Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[henry quirk]

Where does this tend?

Atrocity.

Discourage a man's natural intuitions of being self-directing & accountable; teach him he is a mechanism to be used, fixed, or discarded; and he will treat his fellows as mechanisms.

This is Mike's utopia.

[attofishpi]

So how does this all tie back to determinism and religion? Well, if we’re assuming a deterministic universe (or a simulation governed by deterministic algorithms), this hypothetical God isn’t a mystical being; it’s an emergent construct—a natural endpoint of intelligent systems maximizing survival. It’s less about divine intervention and more about computational inevitability.

But here’s the kicker: If such a system exists, is there room for traditional notions of free will or moral judgment as we understand them? Probably not. Instead, what emerges is a form of deterministic ethics—actions are judged not by intent, but by outcomes within the system’s rules.

Raphael in one speech to Adam (Paradise Lost):

“What surmounts the reach
Of human sense, I shall delineate so,
By lik’ning spiritual to corporal forms
As may express them best; though what if Earth
Be but the shadow of Heaven, and things therein
Each to other like, more than on earth is thought?”

What is “interesting” to me is that even in BigMike’s imaginable, phantasy world — the projection of an ideal — it all reduces to the same. And this “bends the mind”.

Yet it is entirely conceivable that, if only in imagination, that a world where true choice and freedom does exist. I.e. conceptually.

The simulation then is just a restatement of the conceptual model held to about “the way things are” (and can only be.)

The Doppelgänger proposition was interesting except that what would inevitably occur is that BigMike One would diverge and an Anti-BigMike Two would separate and oppose him in a spiritual and mortal struggle requiring an Epic Poem (likely to be presented in a full chapter in The Course.)

Check it out, Atto. Run that scenario through your AI mill and report back your findings …

Honestly Jacobi the above to me is like a plate full of edible greenery - yes, word salad.

Something one may find interesting re 'evolving' into a simulation is that those within the simulation may eventually create a simulation.

..thing is that every iteration of 'inner-simulation' is always at the behest of the outer shell - all the way to the point of ultimate original reality.

Thus a shell within a shell within a shell - the outer one, the originating reality always controls the CLOCK of those within, thus always remains "GOD".

How does 1 jailbreak the system? Je Sus.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Honestly Jacobi the above to me is like a plate full of edible greenery — yes, word salad.

Being a foodie, as you are, the most I can do here is cogitate about the best sauce à salade to top it with. Not a small consideration given the stakes …

[Alexis Jacobi]

Discourage a man's natural intuitions of being self-directing & accountable; teach him he is a mechanism to be used, fixed, or discarded; and he will treat his fellows as mechanisms.

The issue that life, and the world, and the universe is determined in many ways (or even fundamentally) is unavoidable — certainly philosophically and scientifically. But the assertions made (in this instance by BigMike) have larger repercussions which, at the least, must be taken into consideration. I agree: teach children that cannot result in “good”.

The question “How is man free?” and ”Within what constraints?” is (from my perspective) the crucial question.

[BigMike]

Where does this tend?

Atrocity.

Discourage a man's natural intuitions of being self-directing & accountable; teach him he is a mechanism to be used, fixed, or discarded; and he will treat his fellows as mechanisms.

This is Mike's utopia.

Oh, please, Henry, spare me the melodrama. “Atrocity”? Really? Teaching people to understand their deterministic nature doesn’t make them treat others as mechanisms—it helps them see the interconnected causes of human behavior and fosters compassion, not cruelty. What leads to atrocity is the delusional belief in free will, which allows people to blame, punish, and hate others without understanding the complex forces that shape actions.

Your precious “self-directing” illusion has been the justification for every form of oppression: "He chose to be poor; she chose to sin; they chose to suffer.” No, Henry, they didn’t. They were born into circumstances, shaped by genetics and environment, that led them there. Determinism doesn’t dehumanize—it humanizes by stripping away the false moral superiority that comes with blaming others for things they couldn’t control.

If you want to argue for the fairy tale of free will, fine, but don’t dress it up as some high-minded defense of accountability. It’s a defense of ignorance and cruelty, plain and simple. My so-called “utopia” isn’t about mechanisms; it’s about understanding the truth so we can finally treat each other with fairness and empathy. So save your dystopian scare tactics for someone who buys into your fantasy.

[henry quirk]

Teaching people to understand their deterministic nature doesn’t make them treat others as mechanisms

If we're meat machines, it doesn't matter. What we do necessarily must be.

If we're free wills, believing we're meat machines can only lead to atrocity.

[henry quirk]

The question “How is man free?” and ”Within what constraints?” is (from my perspective) the crucial question.

Man is utterly free, and utterly responsible for his actions.

There are no ifs, ands, buts, or except for whens.

[BigMike]

Teaching people to understand their deterministic nature doesn’t make them treat others as mechanisms

If we're meat machines, it doesn't matter. What we do necessarily must be.

If we're free wills, believing we're meat machines can only lead to atrocity.

It's absolutely staggering that, in this day and age, anyone can outright deny science and determinism—not because they can point to any credible flaw in the overwhelming evidence, but simply because they lack the foresight and logical capacity to grapple with what follows. Henry, you’re not rejecting determinism because it’s wrong. You’re rejecting it because you’re clinging to a comforting illusion of free will that keeps your worldview from crumbling under scrutiny.

You parrot the same tired argument—that determinism makes life meaningless or leads to atrocity—but that’s not a critique of determinism. It’s an admission that you’re unwilling to follow logic to its inevitable conclusion. Science doesn’t care about your personal discomfort, and the universe doesn’t pause to reassure you that you’re special.

