Philosophy Now Forum

It's a question that never fails to fascinate and frustrate in equal measure. Why is it that religious adherents, who often champion their beliefs as rooted in truth, so vehemently reject scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview? Take determinism, for instance. Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws. There’s no room for free will in this framework. Every thought, every action, every choice we believe we make is a product of these deterministic processes.

And yet, so many religious doctrines cling to the idea of free will as if it’s a gift from their deity, a cornerstone of moral responsibility. But let’s face it: free will, as traditionally understood, is about as plausible as a flat Earth. It defies the very laws of physics and neuroscience.

Why, then, does this cognitive dissonance persist? Could it be that religious institutions thrive on the illusion of free will because it allows them to enforce moral codes, assign blame, and justify eternal rewards or punishments? After all, a deterministic universe leaves no room for sin, no room for divine judgment, and no room for the comforting, if delusional, notion that we control our destiny.

Let’s unpack this. How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws? Why do they resist scientific findings, like the absence of free will, that challenge these beliefs? And what does it say about the human condition that so many prefer comforting illusions to uncomfortable truths?

I’d love to hear your thoughts—especially if you think there’s a way to bridge this gap between religious belief and scientific reality.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 6:59 pm ...

There is no conflict between the two world-views; not only that. Strict scientific materialism is demonstrably insufficient for complex domains.
The biggest lie New Atheism told us is that you have to choose. If you want some thought-provoking ideas on where to begin reconciliation start with this video: https://youtu.be/0f-dxVpF728?si=eJR4NEhKsKTIrGSJ

There's also no issue with free will. The current scientific paradigm happens to be grounded in determinism, but so what? It's just a paradigm - every paradigm has dogmas. The entire scientific enterprise can be reconstructed on a non-deterministic foundation. Obviously it'll take a lot of work. Non-determinism has strong hold in computer scientific circles; and this is rubbing of on our Mathematics/physics too.

Many of our most advanced tools for understanding complex systems (like neural networks, quantum computers, and probabilistic algorithms) explicitly embrace non-determinism rather than trying to eliminate it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

This is also why we have complexity theory; and complexity science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

Reality is complex enough to require multiple complementary frameworks of understanding. Religion simply excells at crafting heuristics that are easy to swallow for your average person. It's simply not socially scalable to have every person grok every scientific domain. Society needs functional ways to operate without everyone being an expert.

Religion can package complex ideas into memorable stories/rituals; craft emotional/intuitive understanding vs purely intellectual
It provides social structures for transmitting knowledge and easily scales across different education/capability levels.

That's why science will always be subservient to religion in any functioning society. Scientific knowledge will always be appropriated into religious discourse. Meaning-making supervenes on truth.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 9:17 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 6:59 pm ...

There is no conflict between the two world-views; not only that. Strict scientific materialism is demonstrably insufficient for complex domains.
The biggest lie New Atheism told us is that you have to choose. If you want some thought-provoking ideas on where to begin reconciliation start with this video: https://youtu.be/0f-dxVpF728?si=eJR4NEhKsKTIrGSJ

There's also no issue with free will. The current scientific paradigm happens to be grounded in determinism, but so what? It's just a paradigm - every paradigm has dogmas. The entire scientific enterprise can be reconstructed on a non-deterministic foundation. Obviously it'll take a lot of work. Non-determinism has strong hold in computer scientific circles; and this is rubbing of on our Mathematics/physics too.

Many of our most advanced tools for understanding complex systems (like neural networks, quantum computers, and probabilistic algorithms) explicitly embrace non-determinism rather than trying to eliminate it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

This is also why we have complexity theory; and complexity science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

Reality is complex enough to require multiple complementary frameworks of understanding. Religion simply excells at crafting heuristics that are easy to swallow for your average person. It's simply not socially scalable to have every person grok every scientific domain. Society needs functional ways to operate without everyone being an expert.

Religion can package complex ideas into memorable stories/rituals; craft emotional/intuitive understanding vs purely intellectual
It provides social structures for transmitting knowledge and easily scales across different education/capability levels.

