Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

This isn’t an “axiom” in the philosophical sense; it’s an empirical fact

You obviously don't understand what that means.

Science Doesn’t Need Axioms—That’s Why It Works

FlashDangerpants, your smug one-liners are as hollow as the arguments you’re trying to prop up. Let me break this down for you since you clearly don’t understand what science actually is. Science doesn’t deal in axioms, at least not in the sense you’re trying to force into the conversation. Math and logic operate on axioms—statements assumed to be true to build deductive systems. Science, on the other hand, is an inductive enterprise that doesn’t assume universal truths but works to eliminate falsehoods through observation and experimentation.

Let me spell it out: science starts with hypotheses—testable, falsifiable ideas about how the universe works. These aren’t “axioms” plucked from thin air. They’re based on observed phenomena. Scientists don’t assume gravity works the same everywhere; they test it. And when the same results hold across countless experiments, you get a theory—a robust framework that explains and predicts phenomena. It’s not about axiomatic certainty; it’s about probabilistic confidence built on evidence.

Now, here’s the kicker: science doesn’t “prove” anything. It disproves falsehoods. Every scientific theory is open to revision or replacement when new evidence emerges. That’s why it works. Contrast this with religion, which clings to unchanging dogma and demands belief without evidence. Science says, “This works until proven otherwise.” Religion says, “Believe this forever, no questions allowed.” See the difference?

Your insistence that science operates on axioms like a religious belief system is not only wrong—it’s laughably ignorant. Science is designed to avoid the trap of unquestioned assumptions. It’s a self-correcting process that actively seeks out flaws, while religion doubles down on its errors and calls it faith.

So when you say, “You obviously don’t understand what that means,” you’re projecting. What you don’t understand is that science’s strength lies precisely in its refusal to rely on axioms. It doesn’t declare ultimate truths; it builds working models of reality through constant testing and refinement. Religion, on the other hand, insists it’s already found the answers, despite having no method for verifying anything.

Let’s be honest here: your argument is nothing more than a desperate attempt to drag science down to the level of religion. But it doesn’t work, because science delivers results. It explains the world, cures diseases, and sends probes to other planets. Religion delivers dogma, guilt, and a parade of excuses for why its “truths” fail under scrutiny.

So, FlashDangerpants, next time you try to critique science, do your homework. Otherwise, you’re just flailing around in the dark—ironically, exactly like the religious dogmatists you claim not to be.

[BigMike]

So, why do the religious reject science while embracing the impossible?

It’s simple: the religious have no clue. They don’t understand scientific truths, and they don’t want to. Why? Because understanding science would force them to confront the fact that their cherished beliefs—free will, divine intervention, moral responsibility handed down from on high—are not just wrong, but laughably so. They’re clinging to fairy tales in an age when the real story, the scientific one, is written in the very fabric of the universe.

Let’s break it down. The religious reject science because science demands evidence. Religion doesn’t. Science builds its truths on observable, testable phenomena—gravity works, evolution happens, the brain obeys physical laws, and the universe operates deterministically. Religion, meanwhile, operates on a currency of make-believe: gods, souls, heaven, hell. None of it exists. None of it has ever been proven. And here’s the kicker—none of it can even be proven because it’s all nonsense.

Take free will. Religious people cling to it because without free will, their entire worldview collapses. No free will? Then no sin, no guilt, no divine punishment, and no need for salvation. It’s all gone. Poof. And they know this, which is why they’ll believe any absurdity that props up their delusion of choice. But science tells us the truth: free will is an illusion. Every thought you have, every action you take, is the result of physical processes in your brain—neurons firing, synapses connecting—guided by laws that care not a whit about your soul or your choices.

And let’s talk about the absurdities they embrace. Virgin births? Walking on water? Eternal life? Come on. These aren’t even good lies. They’re embarrassingly bad ones, conjured up by ancient people who didn’t know what stars were, let alone atoms or quantum mechanics. The fact that anyone in the 21st century still takes these fairy tales seriously is a testament to how little critical thinking religion requires. Science, by contrast, has given us the tools to split atoms, cure diseases, and send machines to other planets. What’s religion given us? Guilt. Fear. Witch trials. Great job, guys.

