Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[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.

"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.

If my understanding is shallow yours is non-existent. But we already know that.

The fact that technology has operational limits doesn’t undermine determinism—it proves it.

No, it doesn't. Please determine the exact picture your phone is going to render on its screen if it were to experience water damage.

Deterministic principles govern why systems fail under specific conditions, like water causing short circuits. It’s called physics. Look it up.

I've looked it up. Your turn. If physics is deterministic you should be able to determine the exact failure mode of the system and all of its consequences.

So go ahead and determine the exact consequences. What is your screen going to display once you take your phone for a swim?

It's a computer - a stateful system. You should be able to determine its exact state Mr Determinist.

And metastability? Cute buzzword, but irrelevant. Metastability is entirely deterministic—it describes predictable transitions between states under specific conditions.

No, it doesn't. There's nothing predictable about a system that lacks metastability.

It explains why the computer failed. But please, keep trying—you might yet discover fire while proving determinism wrong.

That's just sophistry. Did the light also turn off when you pushed the off switch? Boo hoo!

If determinism's true must be able to describe the exact quantum state of any physical system no matter how much entropy it's subjected to.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, the fact that science self-corrects isn’t a flaw—it’s the reason it works.

I don't understand. Why do you need to "correct" somethhing which "works"? Surely if it requires correction of any kind that suggests it never worked to begin witn?

Unlike religion, which clings to falsehoods for centuries, science refines itself to get closer to the truth.

That's not true. Science doesn't even begin to approach truth. Science operates under the principle of Popperian falsification.

Falsification is incompatible with truth. Too bad truth isn't supposed to be falsifiable,but who knows? Maybe you can falsify your own existence.

Your claim that iterative improvement means it "doesn't work" is like saying a car that gets regular maintenance is broken. No, it’s functioning exactly as designed.

Really? Then why don't you design it so that it doesn't require any maintenance; or improvement?

If you’re looking for something that doesn’t work, try religion—it never self-corrects, no matter how wrong it is. That’s the real "weasel word" factory.

Ever heard of the adage "if it's not broken - it doesn't need fixing? Most of reeligion's like that you see...

Right and wrong aren't in the domain of science. That's scientism. Right and wrong is in the domain of ethics/morals... That's religion.

[Atla]

...

Of course he won't be able to quote me, because he was blindly strawmanning me all along. I simply said that there are philosophical possibilities (infinitely many actually):

- religious ones that contradict known scientific laws
- religious ones that don't contradict known scientific laws, but we have no evidence for them
- non-religious ones that contradict known scientific laws
- non-religious ones that don't contradict known scientific laws, but we have no evidence for them

Do I generally find them as plausible as known scientific laws? Of course not. Imo aside from a handful of exceptions, we can view them as <1% likely to be true, and just forget about them.

Do I think they are "impossible"? NO. That would be ridiculous.

The audacity of bringing up philosophical possibilities on a philosophy forum, claiming that they are possible.. I'll go stand in a corner now..

[BigMike]

"Which Conservation Laws Are You Rejecting, Skepdick?"

Skepdick, let’s cut through your rhetorical fog and focus on the core of physics: conservation laws. Every physical law that isn’t just a definition—yes, even the ones underpinning the deterministic framework you’re so eager to dismiss—is a special case of a handful of conservation laws. These include conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, and charge. They aren’t optional—they’re foundational. So, tell me: which of these do you think are wrong?

Your insistence that determinism “breaks down” in complex systems shows a deep misunderstanding of what determinism means. Just because you can’t predict the exact quantum state of a phone submerged in water doesn’t mean the system isn’t deterministic. It simply means the variables are too chaotic or numerous for you—or anyone else—to calculate. The underlying physics remains perfectly deterministic, governed by conservation laws that hold no matter how much “entropy” you want to toss into the equation.

Metastability? Irrelevant to this argument. It operates entirely within deterministic principles—it describes how systems transition between predictable states under specific conditions. Your claim that it somehow undermines determinism is either a misunderstanding or a distraction.

So, Skepdick, if you think determinism doesn’t hold, point out the specific conservation law you believe is wrong. Because every failure, every system breakdown, and every so-called "non-deterministic" phenomenon still obeys these laws. Or you can keep flailing with buzzwords and prove my point: that your argument is just noise.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I demonstrate my free will by making it plain that I set my will to gain from these conversational breakdowns and never to lose!

