Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[FlashDangerpants]

Morality is also a large-scale mental phenomenon, that occurs in about 96% of humans. And it has been with us for hundreds of thousand of years or more, in this deterministic world.

Well that was all very well for those hundreds of thousands of years, but we're about to find out how much better it all is when you do away with the humanist notion that good boys and girls deserve treats, and bad boys and girls deserve spanks, because in the newly double plus perfected world, nobody actually chooses, so nobody deserves anything at all.

[Atla]

Morality is also a large-scale mental phenomenon, that occurs in about 96% of humans. And it has been with us for hundreds of thousand of years or more, in this deterministic world.

Well that was all very well for those hundreds of thousands of years, but we're about to find out how much better it all is when you do away with the humanist notion that good boys and girls deserve treats, and bad boys and girls deserve spanks, because in the newly double plus perfected world, nobody actually chooses, so nobody deserves anything at all.

I wish we could choose to adopt this ingenious new approach, but alas.. we can't make choices..

[BigMike]

If you are able to show an actual policy that would become possible only based on the determinism you are flogging, would you please get round at some point in time to telling us what it is?

Flash, here’s a concrete example: determinism opens the door for fully eliminating retributive justice in favor of restorative justice systems. Under determinism, punitive sentencing based on moral blame becomes obsolete, replaced by interventions designed purely to reduce harm and address root causes. This isn’t just tweaking existing policies—it’s a fundamental overhaul of why and how justice is administered, removing any basis for retribution entirely.

[BigMike]

I'd say that's already the practice in Europe. Not sure about the US.

You're right, Atla—many European countries have already embraced elements of this approach, focusing more on rehabilitation, prevention, and addressing root causes rather than pure retribution. The results speak for themselves: lower recidivism rates and safer societies. The U.S., on the other hand, often clings to a punitive model rooted in outdated notions of free will and personal blame. It’s time the U.S. caught up with evidence-based practices that prioritize reducing harm over satisfying moral outrage.

So you are saying here that because some European countries changed their approach then people are now choosing not to commit crimes that they would otherwise have committed? That doesn't sound very deterministic to me. I'm sceptical about any alleged lowering of crime rates anyway. There are many factors to take into account if that is indeed the case. I can't find any reliable statistics on this-- only conflicting ones.

Accelafine, an immaterial "will" cannot drive actions because it lacks any mechanism to interact with the physical world. Actions are caused by physical processes—neurons firing, hormones, and environmental factors—not some undefined, non-physical force. If crime rates change due to policy shifts, it’s because those policies alter the physical and social conditions that influence behavior, not because people magically "choose" differently. Determinism doesn’t deny complexity; it grounds it in causation.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you are able to show an actual policy that would become possible only based on the determinism you are flogging, would you please get round at some point in time to telling us what it is?

Flash, here’s a concrete example: determinism opens the door for fully eliminating retributive justice in favor of restorative justice systems. Under determinism, punitive sentencing based on moral blame becomes obsolete, replaced by interventions designed purely to reduce harm and address root causes. This isn’t just tweaking existing policies—it’s a fundamental overhaul of why and how justice is administered, removing any basis for retribution entirely.

So nothing that we haven't seen before. All you are offering is more of a thing that you happen to like.

What actually changes is that we come - if we fall under your influence - to stop believing that there are innocent people who deserve better than they do get, or bad people who deserve punishment. Don't forget to include all the things you are throwing away in your accounting please. Which all leads one to wonder why we would want all this justice, now that we don't deserve it?

[BigMike]

Flash, here’s a concrete example: determinism opens the door for fully eliminating retributive justice in favor of restorative justice systems. Under determinism, punitive sentencing based on moral blame becomes obsolete, replaced by interventions designed purely to reduce harm and address root causes. This isn’t just tweaking existing policies—it’s a fundamental overhaul of why and how justice is administered, removing any basis for retribution entirely.

So nothing that we haven't seen before. All you are offering is more of a thing that you happen to like.

What actually changes is that we come - if we fall under your influence - to stop believing that there are innocent people who deserve better than they do get, or bad people who deserve punishment. Don't forget to include all the things you are throwing away in your accounting please. Which all leads one to wonder why we would want all this justice, now that we don't deserve it?

