause disease. We say bacteria is the cause because it is the handle we can manipulate.)

I've repeated over over and over again that I agree that every thought we have may very well have a prior cause. Why you keep repeating that point is incomprehensible. I agree, but I don't care. Science works by identifying proximate causes; justice works by blaming people for some of their decisions. Whether these decisions were inevitable is completely and utterly irrelevant. There's no need for you to repeat yourself one more time; nor is there any need for you to misrepresent my clearly stated position one more time.

[BigMike]

You are the one who dodges and deflects, Mike. I've answered your questions many times, but because you don't like my answers you misrepresent them and then repeat yourself.

One more try: whether "everything we think, feel, and do is caused" depends on what we mean be :caused". Your modernist world view (in which the whole is "explained" or "caused" by the parts) suggests that correlations between physical events in the parts (neurons firing in the brain, for example) constitute "causes". But in general English usage, a "cause" is a handle we can manipulate.

When a car goes around a curve in the road too fast and slides off the road and crashes, what causes the crash? To the driver, the crash is caused by driving too fast; to the road engineer, the cause is insufficient banking; to the tire manufacturer the cause is bad tread on the tires. Each seeks a handle he can manipulate. To say the cause is the chain reaction inevitable from the Big Bang is meaningless, whether or not it is correct.

Of course everything we think, feel and do is correlated with neurons firing in our brains. So what? Where does an acknowledgement of that get us? Is it reasonable to use the word "cause" to describe that correlation?

To the Modernist, the whole is "explained" or "caused" by its parts. Fine. That's one way of looking at things. But although that perspective is sometimes valuable, sometimes it isn't. It doesn't help the driver who crashed the car avoid to another crash to think the Big Bang caused the crash. He's better off thinking he made a decision to drive too fast. It doesn't help a general to think battles are won or lost because of the Big Bang. He's better off looking at specific tactics, or the morale of the troops.

Correlation is not causation. What we mean by "cause" is not inevitable correlation, but a handle we can manipulate. The experimental scientist manipulates the variable, and calls it a "cause". He is correct in his use of language, even though infinite other conditions are necessary to the "effect".

The man who decides to go to the store thinks he went to the store because he freely decided to do so. He is correct, whatever the.preconditions that, for the lat 13 billion years, may have (we don't and can't kniw) made his decision inevitable.

Alexiev, thank you for trying again—but let’s get something clear:

Your entire response hinges on conflating language conventions with ontological claims. When you say “cause” is just a “handle we can manipulate,” you’re talking about pragmatic language, not the structure of reality. You're describing how humans talk about things—not what actually makes those things happen.

Let me unpack it.

You say “the cause” of a crash depends on who you ask—the driver, the engineer, the tire company. But that’s not because causality is vague or subjective. It’s because humans are storytelling creatures, slicing causal chains at the most convenient node. It’s shorthand. Not metaphysics.

The car crash had a real chain of causes: friction coefficients, velocity, tire composition, steering angle, and yes—every atom and interaction involved. The subjective “handle” someone grabs—“I was going too fast”—is a linguistic overlay we slap on top of a vastly more complex web of causes.

And here’s where you dodge:

When I say “everything we think, feel, and do is caused,” I’m not talking about whether it’s helpful to tell a soldier “the Big Bang made you do it.” I’m saying: ontologically, from a physics perspective, there is no uncaused node in the system. There is no free-floating chooser standing outside the laws of nature. There is no “you” operating as a first cause. Every “decision” is an output of a system whose inputs you didn’t select.

That’s not “modernism.” That’s just the science of systems and brains and physical law.

So you ask, “Where does acknowledging that get us?” It gets us honesty. It gets us humility. It gets us a framework where we stop blaming people for being born into systems that shaped them like clay. It gets us closer to truth, even if it’s inconvenient.

Let’s not pretend this is about the usefulness of language. This is about whether you accept that every single thought you have is the result of prior causes.

So once again:

Yes, people can act.
Yes, we can identify local causes and call them “decisions.”
But no, those decisions are not metaphysically free.