Thanks, BigMike, for the Chef’s Kiss reference!

chef's kiss
noun [ C ] informal
US/ˌʃefs ˈkɪs/ UK/ˌʃefs ˈkɪs/

a movement in which you put your fingers and thumb together, kiss them, then pull your hand away from your lips as a way of showing that you think that something or someone is perfect or excellent.

[Skepdick]

"Which Conservation Laws Are You Rejecting, Skepdick?"

Functional information. There's no conservation law for that.

That's why you are able to discern between a functional and dysfunctional system - there's a symmetry violation.

Physics is unable to discern between a functional and a dysfunctional compute; a dead organism and a living one since all energy states are seen as equivalent.

This is a known limitation of hard reductionism. It can't even distinguish between a functional and a dysfunctional reducer - it self-defeats by being unable to explain its own function; or dysfunction - as the case may be.

[BigMike]

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.

If my understanding is shallow yours is non-existent. But we already know that.

The fact that technology has operational limits doesn’t undermine determinism—it proves it.

No, it doesn't. Please determine the exact picture your phone is going to render on its screen if it were to experience water damage.

Deterministic principles govern why systems fail under specific conditions, like water causing short circuits. It’s called physics. Look it up.

I've looked it up. Your turn. If physics is deterministic you should be able to determine the exact failure mode of the system and all of its consequences.

So go ahead and determine the exact consequences. What is your screen going to display once you take your phone for a swim?

It's a computer - a stateful system. You should be able to determine its exact state Mr Determinist.

And metastability? Cute buzzword, but irrelevant. Metastability is entirely deterministic—it describes predictable transitions between states under specific conditions.

No, it doesn't. There's nothing predictable about a system that lacks metastability.

It explains why the computer failed. But please, keep trying—you might yet discover fire while proving determinism wrong.

That's just sophistry. Did the light also turn off when you pushed the off switch? Boo hoo!

If determinism's true must be able to describe the exact quantum state of any physical system no matter how much entropy it's subjected to.

Skepdick, your response doesn’t address the actual question—it’s a diversion. Conservation laws govern fundamental quantities like energy, momentum, and charge, which underlie every physical process. Whether a system is “functional” or “dysfunctional” is entirely subjective and context-dependent; it has no bearing on the validity of conservation laws. So again: do you fully accept the conservation laws, or are you rejecting them?

Your claim that physics “can’t discern between functional and dysfunctional systems” isn’t a limitation—it’s irrelevant. Physics doesn’t care if a system meets your definition of “functional”; it only describes how that system obeys physical laws. A dead organism and a living one are both governed by the same principles of energy conservation and entropy, regardless of whether you label them “functional” or “dysfunctional.”

This talk of “self-defeat” is just wordplay. Hard reductionism doesn’t need to explain its own function—it’s a method, not a metaphysical claim. The conservation laws remain intact whether or not you can articulate a philosophical objection to them.

So let’s bring this back to reality: conservation laws are non-negotiable. If you’re not rejecting them, stop dodging and say so. If you are rejecting them, explain which one and why. Otherwise, your argument is just noise masquerading as insight.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, your response doesn’t address the actual question—it’s a diversion.

Why are you lying? Oh... I know.

Accusing me of diversion is itself a diversion tactic. Away from the fact that you can't determine/predict the failure mode of the system.

Conservation laws govern fundamental quantities like energy, momentum, and charge, which underlie every physical process.

Great! so it underlies the very physical process which arrives at those conclusions - thought.

How do you know thought's functional; and not dysfunctional?

Whether a system is “functional” or “dysfunctional” is entirely subjective and context-dependent; it has no bearing on the validity of conservation laws.

Validity? As opposed to what? Invalidity? On your worldview such distinction is entirely subjective and context-dependent.

So again: do you fully accept the conservation laws, or are you rejecting them?

Neither. I USE them. As instruments for thought. Without making any philosophical claims about them being "true".

I USE them within their domain of applicability.
I don't use them outside of their domain of applicability.

I know exactly where that line is and I don't pretend that science has no limits.

Your claim that physics “can’t discern between functional and dysfunctional systems” isn’t a limitation—it’s irrelevant.

Irrelevant? As opposed to what? Relevant? On your worldview such distinction is entirely subjective and context-dependent.

Physics can't make such determinations either.

Physics doesn’t care if a system meets your definition of “functional”; it only describes how that system obeys physical laws.

That's an anthropomorphism. Physics doesn't describe anything. Physicists describe. Using physics.

How do you know if the physicist is using physics "correctly" or "incorrectly"?