So why do they reject science? Because science doesn’t flatter them. It doesn’t tell them they’re special. It doesn’t promise them eternal life or divine justice or a reason for their suffering. It tells them the cold, hard truth: you’re a collection of atoms, governed by physical laws, hurtling through an indifferent universe. Religion can’t compete with that, so it hides behind ignorance, fear, and the comforting lies people have told themselves for millennia.

And here’s the most infuriating part: they have the gall to call science arrogant. Really? Arrogance is claiming the creator of the universe cares about your sex life. Arrogance is rejecting mountains of evidence because it doesn’t fit your holy book. Arrogance is insisting you know the mind of a god while failing ninth-grade biology.

So let’s stop pretending this is a debate. It’s not. It’s reality versus fantasy, fact versus fiction, science versus superstition. And the only reason religion still exists is because some people are too scared, too stubborn, or too lazy to face the truth.

[FlashDangerpants]

FlashDangerpants, your smug one-liners are as hollow as the arguments you’re trying to prop up.

My man, please pay attention. You wrote that 'If you drop an apple, it falls—every time, no exceptions.' And then you wrote 'This isn’t an “axiom” in the philosophical sense; it’s an empirical fact'. Those claims are not the product of understanding.

You can observe as many empirical apples falling as you like, but you can only theorise about what happens to the apples you don't observe. It is your axiomatic assumption that the behaviour of the unobserved apples mirrors that of the observed ones.

I am now getting bored of you.

[BigMike]

FlashDangerpants, your smug one-liners are as hollow as the arguments you’re trying to prop up.

My man, please pay attention. You wrote that 'If you drop an apple, it falls—every time, no exceptions.' And then you wrote 'This isn’t an “axiom” in the philosophical sense; it’s an empirical fact'. Those claims are not the product of understanding.

You can observe as many empirical apples falling as you like, but you can only theorise about what happens to the apples you don't observe. It is your axiomatic assumption that the behaviour of the unobserved apples mirrors that of the observed ones.

I am now getting bored of you.

FlashDangerpants, your boredom might stem from the Herculean effort it takes to maintain this level of misunderstanding. Let me explain this—again—since you seem determined to misrepresent how science works.

Science doesn’t prove anything. It’s not in the business of declaring universal truths. Instead, science disproves falsehoods by systematically testing hypotheses against observable reality. This is why it progresses: every theory is provisional, waiting to be overturned if contradictory evidence emerges. It’s the exact opposite of religion, which clings to unprovable dogmas and treats skepticism as heresy.

Now, about your tiresome apple example. You smugly assert that claiming apples fall every time is an "axiomatic assumption." No, it’s not. It’s a predictive hypothesis that has been tested and verified across countless observations. If you think unobserved apples behave differently, great! Go ahead—design an experiment, gather evidence, and prove it. Better yet, disprove gravity entirely. That would get you a Nobel Prize in physics and a fortune in prize money.

But here’s the catch: you won’t, because you can’t. Your argument rests on the fantasy that rejecting empiricism somehow makes you a sophisticated philosopher. It doesn’t. It makes you sound like someone who’s confused the idea of skepticism with denying reality. The laws of physics don’t care about your mental gymnastics—they govern the universe with or without your approval.

The fact that you’re bored with this discussion doesn’t make your argument valid. It just highlights your unwillingness to engage honestly. Science doesn’t assume that the behavior of unobserved apples mirrors observed ones. It tests that behavior through countless experiments. And until you can show evidence to the contrary, the predictive power of those tests stands unchallenged.

So, FlashDangerpants, if you’re really bored, here’s a suggestion: stop repeating lazy arguments and start engaging with the real rigor of science. Who knows? Maybe one day you’ll get tired of pretending your philosophical musings are on par with empirical evidence.

Spoiler alert: they’re not.

[Dubious]

Meaning-making supervenes on truth.