And no amount of poetic hand-waving or semantic sidestepping will change that.

So if you’re arguing that we shouldn’t say “everything is caused” just because it makes people uncomfortable or because it isn’t “useful” in everyday speech—then what you’re rejecting isn’t science.

You’re rejecting truth because it’s inconvenient.

And if that’s the hill you want to die on, fine. But don’t pretend it's a high one.

I have no desire to die on any hill. Nor am I "rejecting" anything. You are forgetting (or ignoring) what I've written previously. Science works as I suggest. Experimental scientists list the variable as a "cause", not the Big Bang. That's because the variable is the handle we can manipulate.

As I've repeated many times, we must (and do) act as if we have free choices whether these choices have been "destined" from the time of the Big Bang or not. That's why the normal use of "cause" is not a conflating of language conventions with ontological claims. Instead, it is an attempt to make science useful. What good does it do to claim the Big Bang "causes" bubonic plague? Isn't it more reasonable to look for a handle we can manipulate? After all, we have antibiotics that cure the disease, developed because we know bacteria "cause" disease. (Of course we also know that infection with bacteria makes some people ill, but not other people. So many factors are necessary and sufficient to cause disease. We say bacteria is the cause because it is the handle we can manipulate.)

I've repeated over over and over again that I agree that every thought we have may very well have a prior cause. Why you keep repeating that point is incomprehensible. I agree, but I don't care. Science works by identifying proximate causes; justice works by blaming people for some of their decisions. Whether these decisions were inevitable is completely and utterly irrelevant. There's no need for you to repeat yourself one more time; nor is there any need for you to misrepresent my clearly stated position one more time.

Alexiev, I appreciate the clarification—and I think we’re getting closer to the real distinction here: you're talking about functional causality, and I’m talking about ontological causality.

You’re right: scientists, engineers, and doctors seek useful handles—proximate, manipulable variables that can be tested, modified, and applied to produce results. You call these “causes,” and rightly so within the pragmatic framework of human utility. If bacteria make us sick and we can kill them with antibiotics, it’s absolutely sensible to call bacteria the “cause” of the disease in practical terms. That’s how we survive.

But that doesn’t invalidate the deeper reality—that everything, including the bacterium, the immune response, the antibiotic, the doctor’s decision to prescribe it, and the invention of antibiotics themselves, is part of an unbroken causal continuum stretching back to the formation of the elements. That’s not pedantic. It’s the foundation beneath every system we build.

You say: “We must act as if we have free choices.”
I agree—to a point. But that as if comes at a price. When we pretend choices are freely authored, we preserve narratives that blame people for what they never chose to become. That’s not just a philosophical quibble. It has real consequences—for justice, education, policy, and empathy.

So yes, in courts and clinics and classrooms, we use proximate language. We say “you made a bad choice” because it’s efficient and intuitive. But if we stop there—if we mistake that shortcut for the full picture—we risk upholding moral fictions that justify cruelty, punishment, and self-righteousness.

Here’s the cleanest way I can put it:

“Cause” as a practical handle = science’s tool
“Cause” as a deep physical chain = reality’s structure
Pretending the first erases the second = confusion or convenience

You’re not wrong to speak of manipulable variables as “causes.” That’s what science does. But science also never claims those are the only causes—or even the whole story. It’s a map, not the territory.

And when we talk about what people are—not just what they did—we’re obligated to zoom out. To ask why they are who they are. And that requires abandoning the myth of an uncaused, autonomous chooser.

If you agree that everything has a prior cause, then we agree on the physics. But where we part ways is in the courage to follow that insight all the way down—past convenience, past convention, past old narratives of blame.

That’s not rejection of science.
That’s a commitment to its full implications.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I agree—to a point. But that as if comes at a price. When we pretend choices are freely authored, we preserve narratives that blame people for what they never chose to become. That’s not just a philosophical quibble. It has real consequences—for justice, education, policy, and empathy.