That's why science will always be subservient to religion in any functioning society. Scientific knowledge will always be appropriated into religious discourse. Meaning-making supervenes on truth.

Let’s get one thing straight right out of the gate: religion is the original perpetrator of pseudoscience, and its defenders cling to outdated, absurd, and laughable ideas like free will because their entire worldview crumbles without it. But the notion of free will—this magical, causeless agency that lets people "freely" choose between good and evil—is so fundamentally at odds with the basic principles of physics and neuroscience that it’s like believing the Earth is flat or that angels push the planets around in their orbits.

Now, to Skepdick’s point, you say there’s no issue with free will because determinism is just a “paradigm,” right? Sure, let’s roll with that idea. A paradigm grounded in centuries of empirical evidence, mathematical rigor, and predictive power, versus what? A theological fantasy conjured up to make humans feel special in a universe that couldn’t care less about their delusions of grandeur.

You bring up non-determinism in quantum computing, neural networks, and the like as if it supports your argument. But here’s the kicker: none of these systems suggest a universe where agency or free will operates independently of causality. Probabilistic algorithms and quantum mechanics still work within structured, deterministic frameworks at larger scales. You want to invoke the Free Will Theorem? Sure, but have you actually read it? It doesn’t rescue the incoherent mess that is the religious belief in moral responsibility or the idea of a god who judges freely willed choices. All it tells us is that certain interpretations of quantum mechanics might involve unpredictable outcomes—none of which translates to magical “freedom” in human decision-making.

But let’s not lose sight of the real absurdity here: religion needs free will to exist because it’s the lynchpin of sin, guilt, salvation, and divine punishment. Without free will, there’s no original sin. No heaven. No hell. Just humans as biological machines, executing deterministic processes—neurons firing, synapses connecting—all of it governed by the same physical laws that move the stars. Religion crumbles without this illusion because its entire moral framework is built on assigning blame for choices no one actually makes.

So, let’s stop pretending there’s any intellectual parity here. Religious belief is the childish grasping for meaning in a world that operates without it, a desperate attempt to inject mysticism where science provides clarity. And free will? It’s the fairy tale adults tell themselves when they’re too scared to confront the deterministic reality of their existence.

Now, Skepdick, if you really believe that religion and science can coexist, or that free will is anything more than a comforting delusion, I’d love to hear your evidence. And no, Wikipedia links don’t count. Let’s see some actual science, not philosophical word salads designed to protect fragile egos from the cold, hard truth.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 9:44 pm ...

The gaping chasm of your ignorance cannot be resolved with evidence.

You don't even understand the fact that scientific data only becomes evidence once interpreted through a philosophical lens. Raw data is not evidence.

All the evidence one needs is the fact that a choice exists. You can choose to believe in free will; or you can choose not to believe in free will.

You are simply wrong. And it's going to take you a veeeery long time to understand why. Start now...

P.S modern physics doesn't reject free will. The Axiom of Choice is built into ALL the mathematics used by physicists. So when a physicist tells you they reject free will - I simply call them out for lying. In using Mathematics to model physical laws they implictly accept the existence of choice functions.

You can't coherently use mathematics based on choice to prove choice doesn't exist.

When I shared what you have written with the faerie who lives in my garden she said “God bless Shepdick!”

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 9:48 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 9:44 pm ...

The gaping chasm of your ignorance cannot be resolved with evidence.

You don't even understand the fact that scientific data only becomes evidence once interpreted through a philosophical lens. Raw data is not evidence.

All the evidence one needs is the fact that a choice exists. You can choose to believe in free will; or you can choose not to believe in free will.

You are simply wrong. And it's going to take you a veeeery long time to understand why. Start now...

Skepdick, I’ve got to hand it to you—your ability to construct a defense of free will with such staggering obliviousness is almost impressive. Almost. Let’s pick apart this masterpiece of self-defeating logic, shall we?