A dead organism and a living one are both governed by the same principles of energy conservation and entropy, regardless of whether you label them “functional” or “dysfunctional.”

Valid and invalid reasoning also. Relevant and irrelevant reasoning also.

There's no distinction to be drawn.

This talk of “self-defeat” is just wordplay. Hard reductionism doesn’t need to explain its own function—it’s a method, not a metaphysical claim.

Contradiction. A method either works or it doesn't.

But if physics is true there's no difference between a working and a non-working method.

They are both just physical processes.

The conservation laws remain intact whether or not you can articulate a philosophical objection to them.

Congratulations. Your religion is Platonism.

So let’s bring this back to reality: conservation laws are non-negotiable.

So why isn't there a conservation law for functional information?

If you’re not rejecting them, stop dodging and say so. If you are rejecting them, explain which one and why. Otherwise, your argument is just noise masquerading as insight.

I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

Functional information is NOT subject to conservation laws.

Thus every one of the distinctions (valid vs invalid; subjective vs objective; rellevant vs irrelevan) is a category error under your paradigm.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nature, according to mechanical philosophy, writes Professor Whitehead (in Science and the Modern World)

“is a dull affair, soundless, scentless, colourless; merely the hurrying of material, endlessly, meaninglessly. However you disguise it, this is the practical outcome of the characteristic scientific philosophy which closed the seventeenth century. No alternative system of organising the pursuit of scientific truth has been suggested. It is not only reigning, but it is without a rival. And yet-it is quite unbelievable. This conception of the universe is surely framed in terms of high abstractions, and the paradox only arises because we have mistaken our abstractions for concrete realities. The seventeenth century had finally produced a scheme of scientific thought framed by mathematicians, for the use of mathematicians. The great characteristic of the mathematical mind is its capacity for dealing with abstractions; and for eliciting from them clear-cut demonstrative trains of reasoning, entirely satisfactory so long as it is those abstractions which you want to think about. The enormous success of the scientific abstractions, yielding on the one hand matter with its simple location in space and time, on the other hand mind, perceiving, suffering, reasoning but not interfering, has foisted on to philosophy the task of accepting them as the most concrete rendering of fact. Thereby, modern philosophy has been ruined.”

[BigMike]

Skepdick, your entire argument hinges on a false equivalence and a profound misunderstanding of conservation laws and physical processes. Let’s unpack this mess.

1 “Functional Information” Isn’t a Physical Quantity Governed by Conservation Laws
Of course, there’s no conservation law for “functional information.” That’s because it’s not a measurable, physical quantity—it’s a human construct. Conservation laws govern things like energy, momentum, and charge, which are objectively defined and empirically tested within the physical universe. Your fixation on functional versus dysfunctional systems is irrelevant to the validity of conservation laws. The universe doesn’t care about your subjective definitions of “functionality.”

2 The Laws of Physics Underpin Thought
You’re correct that thought is a physical process governed by the laws of physics. But here’s where your argument falls apart: whether a thought is “functional” or “dysfunctional” is a matter of utility, not physics. The validity of a reasoning process is determined by its ability to produce accurate conclusions, not by some mystical distinction that physics is required to validate. The conservation laws remain unaffected by your philosophical hand-waving.

3 “If Physics Is True, There’s No Difference Between Working and Non-Working Methods”
Wrong. The difference is entirely in the outcomes. A working method yields reliable, predictable results—like the scientific method. A non-working method, like your argument here, fails to produce coherent or meaningful insights. This isn’t a contradiction; it’s basic logic. Physics describes the deterministic underpinnings of these processes; it’s not responsible for defining “truth” or “functionality” in philosophical terms.

4 You’re Dodging the Core Question
You refuse to reject or fully accept conservation laws, yet you freely “use” them. Fine. But your philosophical musing about their “truth” doesn’t undermine their empirical validity. Conservation laws work because they consistently describe the behavior of physical systems—whether or not you philosophically agree with them is irrelevant. They’re not a "Platonic religion"; they’re observable facts.

5 “Congratulations, Your Religion Is Platonism”
Wrong again. Science isn’t a religion; it’s a method. Conservation laws are derived from observable, testable phenomena, not abstract ideals. You seem eager to dismiss them as “Platonic” while relying on them to argue against their applicability. That’s not clever—it’s self-contradictory.

6 Your “Category Error” Claim Is Just Noise
There’s no category error here. Your distinctions between valid and invalid reasoning or relevant and irrelevant arguments are philosophical constructs that don’t negate the physical reality described by conservation laws. The fact that physics doesn’t comment on “validity” or “relevance” doesn’t mean those laws are invalid—it means you’re trying to twist science into addressing questions it was never meant to answer.

