Hypothetically, science proves free will isn't real

[Neo-Scholastic]

For religious folks, would you pack it in?  If they, in the future, could map out 'decision making', and show it's got nothing to do with 'choosing', that pretty much is game over for the foundation of all major religions, right?

Hard determinism also undermines rationality. If thinkings follow inexorably from the initial conditions of the universe, then the conclusions need not have actual correspondence with reality, though they may appear to.

The unspoken premise of determinism is causal closure of this physical universe. That premise, while useful methodologically, has not been justified metaphysically. It rests fully on unsupported belief.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't get it. If hard determinism is true, and I believe it is, it's not just thinking that follows from the initial conditions of the universe, everything does. What's the problem? (Meaning what's the problem with that logically. I know you may not like the idea of it).

[Edwardo Piet]

There's no way hard determinism could ever undermine rationality because whether hard determinism is true or not, what we have always deemed to be the concept of rationality is the same either way.

If fatalism is true rationality is undermined. Fatalism is not true because choices still exist and are still part of the causal chain.

Soft determinism and hard determinism are identical on the outside. Soft determinism is belief that determinism is compatible with free will. Hard determinism is belief that determinism is incompatible with free will. Soft determinism is compatabilist determinism. Hard determinism is incompatabilist determinism.

The free will of compatabilism/soft determinism is undeniable. There is a difference between voluntary and involuntary actions and between a choice made with a gun to your head and a choice of what to have for breakfast, whether determinism is true or not.

Hard determinists don't accept soft determinism because they think compatabilism/soft determinism is trivally true and pointless and it doesn't address the question.

I'm a hard determinist but I'm not a fatalist. I'm a hard determinist because I'm not a soft determinist, not because I'm a silly fatalist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

There's no way hard determinism could ever undermine rationality because whether hard determinism is true or not, what we have always deemed to be the concept of rationality is the same either way.

You can't be serious. If you don't have any choice about what you think then your thoughts could be anything at all for no reason in particular.

[dyresand]

There's no way hard determinism could ever undermine rationality because whether hard determinism is true or not, what we have always deemed to be the concept of rationality is the same either way.

You can't be serious. If you don't have any choice about what you think then your thoughts could be anything at all for no reason in particular.

Choice is simply a illusion that be brain creates we simply think we have free choice we really don't.

[Edwardo Piet]

There's no way hard determinism could ever undermine rationality because whether hard determinism is true or not, what we have always deemed to be the concept of rationality is the same either way.

You can't be serious. If you don't have any choice about what you think then your thoughts could be anything at all for no reason in particular.

You don't understand determinism.

"No free choice" is not "no choice". Determinism is not fatalism. Our choices still exist and our will still exists whether our choices or will is free or not. Determinism means there is exactly one physically possible future at any given moment and there is but one causal chain with no possible alternatives. In other words: it means we cannot "do otherwsie". Fatalism is the denial of any choice at all by suggesting that determinism implies that we might as well give up and our choices don't matter "why get out of bed in the morning?" etc. It makes no sense because even if our decisions are determined, they still exist. It just means our decisions are part of the causal chain and not free, it does not mean they don't exist and do not matter. If I had not decided to write this post it would not have written itself, that does not mean that I decided to do it freely. I could be fully predetermined to decide to write this post but I still decided to write it.

I cannot possibly be serious? I am serious. And you can indeed possibly be serious too. In fact I have no doubt that you are. However, not only are you serious, you also seriously fail to grasp determinism and you're conflating it with fatalism.

[Angrboda]

There's no way hard determinism could ever undermine rationality because whether hard determinism is true or not, what we have always deemed to be the concept of rationality is the same either way.

You can't be serious. If you don't have any choice about what you think then your thoughts could be anything at all for no reason in particular.

A computer has no choice, but its behavior is perfectly logical. You're conflating determined reason with epiphenomenalism. That doesn't make any sense why you would think that one would imply the other.

[henryp]

For religious folks, would you pack it in?  If they, in the future, could map out 'decision making', and show it's got nothing to do with 'choosing', that pretty much is game over for the foundation of all major religions, right?

Hard determinism also undermines rationality. If thinkings follow inexorably from the initial conditions of the universe, then the conclusions need not have actual correspondence with reality, though they may appear to.

The unspoken premise of determinism is causal closure of this physical universe. That premise, while useful methodologically, has not been justified metaphysically. It rests fully on unsupported belief.

I don't follow.  Can't rational be an adjective.  A conclusion that does correspond is rational.  One that doesn't is irrational.  That the conclusions were reached inevitably doesn't really change their correctness/incorrectness.  Perhaps it depends on the perspective/context.  

A lousy computer program may make a terrible move on the chess board, even though it arrived at the move rationally through it's flawed programming.  But from the perspective/context of playing chess well, it would still be irrational to a 3rd party.

[Angrboda]

ra·tion·al

adjective
1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

[Whateverist]

Super late to the party but beginning any sentence with "hypothetically, science proves .." seems wrong headed. All that can even mean is science has tested a hypothesis and the best that can be determined by the means that have been conceived of with the materials available is ____ . So "prove" here just means tested, right? Shouldn't mix up logic/math terminology with empirical matters. Now I'm late to a July 4th party! (I'll come back ready to eat crow later.)