First, your claim that scientific data "only becomes evidence once interpreted through a philosophical lens" is laughable. Data becomes evidence when it supports or refutes a hypothesis—no mystical "philosophical lens" required. Do you honestly think that when scientists observe neurons firing or particles interacting, they pause to consult Aristotle before deciding if it’s real? The laws of physics don’t care about your philosophical musings. They just *are*. Your statement betrays a profound misunderstanding of how science works and reeks of someone desperate to sound profound while dodging the obvious.

Now, your pièce de résistance: "All the evidence one needs is the fact that a choice exists." Bravo, really. This is where you spectacularly miss the point. The illusion of choice does not prove free will exists; it proves your brain is exceptionally good at convincing itself of lies. Every “choice” you think you make is a product of deterministic processes—neuronal firings shaped by genetics, environment, and prior events. You are a biological machine running a program you didn’t write. And just like the gears in a clock don’t decide to tick, you don’t decide anything.

Your logic is so circular it could power a Ferris wheel. "You can choose to believe in free will, or you can choose not to." That’s not evidence for free will—it’s evidence that you don’t understand causation. Beliefs aren’t plucked out of thin air; they arise from deterministic processes in the brain. Your environment, experiences, and the current state of your neurons dictate what you believe. You didn’t choose to misunderstand free will any more than I chose to demolish your argument. It’s all physics, baby.

And then, the cherry on top: “You are simply wrong.” A statement so rich in irony it deserves a standing ovation. You don’t get to accuse others of ignorance while demonstrating a level of intellectual dishonesty that would make a flat-earther blush. You haven’t offered a shred of evidence for free will—just wordplay masquerading as profundity. It’s embarrassing.

So, here’s the deal, Skepdick. If you want to defend free will, bring something to the table besides philosophical handwaving and tautologies. Until then, I’ll keep enjoying this deterministic universe where your every misguided argument was inevitable. At least that’s something we can agree on: you were destined to be wrong.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 6:59 pm Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws.

Science cannot discover that which it assumes as an axiom in order to get going, and because we are sophisticated philosophers on this forum and we don't subscribe to circular arguments.

Any number of explanations can made to fit the available evidence. Your take that science offers the best explanations, and that competing ones presented by the many religions or perhaps solipsistic delusion is another presumed axiom. It's a starting point, not factually provable, it is really just a choice that you have made.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:02 pm Skepdick, I’ve got to hand it to you—your ability to construct a defense of free will with such staggering obliviousness is almost impressive. Almost. Let’s pick apart this masterpiece of self-defeating logic, shall we?

You don't even understand who's busy self-defeating here.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:02 pm First, your claim that scientific data "only becomes evidence once interpreted through a philosophical lens" is laughable. Data becomes evidence when it supports or refutes a hypothesis—no mystical "philosophical lens" required.

The philosophical lens is literally that which synthesizes the hypotheses being tested. It's that which determines which outcomes support a hypothesis; and which undermine it.

All of that is subject to philosophical choices made by the scientist.

I don't see this dialogue as being productive.. you don't even have a clue what science is or how to do it.

You are operating from two fundamental misconceptions. One of them is that you've chosen to believe you are right.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:13 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 6:59 pm Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws.

Science cannot discover that which it assumes as an axiom in order to get going, and because we are sophisticated philosophers on this forum and we don't subscribe to circular arguments.

Any number of explanations can made to fit the available evidence. Your take that science offers the best explanations, and that competing ones presented by the many religions or perhaps solipsistic delusion is another presumed axiom. It's a starting point, not factually provable, it is really just a choice that you have made.

Ah, the classic move of religious apologetics: when faced with the elegance of science, you accuse it of circular reasoning. Let’s dismantle this step by step, shall we?

Science, my friend, doesn’t "assume" the principles of the physical universe as axioms without reason. It discovers and refines its understanding of those principles through empirical evidence and experimentation. When Newton proposed his laws of motion, he didn’t assume them into existence. He observed patterns in nature, tested hypotheses, and formulated predictive laws that were later verified repeatedly. The same goes for Einstein’s theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, and the stunning achievements of modern neuroscience. Science doesn’t start with a "choice"; it starts with reality.

