Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Skepdick]

Given that the task seems to be to explain this to you, I'm afraid that you have stumbled upon an accurate description of the problem there, much as the stopped clock is right twice per day.

A stopped clock still has the upper hand over a clock that's perpetually wrong.

[Skepdick]

I'm honestly at a loss for words right now. It's not just surprising—it's genuinely shocking, terrifying, and deeply concerning—to realize that every single person here seems either completely unwilling or unable to grasp even the most basic scientific principles, like the conservation laws. These aren't advanced concepts; they're the bedrock of how the universe functions. I was prepared to encounter some level of misunderstanding or denial, but every single person? It's staggering. I knew there was a fair share of ignorance in the world, but I never imagined it was this pervasive. How do we even begin to address such a profound lack of understanding?

That question, by the way, is entirely rhetorical. I don't expect an answer because, frankly, I doubt there's a single response that could adequately address the depth of the issue we're dealing with here. In fact, I don't even want an answer, because any attempt to justify or explain away this glaring lack of understanding would likely just underscore my point even further. Sometimes silence speaks louder than words, and in this case, it's probably better to let the overwhelming absence of insight stand on its own. Anything else would just be noise.

Wasn't this precidely the sort of religious grand-standing you set out to admonish?

It's a great chuckle at how little depth or insight you have access to...

[Alexis Jacobi]

frankly, I doubt there's a single response that could adequately address the depth of the issue we're dealing with here.

Actually, I have 7 chapters on the topic in The 13-Week Email Course. There, I resolve the isuue, then go back and prove my thesis completely wrong, but finally resolve eVeRyThInG and put a spontaneous free-wheeling bow on the whole thing!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Just transposed a couple of words.

I'm honestly at a loss for words right now. It's not just surprising—it's genuinely shocking, terrifying, and deeply concerning—to realize that every single person here seems either completely unwilling or unable to grasp even the most basic theological principles, like the metaphysical laws. These aren't advanced concepts; they're the bedrock of how the universe functions. I was prepared to encounter some level of misunderstanding or denial, but every single person? It's staggering. I knew there was a fair share of ignorance in the world, but I never imagined it was this pervasive. How do we even begin to address such a profound lack of understanding?

Pater, eis ignosce ….

[henry quirk]

it's genuinely shocking, terrifying, and deeply concerning

I agree, Mike.

It's genuinely shocking, terrifying, and deeply concerning when folks like yourself believe you can make people better by making them less.

[Atla]

I'm honestly at a loss for words right now. It's not just surprising—it's genuinely shocking, terrifying, and deeply concerning—to realize that every single person here seems either completely unwilling or unable to grasp even the most basic scientific principles, like the conservation laws. These aren't advanced concepts; they're the bedrock of how the universe functions. I was prepared to encounter some level of misunderstanding or denial, but every single person? It's staggering. I knew there was a fair share of ignorance in the world, but I never imagined it was this pervasive. How do we even begin to address such a profound lack of understanding?

That question, by the way, is entirely rhetorical. I don't expect an answer because, frankly, I doubt there's a single response that could adequately address the depth of the issue we're dealing with here. In fact, I don't even want an answer, because any attempt to justify or explain away this glaring lack of understanding would likely just underscore my point even further. Sometimes silence speaks louder than words, and in this case, it's probably better to let the overwhelming absence of insight stand on its own. Anything else would just be noise.

Again, what about the part where according to science, we have a prefrontal cortex, which is important in everyday decision making? And we morally judge those decisions in court. Morality is at its root a psychological feature that most humans have. And this is all consistent with deterministic physics.

(that was a short retirement btw)

[Alexis Jacobi]

Remember, my belovèd children:

“Poetry will get you through times of domineering mathematics far better than domineering mathematics will get you through times of (bad) poetry.”

[BigMike]

I'm honestly at a loss for words right now. It's not just surprising—it's genuinely shocking, terrifying, and deeply concerning—to realize that every single person here seems either completely unwilling or unable to grasp even the most basic scientific principles, like the conservation laws. These aren't advanced concepts; they're the bedrock of how the universe functions. I was prepared to encounter some level of misunderstanding or denial, but every single person? It's staggering. I knew there was a fair share of ignorance in the world, but I never imagined it was this pervasive. How do we even begin to address such a profound lack of understanding?

That question, by the way, is entirely rhetorical. I don't expect an answer because, frankly, I doubt there's a single response that could adequately address the depth of the issue we're dealing with here. In fact, I don't even want an answer, because any attempt to justify or explain away this glaring lack of understanding would likely just underscore my point even further. Sometimes silence speaks louder than words, and in this case, it's probably better to let the overwhelming absence of insight stand on its own. Anything else would just be noise.

Again, what about the part where according to science, we have a prefrontal cortex, which is important in everyday decision making? And we morally judge those decisions in court. Morality is at its root a psychological feature that most humans have. And this is all consistent with deterministic physics.

(that was a short retirement btw)

Alright, buckle up, because this needs to be said without pulling any punches: your argument is not just wrong—it’s profoundly stupid. It’s the kind of lazy, half-baked nonsense that someone trots out when they’ve never bothered to understand the first thing about how reality actually works. The fact that you even bring up the prefrontal cortex as if it’s some kind of trump card against determinism is laughable. It’s like holding up a calculator and claiming it proves math is magic.