So, let’s stop dancing around: are you rejecting conservation laws, yes or no? If you’re not rejecting them, all this talk of functional information and category errors is irrelevant. If you are rejecting them, tell me which one and provide evidence. Otherwise, your argument is nothing but noise dressed up as profundity.

[BigMike]

Let’s take a moment to marvel at a particular breed of intellectual frauds: those who gleefully criticize science and determinism but steadfastly refuse to articulate what, exactly, they disagree with. These are the people who hide behind vague platitudes, semantic acrobatics, and philosophical fluff to avoid engaging with the very systems they deride. It’s as if they believe hand-waving and buzzwords are substitutes for understanding.

These critics are the ultimate sophists—masters of distraction, but allergic to specificity. They’ll call determinism “flawed” without naming a single conservation law they reject. They’ll dismiss science as “limited” while benefiting daily from its achievements. Planes fly, vaccines work, and their precious internet arguments exist, thanks to the very scientific principles they claim are inadequate.

And let’s talk about their favorite tactic: rhetorical shadowboxing. They won’t say what’s wrong with science or determinism; they’ll just endlessly ask, “But how do you really know?” as though perpetual skepticism is an argument. It’s intellectual laziness dressed up as profundity, designed to waste everyone’s time while contributing nothing.

Their disdain for determinism is especially amusing. They’ll demand absolute predictive precision from deterministic systems—right down to quantum states and chaotic variables—as if that’s what determinism promises. Spoiler: it doesn’t. Meanwhile, they happily accept the laughable incoherence of “free will” without question. They’ll mock science for refining its models but cling to religious dogma that hasn’t updated since the Bronze Age.

And when pressed to provide alternatives? Crickets. Or worse: vague appeals to "mystery," "spirituality," or metaphysics. They’ll accuse science of arrogance while smugly implying they’ve uncovered truths beyond the reach of mere mortals. But when you ask for specifics—proof, mechanisms, evidence—they scatter like cockroaches in the light. They don’t want answers; they want to feel clever without doing the work.

In the end, these critics are the intellectual equivalent of a child yelling, “I’m not touching you!” while holding their finger an inch from your face. They add nothing to the conversation except noise and confusion, all while smugly congratulating themselves for “seeing beyond” the evidence.

Here’s the truth: science and determinism don’t need their approval. These frameworks work, and they’ve proven it over and over. Critics who refuse to engage honestly aren’t challenging science—they’re revealing their own inadequacy. They’re not the enlightened thinkers they pretend to be; they’re the loudest idiots in the room.

[Alexis Jacobi]

To that, a Chef’s Kiss!

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, your entire argument hinges on a false equivalence and a profound misunderstanding of conservation laws and physical processes. Let’s unpack this mess.

I am not making any arguments. I am stating facts. There is no "false equivalence" because I am not equating anything.

The mess that needs unpacking is your own mind.

1 “Functional Information” Isn’t a Physical Quantity Governed by Conservation Laws

Precisely my point! Functional information exists; and falls outsde the scope of physics.

Of course, there’s no conservation law for “functional information.” That’s because it’s not a measurable, physical quantity—it’s a human construct.

Precisely my point! It's not a measurable physical quantity. It's a measurable non-physical quantity. There's more to truth than physics, you know?

It's exactly as objective as energy. It has an SI unit and everything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_8 ... technology

Conservation laws govern things like energy, momentum, and charge, which are objectively defined and empirically tested within the physical universe.

So no different to information then? Glad we agree...

Now... you do understand that 1 bit of information equals precisely the answer to a yes/no question; right?

Such as the quesiton "Is X functional?"

Your fixation on functional versus dysfunctional systems is irrelevant to the validity of conservation laws. The universe doesn’t care about your subjective definitions of “functionality.”

And yet the universe cares about your arbitrary distinctions? Such as subjective/objective?

Energy is exactly as subjective/objective as information. It's defined, it has ISO and SI units. It's measurable and everything...

You’re correct that thought is a physical process governed by the laws of physics.

Great! Is this thought process functional or not? That's 1 bit of functional information...

But here’s where your argument falls apart

What argument?

whether a thought is “functional” or “dysfunctional” is a matter of utility, not physics.

Does physics work? That's 1 bit of functional information...