...only on a temporary basis. Falsehoods and outright lies accepted as truth...or rather mandated as such by the invested powers. History is saturated with these truth mutilations. Religions themselves are based on every disgusting, perverted assumption being of thorough human manufacture which hasn't yet been sufficiently upgraded, especially in the zombie-land called America.

On the other hand, you can't manufacture nature's reality. To understand nature you must conform to its reality instead of creating your own which are mostly gross corruptions consisting of every possible abominable distortion. Religions are not testaments to god's greatness but much more often to man's depravity and toxicity. Contrary to science, religion is a festering agent which corrupts nearly everyone it comes in contact with.

A more insightful version of what religion could be is one which harmonizes itself with the operations of the cosmos which science seeks to discover. Beliefs, in short, which advance the spirit as much as science does knowledge, each in collusion with the other. What the catalyst would be to create such a process, I have no idea!

[godelian]

Science Doesn’t Need Axioms—That’s Why It Works
Let me spell it out: science starts with hypotheses—testable, falsifiable ideas about how the universe works. These aren’t “axioms” plucked from thin air. They’re based on observed phenomena. Scientists don’t assume gravity works the same everywhere; they test it. And when the same results hold across countless experiments, you get a theory—a robust framework that explains and predicts phenomena. It’s not about axiomatic certainty; it’s about probabilistic confidence built on evidence.

Science is obviously not wrong, but it is limited. You can find a first reason why science is limited in Plato's allegory of the cave:

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

In the allegory, Plato describes people who have spent their entire lives chained by their necks and ankles in front of an inner wall with a view of the empty outer wall of the cave. They observe the shadows projected onto the outer wall by objects carried behind the inner wall by people who are invisible to the chained “prisoners” and who walk along the inner wall with a fire behind them, creating the shadows on the inner wall in front of the prisoners. The "sign bearers" pronounce the names of the objects, the sounds of which are reflected near the shadows and are understood by the prisoners as if they were coming from the shadows themselves.

Only the shadows and sounds are the prisoners' reality, which are not accurate representations of the real world. The shadows represent distorted and blurred copies of reality we can perceive through our senses, while the objects under the Sun represent the true forms of objects that we can only perceive through reason.

Pure reason is blind. Pure reason refuses to use observations because, in that case, it would not be pure. By just looking at "the shadows of reality which are not accurate representations of the real world" you will not "understand" particularly much. The unadulterated truth can "only be perceived through reason". Mathematics is pure reason. Science is obviously not. Science is just about some meager "shadows" of the truth.

Mathematics Needs Axioms—That’s Why It Works

Concerning religion, spirituality is another aspect of truth. You won't find it either just by looking at some "shadows". If your only tool is a hammer, then the whole world will soon start looking like a nail. Scientism is poor and simplistic worldview:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.[1][2]

The scientific method of experimentally testing observable stubborn patterns in the physical universe cannot experimentally test its own epistemology, because its epistemology is itself not a observable stubborn pattern in the physical universe. Instead, its epistemology is a Platonic abstraction. Hence, the scientific method cannot possibly be "the best or only way to render truth about" itself. Scientism is an axiomatic belief which, however, rejects the very notion of axiom. The whole thing is therefore absurd.

[Skepdick]

Meaning-making supervenes on truth.

...only on a temporary basis. Falsehoods and outright lies accepted as truth...or rather mandated as such by the invested powers. History is saturated with these truth mutilations. Religions themselves are based on every disgusting, perverted assumption being of thorough human manufacture which hasn't yet been sufficiently upgraded, especially in the zombie-land called America.

On the other hand, you can't manufacture nature's reality. To understand nature you must conform to its reality instead of creating your own which are mostly gross corruptions consisting of every possible abominable distortion. Religions are not testaments to god's greatness but much more often to man's depravity and toxicity. Contrary to science, religion is a festering agent which corrupts nearly everyone it comes in contact with.

A more insightful version of what religion could be is one which harmonizes itself with the operations of the cosmos which science seeks to discover. Beliefs, in short, which advance the spirit as much as science does knowledge, each in collusion with the other. What the catalyst would be to create such a process, I have no idea!