What changes is the foundation of justice: it shifts from a subjective sense of "deserving" to an objective focus on reducing harm and improving outcomes. Concepts like "innocence" and "guilt" still have practical relevance, but they’re understood as states determined by causation, not moralistic judgments.

We don’t pursue justice because people "deserve" it in some metaphysical sense; we pursue it because it creates a safer and more equitable society. Determinism doesn’t devalue justice—it makes it more rational, effective, and humane by removing the arbitrary, retributive baggage. What’s discarded isn’t justice—it’s the illusion of free-will-based blame.

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, here’s a concrete example: determinism opens the door for fully eliminating retributive justice in favor of restorative justice systems. Under determinism, punitive sentencing based on moral blame becomes obsolete, replaced by interventions designed purely to reduce harm and address root causes. This isn’t just tweaking existing policies—it’s a fundamental overhaul of why and how justice is administered, removing any basis for retribution entirely.

So nothing that we haven't seen before. All you are offering is more of a thing that you happen to like.

What actually changes is that we come - if we fall under your influence - to stop believing that there are innocent people who deserve better than they do get, or bad people who deserve punishment. Don't forget to include all the things you are throwing away in your accounting please. Which all leads one to wonder why we would want all this justice, now that we don't deserve it?

What changes is the foundation of justice: it shifts from a subjective sense of "deserving" to an objective focus on reducing harm and improving outcomes. Concepts like "innocence" and "guilt" still have practical relevance, but they’re understood as states determined by causation, not moralistic judgments.

So no material change whatsoever, just a bunch of new marketing speak to describe things we already have but that you are trying to sell to us anyway.

We don’t pursue justice because people "deserve" it in some metaphysical sense; we pursue it because it creates a safer and more equitable society. Determinism doesn’t devalue justice—it makes it more rational, effective, and humane by removing the arbitrary, retributive baggage. What’s discarded isn’t justice—it’s the illusion of free-will-based blame.

Speak for yourself. Whoever the "we" is in that sentence doesn't include anybody I know.

[LuckyR]

Then comes the question of free will and quantum indeterminacy: Some argue that quantum randomness provides a basis for free will, but that’s not as liberating as it sounds. Randomness isn’t the same as agency. If your decisions were driven by quantum rolls of the dice, it wouldn’t feel like free will—it would feel like randomness, and that’s not satisfying philosophically or practically.

We don't need to guess how it feels, everything feels like we have Free Will. Every day everybody ponders this and that decision and "selects" this or that "choice". Exactly as if Free Will existed. It's only theorists who propose that choice is an illusion and that you were always going to choose A, never B or C. In other words that there is no real choice, meaning selecting between options that you can actually select.

LuckyR, I get it—free will feels real. It’s intuitive, and it’s baked into the way we experience life. But the fact that something feels real doesn’t make it true. Every day, the horizon feels flat, yet we know the Earth is round. The feeling of free will is no different; it’s an illusion created by the brain to simplify the complex, deterministic processes driving our decisions.

Here’s the thing: just because you perceive yourself making choices doesn’t mean those choices are free in any metaphysical sense. The act of pondering this or that option, weighing pros and cons, and eventually "selecting" one doesn’t prove free will. It just shows how your brain processes information, integrating prior causes—genetics, experiences, environment, and even what you had for breakfast—to reach a decision. That process, while complex, is fully determined by the laws of physics and biology.

You say, "Exactly as if free will existed." But that’s the point—it feels like free will, but when we dig deeper into the science, we see the illusion for what it is. Neuroscience shows that decisions are made in the brain before we’re even conscious of them. Physics operates under causality, where every effect has a cause. And quantum indeterminacy, for those clinging to it as a loophole, doesn’t save free will—it just adds randomness, which is no better for agency.

The crux of your argument seems to be that if we feel like we have free will, that’s good enough. But that’s like saying the Sun moves across the sky, so the Earth must be stationary. Intuition isn’t evidence. If we’re serious about understanding reality, we have to look past what “feels” true and follow the evidence—even when it’s uncomfortable. The fact that you experience life as if free will exists doesn’t prove its existence; it just underscores how compelling the illusion can be.