Contrast this with religion. Religion does begin with arbitrary axioms—assumptions like "God exists," "souls are real," or "humans have free will"—and then attempts to twist reality to fit these claims. There’s no evidence for these axioms, no rigorous testing, no predictive capability. It’s just a game of “believe this because it feels good,” and frankly, it’s embarrassing that anyone over the age of 12 still buys into this intellectual garbage.

And what about your suggestion that "any number of explanations can fit the available evidence"? Sure, if by “explanations,” you include unprovable, incoherent nonsense like "God wills it" or "it’s all in our minds." But here's the thing: the strength of an explanation isn’t just that it fits the evidence—it’s that it also provides predictive power, coherence, and replicability. Religion does none of these things. It merely clings to ancient myths and metaphysical fluff while claiming immunity from the same scrutiny applied to everything else.

Let’s also address your bizarre claim that choosing science over religion is a "presumed axiom." No, it’s not. Science is the methodical pursuit of knowledge through observation and reason. It produces results that work—planes fly, medicine heals, and we’ve sent robots to other planets. Religion produces platitudes and fairy tales about the afterlife while actively obstructing human progress. Choosing science over religion isn’t a matter of axioms; it’s a matter of not being intellectually bankrupt.

So let’s drop the pretentious sophistry and get real: science is not a “choice”; it’s a proven method for understanding the universe. Religion, on the other hand, is a stubborn refusal to grow up and face reality. The fact that you’re still trying to argue for the validity of free will or the plausibility of religious “explanations” in the 21st century just underscores how deeply irrational faith can be.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:24 pm Science, my friend, doesn’t "assume" the principles of the physical universe as axioms without reason.

The assumption that the universe operates on immutable/deterministic principles is without reason.

Not only that, it's a theistic assumption. The belief in a divine law-giver gave rise to the belief in cosmic order and discoverable laws. This is historically suported in the writings of Newton, Kepler etc.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:15 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:02 pm Skepdick, I’ve got to hand it to you—your ability to construct a defense of free will with such staggering obliviousness is almost impressive. Almost. Let’s pick apart this masterpiece of self-defeating logic, shall we?

You don't even understand who's busy self-defeating here.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:02 pm First, your claim that scientific data "only becomes evidence once interpreted through a philosophical lens" is laughable. Data becomes evidence when it supports or refutes a hypothesis—no mystical "philosophical lens" required.

The philosophical lens is literally that which synthesizes the hypotheses being tested. It's that which determines which outcomes support a hypothesis; and which undermine it.

All of that is subject to philosophical choices made by the scientist.

I don't see this dialogue as being productive.. you don't even have a clue what science is or how to do it.

You are operating from two fundamental misconceptions. One of them is that you've chosen to believe you are right.

Skepdick, your latest word salad is so deeply marinated in sophistry it should be served with a side of shame. Let’s clear the fog of self-righteousness and tackle your drivel head-on.

First, this "philosophical lens" nonsense. You’re arguing that hypotheses and evidence are somehow dependent on subjective philosophical choices, as if science is some whimsical art form. Wrong. Science operates on empirical observation and predictive consistency. The "philosophical lens" you’re so enamored with is nothing more than the application of logic—something you seem to confuse with your own intellectual gymnastics. A hypothesis is tested through experimentation, not by consulting a crystal ball of personal philosophical musings.

You’re trying to mystify a process that is grounded in cold, hard reality. Scientists don’t “choose” what supports a hypothesis. The data does. It’s like claiming gravity depends on your "philosophical preference" for objects to fall down instead of up. No, it doesn’t. Gravity happens. Data happens. And if you’re too entrenched in pseudo-intellectualism to grasp this, you’re not equipped to discuss science at all.

Now, the pièce de résistance: “You’ve chosen to believe you are right.” Oh, the irony. You accuse others of self-defeating reasoning while making the most laughably self-defeating argument imaginable. Let’s dissect it. If belief is a choice, as you assert, what informed that choice? Did you flip a coin? No, you didn’t. Your so-called “choice” was shaped by your environment, experiences, and neurological processes—none of which you control. You’re a deterministic machine like the rest of us, Skepdick, no matter how loudly you stomp your feet about “free will.”