That's a cute, religious/teleological narrative...

You can harmonize with the cosmos all you want - it's trying to kill you.

[Skepdick]

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?

You are aware that your intellectual posturing and performative flexing isn't impressing anyone, right? It's even giving away the fact that bravado is what you have in place of understanding.

The technology I am using is built on those principles. Within limits. Once you exceed the operational parameters of any system you come face to face with non-determinism and undefined behaviour.

That's why ALL theoeretical models are subject to metastability concerns - the operational limits where determinism begins breaking down.

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

Immerse your technology in some water and tell me about determinism.

[Skepdick]

Science Doesn’t Need Axioms—That’s Why It Works

That's a religious belief. A false one at that.

In your case "works" is a weasel word. Why does something which "work" need to iteratively self-correct? Doesn't that mean it doesn't work?

[Dubious]

Meaning-making supervenes on truth.

...only on a temporary basis. Falsehoods and outright lies accepted as truth...or rather mandated as such by the invested powers. History is saturated with these truth mutilations. Religions themselves are based on every disgusting, perverted assumption being of thorough human manufacture which hasn't yet been sufficiently upgraded, especially in the zombie-land called America.

On the other hand, you can't manufacture nature's reality. To understand nature you must conform to its reality instead of creating your own which are mostly gross corruptions consisting of every possible abominable distortion. Religions are not testaments to god's greatness but much more often to man's depravity and toxicity. Contrary to science, religion is a festering agent which corrupts nearly everyone it comes in contact with.

A more insightful version of what religion could be is one which harmonizes itself with the operations of the cosmos which science seeks to discover. Beliefs, in short, which advance the spirit as much as science does knowledge, each in collusion with the other. What the catalyst would be to create such a process, I have no idea and accept.

That's a cute, religious/teleological narrative...

You can harmonize with the cosmos all you want - it's trying to kill you.

It case you haven't figured it out nothing within the cosmos is permanent and neither is the cosmos itself.

Religion is thoroughly subjective; you can invent any bullshit crap you want and call it religion. In science you submit to it completely; it's the teacher and we're the students if you want to discover the reality beyond any of our man-made god conceptions.

I realize this is a difficult concept for a theist to understand or accept.

[Skepdick]

It case you haven't figured it out nothing within the cosmos is permanent and neither is the cosmos itself.

Religion is thoroughly subjective; you can invent any bullshit crap you want and call it religion. In science you submit to it completely; it's the teacher and we're the students if you want to discover the reality beyond any of our man-made god conceptions.

I realize this is a difficult concept for a theist to understand or accept.

Ironic...Making up arbitrary abstract categories (like "subjective" and "objective") and making up the bullshit that goes into those categories.

It's a surefire way to get stuck in the latrine of philosophy.

[Atla]

"Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?"

I find the topic title a bit strange, we can only know that something is impossible if we can prove a negative with absolute certainty. How do we do that?

Maybe when you were born, God put you into this Matrix-like simulation of this universe, in which the rational thing to do is to follow what science says. And he told his followers what's actually going on, but didn't tell you. Because God gets a kick out of that or something.

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.

Maybe the laws of physics aren't consistent outside the observable universe, some scientists nowadays argue that there is some evidence that laws of physics aren't even consistent within the observable universe.

It's not that "if the laws of physics weren’t consistent, you wouldn’t be typing", it's that "if the laws of physics weren’t consistent or consistent enough, in our corner of the universe, you wouldn't be typing".

[Dubious]

It case you haven't figured it out nothing within the cosmos is permanent and neither is the cosmos itself.

Religion is thoroughly subjective; you can invent any bullshit crap you want and call it religion. In science you submit to it completely; it's the teacher and we're the students if you want to discover the reality beyond any of our man-made god conceptions.

I realize this is a difficult concept for a theist to understand or accept.

It's a surefire way to get stuck in the latrine of philosophy.

On this site, it's been in the latrine for the longest time thanks to prolific posters of shit like you.