Well here's the thing. Even if proven to be true (which it hasn't), Determinism in decision making (currently) has no practical difference from a Free Will universe.

If there was going to be a difference, that difference would be the ability to predict human decision making (with 100% accuracy) through pre-knowledge of an individual's antecedent state.

Unfortunately for Determinists, the level of refinement required for such pre-knowledge is currently impossible and, in my opinion, will remain functionally beyond our reach essentially forever.

So in this proposed Determinist world, predicting human decisions will be better than random chance, yet well short of 100% accuracy... exactly like a Free Will universe would appear from the outside.

[BigMike]

What I think nobody here understands is that for free will to exist, it must somehow alter physical processes in the brain. But here’s the catch: physical things only change state when acted upon by a force—gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, or the weak nuclear force. These forces operate through exchanges: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, ensuring conservation of energy and momentum.

Here’s the critical part: these fundamental forces only act between material things with mass or electric charge. If free will were to exert influence, it would need to be part of this system—meaning it would have mass or charge and be subject to the same laws of physics. If that’s the case, it’s not "free" because it would also be pushed around by other forces.

On the other hand, if free will isn’t material—if it has no mass, charge, or measurable interaction—it has no means to affect the physical brain. It’s simply a non-starter. Either free will is bound by physical laws, or it’s incapable of doing anything. In both cases, it’s not the magical, independent force people like to imagine.

[Immanuel Can]

...here’s the catch: physical things only change state when acted upon by a force—gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, or the weak nuclear force.

Here's the problem, Mike: what you are doing right at this minute proves that human volition is a different case from mere physical phenomena.

What you are trying to do is to introduce an idea (Determinism), which will change cognitions (which are not physical), and then will cause your audience to think differently, then to make physical alterations to their bodies, and then to the world, through email (as in, to type "I agree with you, Mike," or "I see now.") Those physical changes will be initiated entirely by a change of cognition -- one you are hoping to induce with nothing more than the proposing of an idea.

So the question your objection begs is simply this: is volition a normal case of physical causation, or are cognitions capable of initiating causal chains, even those that may alter things in the physical world?

And the answer you actually believe, as evidenced by your attempt to argue, is that ideas can influence cognitions, and cognitions can result in alterations to behaviour, and behaviours can alter other things in physical reality.

But here's the irony: while you promote this idea of yours, you still haven't really told yourself what you actually believe. You're acting as if ideas and cognitions can commence a physical-causal alteration, even while declaring that they cannot, and that only physical phenomena can do it.

So a better header for this thread might be, "Why do the Determinists Reject the Causal Power of Cognition, While Simultaneously Embracing It for Their Argument?"

[Alexiev]

What changes is the foundation of justice: it shifts from a subjective sense of "deserving" to an objective focus on reducing harm and improving outcomes. Concepts like "innocence" and "guilt" still have practical relevance, but they’re understood as states determined by causation, not moralistic judgments.

We don’t pursue justice because people "deserve" it in some metaphysical sense; we pursue it because it creates a safer and more equitable society. Determinism doesn’t devalue justice—it makes it more rational, effective, and humane by removing the arbitrary, retributive baggage. What’s discarded isn’t justice—it’s the illusion of free-will-based blame.

This kind of "justice" has been tried. For the good of the state and its citizens we must send all the counter-revolutionaries to the gulags. These folks may not have done anything wrong -- but that's irrelevant. By eliminating them, we will create a "safer and more equitable society."

"Justice" means treating people according to their deserts. There is no justice in your world view.

In addition, saying "thank you for passing the salt" would be irrational.

[henry quirk]

There are more things in heaven and earth, my dear compatibilist friend who thinks he's a determinist, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[BigMike]

There are more things in heaven and earth, my dear compatibilist friend who thinks he's a determinist, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Henry, quoting Shakespeare doesn’t magically make your argument valid. “More things in heaven and earth”? Please. That’s just a poetic way of saying, “I have no evidence or logic to counter your point, so I’ll retreat into vague metaphysics.” If you have a concrete rebuttal, bring it. Otherwise, spare us the theatrics and engage with the reality that determinism is grounded in evidence, while your appeals to mystical "more things" are nothing but wishful thinking dressed up as profundity.