You cling to this absurd notion of choice because it props up your fragile ego, giving you the illusion that you’re the master of your fate. But the truth is simpler—and far less flattering. Your thoughts and actions, like everyone else’s, are the inevitable result of deterministic processes. You’re not special, and neither is your argument.

Here’s the kicker: your refusal to acknowledge determinism doesn’t make you free; it makes you blind. Blind to the evidence, blind to reason, and blind to the fact that you’re the perfect example of why bad philosophy is a danger to good science. So spare us your pseudo-profound rants and step back into the reality you so desperately try to avoid.

The truth isn’t up for debate, Skepdick. Free will is a myth, determinism is fact, and you’re a walking testament to how stubbornly humans cling to comforting delusions when faced with uncomfortable truths.

Your move. But let’s be honest—it won’t really be your choice.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:29 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:24 pm Science, my friend, doesn’t "assume" the principles of the physical universe as axioms without reason.

The assumption that the universe operates on immutable/deterministic principles is without reason.

Not only that, it's a theistic assumption. The belief in a divine law-giver gave rise to the belief in cosmic order and discoverable laws. This is historically suported in the writings of Newton, Kepler etc.

Ah, Skepdick, thank you for today’s installment of "How to Embarrass Yourself with Pseudo-Intellectualism." Your claim that the assumption of deterministic principles is “without reason” is not only wrong—it’s hilariously ironic coming from someone using technology built entirely on those very principles. But let’s not let facts get in the way of your mental gymnastics, shall we?

First, let’s address your howler of a statement: that belief in a deterministic universe is a “theistic assumption.” It’s astonishing how you manage to pack so much ignorance into so few words. Determinism isn’t derived from theology; it’s derived from evidence. From Newton’s laws of motion to quantum mechanics, science demonstrates that the universe operates on consistent, testable principles. These aren’t divine decrees—they’re observations of reality. Your attempt to credit religion for scientific progress is like thanking astrology for the moon landing.

And let’s talk about those historical figures you’re so eager to cite: Newton, Kepler, and the like. Yes, many early scientists were theists. Why? Because in their era, religion was the default worldview—it was practically unavoidable. But the scientific method they pioneered is not religious. It’s a systematic rejection of faith-based thinking in favor of empirical observation and falsifiability. If anything, the history of science is a story of breaking free from religious dogma, not embracing it.

Here’s the rub: religion didn’t give us the laws of physics; it tried to obscure them. Galileo was persecuted by the Church for daring to suggest that the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe. The same theistic institutions you’re crediting actively suppressed scientific inquiry for centuries. The discovery of deterministic principles wasn’t a triumph of religion—it was a triumph despite religion.

And let’s not forget the absolute absurdity of invoking a "divine law-giver." You’re essentially arguing that the universe’s order requires a celestial babysitter to keep it from descending into chaos. How quaint. The idea that physics needs a deity is as laughable as saying your computer only works because Bill Gates is personally ensuring that your ones and zeroes behave themselves.

So, Skepdick, here’s the bottom line: the principles of the universe are immutable because they’re grounded in observable, testable reality—not the fever dreams of ancient mystics. Determinism isn’t a theistic relic; it’s a cornerstone of modern science, upheld by centuries of evidence and experimentation. If you want to cling to the fantasy that a god is hiding behind every atom, that’s your choice—or rather, it’s the inevitable outcome of your deterministic ignorance. But don’t expect the rest of us to take you seriously.

Enjoy your theological daydreams. We’ll be over here, in the real world, building spaceships and curing diseases without the need for invisible sky wizards.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:24 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:13 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 6:59 pm Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws.

Science cannot discover that which it assumes as an axiom in order to get going, and because we are sophisticated philosophers on this forum and we don't subscribe to circular arguments.

Any number of explanations can made to fit the available evidence. Your take that science offers the best explanations, and that competing ones presented by the many religions or perhaps solipsistic delusion is another presumed axiom. It's a starting point, not factually provable, it is really just a choice that you have made.