The validity of a reasoning process is determined by its ability to produce accurate conclusions

Is the conclusion "accurate" or not? That's 1 bit of functional information...

not by some mystical distinction that physics is required to validate.

So "mystical" it's exactly as measurable as energy.

The conservation laws remain unaffected by your philosophical hand-waving.

Which one? I can only explain it to you so many times - I can't understand it for you. There's no conservation law for functional information!

This falls outside of the domain of physics/science.

Wrong. The difference is entirely in the outcomes.

Contradiction. There's no distinction to be drawn between outcomes - all energy states are equivalent.

A working method yields reliable, predictable results—like the scientific method.

Contradiction.

The universe doesn’t care about your subjective definitions of “f̶u̶n̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶.” working, reliable.

Is the method working or not? That's 1 bit of functional information.
Is the method reliable or not? That's 1 bit of functional information.

A non-working method, like your argument here, fails to produce coherent or meaningful insights.

Is the method coherent or not? That's 1 bit of functional information.
is the method meaningful or not? That's 1 bit of functional information.

In your own words... "The universe doesn't care about your subjective criteria for coherency, utility, meaningfulness"

This isn’t a contradiction; it’s basic logic.

So basic you are contradicting yourself.

Physics describes the deterministic underpinnings of these processes; it’s not responsible for defining “truth” or “functionality” in philosophical terms.

Sounds like you have a fucking problem then? If physics can't define coherency, meaningfulness, correctness, workability realiability (a whole bunch of functional information) then how do you know physics is coherent, reliable, correct or meaningful?

4 You’re Dodging the Core Question
You refuse to reject or fully accept conservation laws, yet you freely “use” them. Fine. But your philosophical musing about their “truth” doesn’t undermine their empirical validity.

Are consrvation laws "valid" or not? That's 1 bit of functional information...

Conservation laws work because they consistently describe the behavior of physical systems—whether or not you philosophically agree with them is irrelevant. They’re not a "Platonic religion"; they’re observable facts.

Contradiction. You said physics can't describe whether the physical system that is the physicist's brains works correctly, coherently or meaningfully.

Wrong again. Science isn’t a religion; it’s a method.

I know. But you aren't preaching science. You are preaching the religion of scientism.

Conservation laws are derived from observable, testable phenomena, not abstract ideals.

Contradiction. All physics concepts are idealized.

You seem eager to dismiss them as “Platonic” while relying on them to argue against their applicability. That’s not clever—it’s self-contradictory.

It's not self-contradictory - I am simply pointing out they don't apply to functional information.

I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

There’s no category error here. Your distinctions between valid and invalid reasoning or relevant and irrelevant arguments are philosophical constructs

Then so are all of your distinction between what's "relevant" or "irrelevant", coherent; or incoherent. Meaningful or not meaningful.

That's a lot of functional information you keep bringing to the table... And then erasing it with physics.

that don’t negate the physical reality described by conservation laws.

Why do I need to negate a "law" when I can simply side-step around it?

The fact that physics doesn’t comment on “validity” or “relevance” doesn’t mean those laws are invalid—it means you’re trying to twist science into addressing questions it was never meant to answer.

I know! I told you this. THose are questions for religion NOT science.

Almost as if you keep refusing to understand why science is subervient to religion.

So, let’s stop dancing around: are you rejecting conservation laws, yes or no?

Neither. I am not subjected to them.

If you’re not rejecting them, all this talk of functional information and category errors is irrelevant.

On what physical criteria for "irrelevance"?

If you are rejecting them, tell me which one and provide evidence. Otherwise, your argument is nothing but noise dressed up as profundity.

What argument?

[FlashDangerpants]

That guy has charm and self-awareness in equal amounts. Quite astounding.

[BigMike]

Skepdick, this back-and-forth has reached a point of diminishing returns. I’ve given you ample opportunity to articulate a coherent critique of science and determinism, but instead, you’ve resorted to circular semantics, category errors, and a fixation on “functional information” that adds nothing substantive to the discussion.

Your refusal to acknowledge the foundational principles of conservation laws while simultaneously claiming to "use them" is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty. Your insistence that physics cannot address abstract constructs like functionality or meaning is a misdirection, not a counterargument. Physics explains how the universe operates; it doesn’t need to validate your subjective notions of “functionality” to remain valid.

I’ve invested more time than this conversation deserves, and your rhetorical tactics—designed to obfuscate rather than clarify—have made it clear this isn’t a debate in good faith.

So, congratulations: you’ve earned a spot on my ignore list. Enjoy arguing with yourself.