The deterministic nature of reality has been demonstrated in everything from physics to neuroscience. It’s not some fringe idea; it’s the foundation of modern scientific understanding. Your refusal to engage with it isn’t principled—it's intellectual laziness. Clinging to free will in the face of mounting evidence against it is like denying evolution because you don’t like the implications for your creation story.

It’s not that determinism leads to atrocity—it’s your shallow and one-track refusal to understand its nuances that leads to these flawed conclusions. Determinism doesn’t destroy accountability; it refines it by showing us how to address root causes instead of flailing at symptoms. Open your mind, Henry. Science moved on centuries ago—why haven’t you?

[accelafine]

The question “How is man free?” and ”Within what constraints?” is (from my perspective) the crucial question.

Man is utterly free, and utterly responsible for his actions.

There are no ifs, ands, buts, or except for whens.

Do you have evidence to back that up or does that take too much effort? Surely a 5 minute google search could come up with 'something'. Just because you want something to be so doesn't make it so. I'm not even saying you are wrong--no one knows for certain--although I don't know what you are saying exactly. What does 'utterly free' mean? Nothing? Thought so.

[henry quirk]

deny science and determinism

I don't. It's readily obvious the world is undergirded by the regularity of cause and effect. I simply deny man is a meat machine.

you’re unwilling to follow logic to its inevitable conclusion

Hypocrisy.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Teaching people to understand their deterministic nature doesn’t make them treat others as mechanisms—it helps them see the interconnected causes of human behavior and fosters compassion, not cruelty.

You make two levels of claim. One, that man does not have decisive agency; and another that he can recognize “interconnected causes” that influence behavior. You take away agency but reinsert it as a moral buttress. There is something murky here.

You’re rejecting it because you’re clinging to a comforting illusion of free will that keeps your worldview from crumbling under scrutiny.

Here you introduce a sharper thrust: that having decisive agency, affirming it, holding oneself and others accountable, is “clinging” to an illusion. In fact, you desire and are working (intellectually) to make the assertion of responsibility “crumble”. That is the undercurrent of your discourse.

You parrot the same tired argument—that determinism makes life meaningless or leads to atrocity—but that’s not a critique of determinism. It’s an admission that you’re unwilling to follow logic to its inevitable conclusion. Science doesn’t care about your personal discomfort, and the universe doesn’t pause to reassure you that you’re special.

It leads to teaching those who do not have the intellectual armaments to combat your assertions to disbelieve in their agency. Yours is a seductive intellectual doctrine. And you use the word “science” as a lever against which, in your view, one cannot argue. It is a suspicious sophistry, brother BigMike. It (likely) connects to other intellectual currents that if known and expressed would necessarily alarm.

The deterministic nature of reality has been demonstrated in everything from physics to neuroscience. It’s not some fringe idea; it’s the foundation of modern scientific understanding.

The Appeal to Absolute Authority!

Your refusal to engage with it isn’t principled—it's intellectual laziness. Clinging to free will in the face of mounting evidence against it is like denying evolution because you don’t like the implications for your creation story.

More of the same: now accusations of laziness, denial.

The “enemy” you are railing against is really something other than those who have presented counter-arguments to your zealous, overbearing positions. You carry yourself like a religious True Believer.

Determinism doesn’t destroy accountability; it refines it by showing us how to address root causes instead of flailing at symptoms.

Again, two levels of assertion. One relevant, considerable and necessary. But the other one doubtful and (I think) camouflaging another (what they call these days) “agenda”.

[henry quirk]

There is something murky here.

Yes, in his head. As I say: Mike is a compatibilist (who thinks he's a determinist). He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Murkiness is my word, of course. It refers to currents of thought of dubious origin and with potentially harmful influence and potential outcomes.

It is however possible I am reading more into his position than he himself intends. He believes his philosophical-scientific position is a panacea. Obviously, that is how he is presenting it. That is murkier still!

[promethean75]

May I see the language suggesting that B. Mike is a.compatibilist? I always thought he was a hard eliminative materialist reductivist determinist. I've only scanned the thread so I dunno, mebbe he isn't.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.
Truths are logical conclusions, based on valid premises of empirical data, such that no one today can validate religious beliefs as being necessarily true universally. They are just beliefs, born of fear, to sooth and control those fears. I see free will as simply choices within the physical universal construct. Choices are not deterministic as soon as one sees multiple possibilities and picks one, while others pick another. There's a difference between the framework and the choices within that framework, hence freewill. Of the things we 'can' do, we 'choose' which ones we do.

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.
It's not a gift from any deity, nor does it have anything to do with morality, I'm sure no christian wants to be murdered, yet free will allows it to happen.

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.
Sin is a construct of the human mind born out of the fear of death, the will to survive. It does not exist in the universe, only in the minds of humans. Of course no one gets out of here alive, but one wants to postpone the inevitable. Anyone that believes that free will determines any specific thing is a fool, it only allows for anything humans are capable of, so it does quite the opposite, it allows anything humans can do within the physical universal construct.

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?
To me it sounds like your real problem is with free will and not your topic. Have you done something horrible and choose not to believe in free will so you can blame it on determinism? What, you didn't do it, determinism did? Seriously??? Science hasn't proven there isn't free will. If you think so, then it would seem to me, you don't really know what free will is.

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.
And finally you go back to the topic at hand. Wow!

So BigMike, how big are you???