Ah, the classic move of religious apologetics: when faced with the elegance of science, you accuse it of circular reasoning.

I'm not in the least bit religious. Elegance is neither here nor there.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:24 pm Let’s dismantle this step by step, shall we?

OK. Let's see how many steps it takes you to trip over your boundless arrogance.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:24 pm Science, my friend, doesn’t "assume" the principles of the physical universe as axioms without reason. It discovers and refines its understanding of those principles through empirical evidence and experimentation. When Newton proposed his laws of motion, he didn’t assume them into existence. He observed patterns in nature, tested hypotheses, and formulated predictive laws that were later verified repeatedly. The same goes for Einstein’s theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, and the stunning achievements of modern neuroscience. Science doesn’t start with a "choice"; it starts with reality.

Newton did not empirically study the other side of the universe to make sure that objects behave over there the way they do on this side. He did not time travel to see the first milliseconds of existence to see how matter behaves in such different circumstances. We apply the laws of nature to places unseen and unseeable because we make use of that axiomatic assumption, which is adopted on the grounds that it is necessary to suppose such in order to use the concept of laws of nature. Nothing we do observe shows us that we are correct in assuming anything about things we do not observe.

You are even spewing axioms of your own, something to do with laws of conservation, and applying them with absolute religious abandon to all sorts of questionable stuff.

But the real point I am trying to drive through your skull here is that if you are going to be in the business of making predictive laws, you will be depending upon the axiom that predictive laws are applicable. This shouldn't be very controversial, any serious philosopher of science is going to make the same point, what I am writing here is incredibly normal and not remotely original. I am not even positing anything Kuhnian where the axioms are mobile and get shuffled around due to paradigm shifts.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:24 pm Contrast this with religion. Religion does begin with arbitrary axioms—assumptions like "God exists," "souls are real," or "humans have free will"—and then attempts to twist reality to fit these claims. There’s no evidence for these axioms, no rigorous testing, no predictive capability. It’s just a game of “believe this because it feels good,” and frankly, it’s embarrassing that anyone over the age of 12 still buys into this intellectual garbage.

And you're down. The axioms thing by itself was enough to end your run at the first step. But anyway, the religious counter-explanation to your axiomatic assumption that all things in the universe are the result of local in-universe causes can include but need not be restricted to an additional option such as out-universe causation. In the form of a God or a demon whose existence predates the universe and who can reach into it and change things. You have chosen not to allow for this option, but your counterpart has probably chosen it, or something like it. There is nothing within your possible scope of argument that will overcome this choice unless you become persuasive, but it's not looking good tbh.

The axioms that require that all events in this universe must be the result of causes within this universe are not automatically superior to the axioms which allow for the universe itself to be the result of an external cause with ongoing powers to alter and prod the contents therein.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:24 pm And what about your suggestion that "any number of explanations can fit the available evidence"? Sure, if by “explanations,” you include unprovable, incoherent nonsense like "God wills it" or "it’s all in our minds." But here's the thing: the strength of an explanation isn’t just that it fits the evidence—it’s that it also provides predictive power, coherence, and replicability. Religion does none of these things. It merely clings to ancient myths and metaphysical fluff while claiming immunity from the same scrutiny applied to everything else.

None of that is actually important. If the truth about the universe is that it cannot be predicted accurately using the laws of physics due to interference by an unobservable external party, then that would just be the truth of the matter. Not satisfying your personal desire for predictive power and coherence is neither here nor there. You are arguing from emotions which is odd given the circumstances of your claims.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:24 pm Let’s also address your bizarre claim that choosing science over religion is a "presumed axiom." No, it’s not. Science is the methodical pursuit of knowledge through observation and reason. It produces results that work—planes fly, medicine heals, and we’ve sent robots to other planets. Religion produces platitudes and fairy tales about the afterlife while actively obstructing human progress. Choosing science over religion isn’t a matter of axioms; it’s a matter of not being intellectually bankrupt.