So yes, in courts and clinics and classrooms, we use proximate language. We say “you made a bad choice” because it’s efficient and intuitive. But if we stop there—if we mistake that shortcut for the full picture—we risk upholding moral fictions that justify cruelty, punishment, and self-righteousness.

People, then, and you and I must, assume responsibility for what we are, even if “we never chose to become” what we in fact are.

It is hard to say where really the moral risk lies. I definitely would not ever EVER feel that you, BigMike, should be given trust to make consequential choices.

If you had the authority to decide how a child should be raised or how criminality in society should be dealt with or corrected, I think I’d be best off running for the hills.

Good Lord! just imagine how your authoritarian bent would manifest! This intractable, absolutist attitude would more than likely create disasters.

We should definitely act as if our choices are freely made (even if someone suggests to us that they are not: a seductive lie). We should assume responsibility for all our actions. Any other attitude would be irresponsible. And we should teach others — and certainly our children — to relate to their choices in the same way.

Good Lord, BigMike. What a sickly philosophy you subscribe to.

[BigMike]

I agree—to a point. But that as if comes at a price. When we pretend choices are freely authored, we preserve narratives that blame people for what they never chose to become. That’s not just a philosophical quibble. It has real consequences—for justice, education, policy, and empathy.

So yes, in courts and clinics and classrooms, we use proximate language. We say “you made a bad choice” because it’s efficient and intuitive. But if we stop there—if we mistake that shortcut for the full picture—we risk upholding moral fictions that justify cruelty, punishment, and self-righteousness.

People, then, and you and I must, assume responsibility for what we are, even if “we never chose to become” what we in fact are.

It is hard to say where really the moral risk lies. I definitely would not ever EVER feel that you, BigMike, should be given trust to make consequential choices.

If you had the authority to decide how a child should be raised or how criminality in society should be dealt with or corrected, I think I’d be best off running for the hills.

Good Lord! just imagine how your authoritarian bent would manifest! This intractable, absolutist attitude would more than likely create disasters.

We should definitely act as if our choices are freely made (even if someone suggests to us that they are not: a seductive lie). We should assume responsibility for all our actions. Any other attitude would be irresponsible. And we should teach others — and certainly our children — to relate to their choices in the same way.

Good Lord, BigMike. What a sickly philosophy you subscribe to.

Alexis,

You say people must assume responsibility for what they are—even if they never chose to become it. But you don’t explain how that squares with your own admission that we are all shaped by prior causes. You’re embracing the language of personal authorship while simultaneously denying the mechanism by which authorship could exist. That’s not integrity. That’s incoherence.

Responsibility, as a concept, only has moral force if the agent could have done otherwise. If they couldn’t—if every thought and act was the output of a system they didn’t design—then responsibility isn’t invalid, but it must be redefined. It becomes forward-looking: not blame for what was, but problem-solving for what is and could be.

You call me authoritarian, yet I’m the one arguing against blind punishment, against moral fictions, against rituals of blame that mask our ignorance of cause. I’m the one urging us to build systems grounded in understanding, not vengeance. You're the one clinging to mythic accountability—because you find it comforting.

As for teaching children: we can—and should—teach them to own their actions, to strive, to improve. But we can do that without lying to them. We can show them how they’re shaped by their context and how to shape it in return. That’s not weakness. That’s clarity. That’s education that respects the truth.

And if my view makes you want to run for the hills, I suggest you ask yourself why. Because I’m not the one demanding belief in free-floating guilt. I’m the one saying: Let’s understand people deeply enough to actually help them.

That’s not sick. That’s sane.

[henry quirk]

What you mean is that you are a free person not that you are a 'free will'.

I am indeed a free person: a free will..

Now, be a good girl and stop tellin' me what I mean.

[henry quirk]

if people aren't free in the traditional sense—if their actions are caused—then blame becomes misguided. Punishment becomes cruel. And morality evolves into a system of understanding, prevention, and collective responsibility.

If this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is true then you can't blame the one who blames. His blaming is as caused as anything else. And if this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is true there is no morality to evolve, no understanding, no prevention, and no responsibility.

Roombas made of meat are still Roombas.