Here’s the truth you seem incapable of processing: the prefrontal cortex is just another piece of biological hardware running a deterministic program. Every single thought, every “choice,” every moral judgment that pops out of it is the inevitable result of billions of prior causes stretching back to the dawn of time. You are not making decisions. You are a puppet of physics, a machine executing preordained processes while deluding yourself into thinking you’re in control.

And morality? Give me a break. Morality is a joke when it’s based on the illusion of free will. It’s an evolved social tool to keep people in line, not a cosmic truth that validates your fantasies about personal agency. Courts don’t care whether free will exists—they care about keeping society from falling apart. The system isn’t built on truth, it’s built on pragmatism. And the fact that you don’t see the difference shows how utterly shallow your understanding is.

Honestly, it’s infuriating that this even has to be explained to you. These are not new ideas. Determinism has been solidly supported by science for centuries, yet here you are, clinging to medieval fantasies because they make you feel special. Guess what? You’re not. You’re a bag of molecules obeying the laws of physics, just like everyone else. Grow up, stop spouting this pseudo-intellectual garbage, and maybe—just maybe—start engaging with reality. Until then, spare us your sophomoric attempts at debate. It’s not just embarrassing for you—it’s painful for everyone else.

[Atla]

Again, what about the part where according to science, we have a prefrontal cortex, which is important in everyday decision making? And we morally judge those decisions in court. Morality is at its root a psychological feature that most humans have. And this is all consistent with deterministic physics.

(that was a short retirement btw)

Alright, buckle up, because this needs to be said without pulling any punches: your argument is not just wrong—it’s profoundly stupid. It’s the kind of lazy, half-baked nonsense that someone trots out when they’ve never bothered to understand the first thing about how reality actually works. The fact that you even bring up the prefrontal cortex as if it’s some kind of trump card against determinism is laughable. It’s like holding up a calculator and claiming it proves math is magic.

Here’s the truth you seem incapable of processing: the prefrontal cortex is just another piece of biological hardware running a deterministic program. Every single thought, every “choice,” every moral judgment that pops out of it is the inevitable result of billions of prior causes stretching back to the dawn of time. You are not making decisions. You are a puppet of physics, a machine executing preordained processes while deluding yourself into thinking you’re in control.

And morality? Give me a break. Morality is a joke when it’s based on the illusion of free will. It’s an evolved social tool to keep people in line, not a cosmic truth that validates your fantasies about personal agency. Courts don’t care whether free will exists—they care about keeping society from falling apart. The system isn’t built on truth, it’s built on pragmatism. And the fact that you don’t see the difference shows how utterly shallow your understanding is.

Honestly, it’s infuriating that this even has to be explained to you. These are not new ideas. Determinism has been solidly supported by science for centuries, yet here you are, clinging to medieval fantasies because they make you feel special. Guess what? You’re not. You’re a bag of molecules obeying the laws of physics, just like everyone else. Grow up, stop spouting this pseudo-intellectual garbage, and maybe—just maybe—start engaging with reality. Until then, spare us your sophomoric attempts at debate. It’s not just embarrassing for you—it’s painful for everyone else.

And it didn't bother you that I even explicitly stated (just for you) that this is all consistent with deterministic physics? You literally just quoted it. Wow.

I'm a determinist and yes I'm making decisions. You can have a sense of "I" without libertarian free will. Try again..

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, folks, I think it’s about that time. I’m going to make my graceful—or maybe not-so-graceful—exit.

Bit short on self control aren't you?

[henry quirk]

Morality is a joke when it’s based on the illusion of free will.

Without the reality of free will: there is no morality.

Courts don’t care whether free will exists—they care about keeping society from falling apart.

The whole of (American) criminal and civil justice rests on the notion that a man, any man, is a (or has) free will and therefore is responsible for his actions. Your scheme, as I say in a different thread, can only lead to atrocity.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The fabled schoolmen developed metaphysical ideas (prescriptions) that we might consider true, but in the realm of “real things” were actually false. The revolutionary intellectual and materially-minded age wanted more than ever material power and understanding however. Bacon, Galileo and others likely realized that experimental science was not a ‘metaphysic’, but it does seem that many who followed them were compelled, similarly to BigMike, to create enormously constraining and reductive metaphysical systems out of physicalism (or however it is to be defined). Extending from a definite sort of metaphysical, BigMike makes enormous pronouncements in the realm of sociology and politics, but cannot see clearly nor suspect how enormously dangerous the practical application of his anthropology could and would likely be.

[Alexis Jacobi]

One must notice, in any case, that his desire — that which compels him — is to see the world through a unitary lens. That is, one basic structure or system through which everything can be explained, into which everything is reduced.

[promethean75]

"The whole of (American) criminal and civil justice rests on the notion that a man, any man, is a (or has) free will and therefore is responsible for his actions"

In fact, it doesn't. Metaphysical free will is not what the state wants or needs to prove or even assume. What it needs to prove is that the defendant knows what is called right and wrong and knows what is illegal or not. That's a sanity or competency matter. Having free will is neither here nor there. Even if the whole world went determinist, defendants would still be held culpable for what they've done and face consequences.

[accelafine]

Who actually cares whether or not a serial killer can help himself? What's anyone supposed to do about it?