[BigMike]

What changes is the foundation of justice: it shifts from a subjective sense of "deserving" to an objective focus on reducing harm and improving outcomes. Concepts like "innocence" and "guilt" still have practical relevance, but they’re understood as states determined by causation, not moralistic judgments.

We don’t pursue justice because people "deserve" it in some metaphysical sense; we pursue it because it creates a safer and more equitable society. Determinism doesn’t devalue justice—it makes it more rational, effective, and humane by removing the arbitrary, retributive baggage. What’s discarded isn’t justice—it’s the illusion of free-will-based blame.

This kind of "justice" has been tried. For the good of the state and its citizens we must send all the counter-revolutionaries to the gulags. These folks may not have done anything wrong -- but that's irrelevant. By eliminating them, we will create a "safer and more equitable society."

"Justice" means treating people according to their deserts. There is no justice in your world view.

In addition, saying "thank you for passing the salt" would be irrational.

Alexiev, your comment is an embarrassing display of intellectual laziness and an unwillingness to engage seriously with the topic at hand. Dragging out tired, irrelevant comparisons to gulags and totalitarianism shows that you’ve completely missed the point—or worse, you’re deliberately avoiding it.

Justice in a deterministic framework is about reducing harm and addressing causes, not punishing people for some mythical "desert" based on free will. Your clinging to the concept of "desert" is nothing more than clinging to a primitive, retributive mindset that has repeatedly proven ineffective and unjust.

As for your nonsensical jab about "passing the salt," it’s just another tired attempt to derail the conversation. Saying "thank you" isn’t irrational in a deterministic world; it’s a social behavior shaped by cause and effect, reinforcing cooperative relationships. If you can’t grasp that, maybe you should spend less time making irrelevant quips and more time trying to understand the actual argument being made. Your resistance to reason is wearing thin.

[BigMike]

Here's the problem, Mike: what you are doing right at this minute proves that human volition is a different case from mere physical phenomena.

What you are trying to do is to introduce an idea (Determinism), which will change cognitions (which are not physical), and then will cause your audience to think differently, then to make physical alterations to their bodies, and then to the world, through email (as in, to type "I agree with you, Mike," or "I see now.") Those physical changes will be initiated entirely by a change of cognition -- one you are hoping to induce with nothing more than the proposing of an idea.

So the question your objection begs is simply this: is volition a normal case of physical causation, or are cognitions capable of initiating causal chains, even those that may alter things in the physical world?

And the answer you actually believe, as evidenced by your attempt to argue, is that ideas can influence cognitions, and cognitions can result in alterations to behaviour, and behaviours can alter other things in physical reality.

But here's the irony: while you promote this idea of yours, you still haven't really told yourself what you actually believe. You're acting as if ideas and cognitions can commence a physical-causal alteration, even while declaring that they cannot, and that only physical phenomena can do it.

So a better header for this thread might be, "Why do the Determinists Reject the Causal Power of Cognition, While Simultaneously Embracing It for Their Argument?"

Immanuel, your response completely misses the point. Cognitions are not immaterial; they are the result of physical processes in the brain—neural activity governed by the laws of physics. When I propose an idea, it is conveyed through a physical medium—language—that your brain processes via sensory input. That input triggers a cascade of neural activity, all dictated by electrochemical interactions. Nothing about this process requires an immaterial "volition."

The fact that ideas can influence behavior doesn’t contradict determinism—it proves it. Your brain reacts to stimuli (like my argument) in a deterministic manner, just as mine does when I construct a response. The "causal power of cognition" you invoke isn’t some magical force—it’s the deterministic firing of neurons responding to inputs.

So no, I’m not contradicting myself. What I "believe" is entirely consistent with the evidence: ideas are physical phenomena encoded in material processes, not immaterial agents breaking the laws of physics. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to explain how your immaterial volition interacts with the brain without violating conservation laws. Spoiler: you can’t, because free will is a non-starter.