[BigMike]

Godelian, invoking Plato’s allegory of the cave to discredit science is like bringing a feather to a sword fight: it’s quaint, but it won’t cut. Let’s set the record straight. Science isn’t limited in the way you suggest—it’s powerful precisely because it deals with the real world, not imaginary forms in some metaphysical fantasy land. Plato’s prisoners are staring at shadows? Cute metaphor, but it doesn’t make science “meager.” It makes it grounded. Unlike religion or mystical ramblings, science doesn’t pretend to know what’s outside the cave without evidence—it systematically investigates the shadows, their sources, and the mechanisms casting them.

Now, this claim: “Pure reason is blind.” Sure, pure reason without evidence is blind, but that’s why science combines reason with observation. Mathematics, as you correctly point out, operates on axioms because it’s a deductive system. But science is inductive—it doesn’t start with untested assumptions; it starts with observable phenomena and builds testable hypotheses. You’re conflating two fundamentally different domains, and it shows.

Spirituality and “Another Aspect of Truth”? Really?

The assertion that “spirituality is another aspect of truth” is the intellectual equivalent of saying fairy tales hold the key to quantum mechanics. Spirituality is a comforting story we tell ourselves when the real world feels too big and complex. You might like the story, but that doesn’t make it true. Science isn’t limited because it focuses on the physical—it’s strong because it doesn’t waste time chasing phantoms. Unlike spirituality, it produces results: vaccines, electricity, space exploration. What’s spirituality’s track record? Feeling warm and fuzzy? Forgive me if I don’t bow down to that "truth."

Your Wikipedia-fueled attack on “scientism” is another tired trope. No serious scientist believes the scientific method can explain everything, but here’s the thing—it explains a lot. Unlike religion or metaphysical rambling, it actually delivers. The claim that science’s epistemology is a “Platonic abstraction” is as confused as it is wrong. Science doesn’t test its own epistemology because it doesn’t need to—its validity is demonstrated every time its methods produce reliable, repeatable results. The universe doesn’t care about your abstractions when science is curing diseases and predicting cosmic events.

And calling scientism “an axiomatic belief” is laughable. Belief systems require faith in the absence of evidence. Science operates on evidence. It works because it’s falsifiable, adaptive, and grounded in reality. Compare that to religion, which clings to dogmas that crumble under even the lightest scrutiny. If anyone here is peddling an “absurd” worldview, it’s not the people using science—it’s the ones pretending metaphors and abstractions offer deeper truths than demonstrable facts.

So, Godelian, let’s stop dressing up anti-scientific nonsense in philosophical jargon. If you have evidence that spirituality or Platonic forms hold keys to the universe, show it. Until then, science remains the most reliable tool for understanding reality. If that’s “meager” to you, it says more about your overinflated expectations than it does about the power of science.

Keep chasing shadows. The rest of us will stick with the light of evidence.

[BigMike]

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?

You are aware that your intellectual posturing and performative flexing isn't impressing anyone, right? It's even giving away the fact that bravado is what you have in place of understanding.

The technology I am using is built on those principles. Within limits. Once you exceed the operational parameters of any system you come face to face with non-determinism and undefined behaviour.

That's why ALL theoeretical models are subject to metastability concerns - the operational limits where determinism begins breaking down.

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

Immerse your technology in some water and tell me about determinism.

"Immerse Your Technology in Water"? Seriously?

Skepdick, your grasp of both science and technology is as shallow as the puddle you want to dunk your devices into. The fact that technology has operational limits doesn’t undermine determinism—it proves it. Deterministic principles govern why systems fail under specific conditions, like water causing short circuits. It’s called physics. Look it up.

And metastability? Cute buzzword, but irrelevant. Metastability is entirely deterministic—it describes predictable transitions between states under specific conditions. If you think that’s evidence of “non-determinism,” you’ve misunderstood the very concept you’re trying to weaponize.

So, spare us the intellectual flailing. Determinism doesn’t break down because you poured water on a computer. It explains why the computer failed. But please, keep trying—you might yet discover fire while proving determinism wrong.