I don't really know what to do with that slice of diatribe. Are you familiar with Descartes and the whole malicious demon thing? If so you you know well enough why you must accept the point that everything you have described can equally be explained by means of deception or misunderstanding, so there's nothing for you to gain by giving me this grief. If not, then you really aren't qualified to be this condescending and you need to switch to more of a learning mode.

No matter what though, you need to read better philosophers of science, you have a childishly simplistic take on that field. I am not really into phil of sci and even I can see you are miles out of your depth here.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:24 pm So let’s drop the pretentious sophistry and get real: science is not a “choice”; it’s a proven method for understanding the universe. Religion, on the other hand, is a stubborn refusal to grow up and face reality. The fact that you’re still trying to argue for the validity of free will or the plausibility of religious “explanations” in the 21st century just underscores how deeply irrational faith can be.

Sadly, that is pure sophistry.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 11:50 pm

FlashDangerpants, your attempt at intellectual smugness is as impressive as watching someone confidently play chess without understanding how the pieces move. Let’s break this down and expose the absurdity at every level.

First, your claim that “science assumes the principles of the physical universe as axioms” is a tired trope of people who don’t understand how science works. Science doesn’t “assume” the universe behaves consistently—it observes it. The principles of physics weren’t plucked from a metaphysical void; they’re derived from repeatable, observable phenomena. If you drop an apple, it falls—every time, no exceptions. This isn’t an “axiom” in the philosophical sense; it’s an empirical fact, confirmed over centuries of observation. Newton didn’t assume gravity existed; he explained it based on evidence. Contrast this with religion, which assumes invisible, unprovable forces and then demands belief without evidence.

Your next move—the “Newton didn’t study the other side of the universe” gambit—is just embarrassing. Are you genuinely arguing that the consistency of physical laws across the observable universe is somehow invalid because we haven’t directly measured everything? Newsflash: the predictive success of physical laws across countless experiments and technologies is a stronger validation than your philosophical armchair musings. If the laws of physics weren’t consistent, you wouldn’t be typing on a computer powered by those same principles.

Then we have your laughable suggestion that axioms allowing for an external, supernatural cause are somehow “equal” to those rooted in observable, testable phenomena. Let’s put that to the test. Science builds planes that fly, medicines that save lives, and technologies that explore other planets. Religion, with its “external cause” axiom, gives us what? Ghost stories, platitudes, and a historical track record of obstructing progress. There’s no contest here. Science wins because it works. Your precious “external cause” axiom contributes nothing but metaphysical fluff.

Now, about your insistence that explanations with no predictive power are somehow valid. No, they’re not. Predictive power isn’t an emotional preference—it’s the litmus test of any explanation’s validity. If a claim can’t predict outcomes or withstand scrutiny, it’s not an explanation; it’s wishful thinking. Your “God did it” or “the universe is unpredictable” hypothesis fails because it explains nothing and predicts even less. It’s intellectual laziness dressed up as deep thought.

Finally, your condescending jab about “malicious demons” and Descartes only highlights your desperation. The “evil demon” thought experiment is a mental exercise in doubt, not a license to reject empirical evidence. If you genuinely think Descartes’ skepticism undermines science, you’ve missed the point entirely. Science thrives precisely because it tests, refines, and challenges assumptions. Religion, on the other hand, hides behind dogma and declares itself immune to scrutiny. There’s no equivalence here—only a glaring divide between reason and the childish refusal to grow up.

So, FlashDangerpants, let’s get real. Your defense of religious nonsense or external causation isn’t philosophical sophistication—it’s sophistry wrapped in pretension. Science doesn’t need your approval to continue curing diseases, exploring the cosmos, and revealing the universe’s truths. Meanwhile, religion clings to outdated fairy tales and shrinks in relevance with every passing discovery.

If you want to play philosopher, at least bring an argument that doesn’t collapse under the weight of its own absurdity. Otherwise, you’re just a loud distraction in the 21st-century march toward progress.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2024 12:14 am This isn’t an “axiom” in the philosophical sense; it’s an empirical fact

You obviously don't understand what that means.