Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

Flash, let’s start with a basic clarification of the scientific method, which you seem to misunderstand. Science never proves anything definitively—it never has. Instead, science operates by formulating hypotheses, testing them through observation and experimentation, and eliminating those that fail. What remains is the most robust explanation given the evidence at hand, subject to revision if future evidence demands it. Science disproves false statements; it does not deliver eternal truths.

If you have what it takes, you should present your case that your scientific vision is axiom-free in the philosophy of science sub and see what Will Bouwman has to say about it. I don't recommend trying to condescend as you have there though.

Just as methods of historical inquiry are suited to historical questions but not to metaphysical ones, the scientific method is suitable for answering scientific questions. Once you go beyond the sort of questions science is actually geared to answer, you have committed to that which is merely science inspired. You have not thought through whether you are trying to use physics to answer questions of metaphysics. So let's take a very brief look at that matter...

You have a habit of writing grand absolute statements such as from your OP "Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws" but under questioning they all turn out to be just tacit contingencies, accepted for now because they don't conflict with available evidence. Perhaps you would benefit from only describing your positions in the terms you will actually defend them. Also, be honest with me now, if you saw evidence that the laws of physics were not immutable, you wouldn't consider mutability as an answer but would be looking for a new law of physics that would incorporate the unexplained data and retain the immutability axiom. That's just exactly how science does operate, and I am not at all saying it should not.

You insist that failure to draw the same conclusions that you do from the available evidence raises a question of "How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws". Yet the deterministic laws are of course not an actually tested hypothesis, nor can you describe a test for that, and as I have explained above, nor would such a test count for anything at all. It appears to be one of those self-evident truths necessary for the inquiries of science to make any sense at all. There's a word for those.

There is no actual requirement of cognitive dissonance for a person to agree with almost all you present but refuse to accept the metaphysical implications you insist upon. One need only understand that science doesn't answer non-scientific questions and then your argument largely evaporates.

Conservation laws, such as the conservation of energy, are not axioms—they are hypotheses derived from centuries of empirical testing, including through Noether's theorem. These laws have never been falsified despite being foundational to countless scientific disciplines. This isn’t dogma; it’s the result of a methodical process of testing and refinement.

Now, to your questions:

1. Is it self-evident that conservation laws will always apply?
No, it’s not self-evident—it’s a hypothesis continuously supported by evidence. That’s the difference between a scientific hypothesis and an axiom: hypotheses remain open to falsification, while axioms are taken as self-evident starting points.

2. How do conservation laws explain neuron firing?
Conservation laws don’t directly explain neuron firing—they underpin the physics and chemistry that govern these processes. Neurons operate through electrochemical reactions, which are themselves governed by the conservation of charge and energy. Conservation principles provide the foundational framework within which such phenomena occur.

3. How did I rule out future advancements?
I didn’t. Science expects advancements; that’s why all hypotheses remain open to falsification. However, it’s on you to present plausible mechanisms or evidence for such advancements, not on me to entertain baseless speculation. If you think conservation laws could fail or that "choosing" defies determinism, show your evidence. Otherwise, your argument is a non-starter.

Hopefully you are intelligent enough to now realise that I didn't need any of that stuff for very much. All that is required to invalidate your position is a healthy regard for difference between contingent and absolute knowledge claims, and your consent to recognise the difference. We then just move to put some of your absolute claims into the contingent column by making you fight about whether they are axiomatic and that's the end game.

Lastly, "philosophy forum" or not, serious discussion requires engaging substantively with the ideas presented. If your contribution is limited to misrepresenting the scientific method and throwing around baseless accusations, this conversation will quickly cease to be worth anyone’s time.

I am sure you will declare that this is all I have done. But it isn't.

Flash, your response hinges on conflating contingent scientific claims with absolute metaphysical assertions, which undermines the core of your critique. Let me be clear: science operates on hypotheses, not axioms. Conservation laws, as derived from Noether's theorem, are not self-evident starting points—they are rigorously tested hypotheses supported by centuries of empirical evidence. These laws remain contingent upon future testing and refinement. If they were to fail, it wouldn’t "invalidate my position" but would demand scientific revision—a strength, not a weakness, of the method.

You claim that my position relies on "absolute knowledge claims." This is a strawman. Determinism, as I’ve presented it, is not an absolute metaphysical assertion; it’s the best-supported framework we have for understanding causality in the universe. The laws of physics, grounded in conservation principles, are not "beliefs" or "dogma" but tools for describing and predicting natural phenomena. They remain open to falsification, but until credible evidence challenges them, they are the standard by which we evaluate claims about reality.

Your suggestion that my position crumbles under the recognition of contingency is wishful thinking. Recognizing the provisional nature of scientific knowledge does not invalidate its explanatory power. If you want to challenge determinism or conservation laws, provide evidence—don’t hide behind abstract philosophical musings about "axioms."

Lastly, your repeated attempts to shift the discussion to metaphysics are unproductive. The claim that science can’t address "non-scientific questions" is both obvious and irrelevant here. Determinism isn’t a metaphysical leap; it’s a conclusion drawn from evidence within the scientific framework. If you’re unwilling to engage with that evidence substantively, then, as I said earlier, this conversation ceases to be worth anyone’s time.

Your application, therefore, is duly approved.

[FlashDangerpants]

Weak, and inept.

[BigMike]

If determinism is true, as the evidence overwhelmingly supports, blame itself is meaningless because actions are the result of preceding causes.

Exactly. As you say every atom, every synapse in your brain, every fleeting thought you believe you’ve “freely” chosen is simply the inevitable consequence of these laws in motion. So, what's all this falderal about reforming the justice system? Why lambast the religious?

As you say blame itself is meaningless because everything we think, say, do, feel, is all causally inevitable. None of it can have unfolded in any other way. So why argue for a reformation which, by your admission, is impossible? Why take folks to task who, by your own admission, cannot be other than what they are?

Henry, your argument conflates determinism with fatalism, a fundamental misunderstanding. Determinism says that all events, including human actions, are caused by preceding factors. Fatalism, on the other hand, is the belief that outcomes are fixed regardless of our actions. These are not the same. Determinism recognizes that our actions, thoughts, and decisions are part of the causal chain and thus influence future outcomes.

Take learning and memory, for example. Both are physical processes governed by neural changes—strengthening synapses, forming connections, encoding experiences. These processes enable us to evaluate how our current actions will influence the future and make decisions that align with desired outcomes. While our choices are determined by prior causes, they are also informed by our capacity to predict consequences and adapt. This is why reforming the justice system or critiquing harmful beliefs is entirely compatible with determinism: these actions are themselves causes within the system, shaping better outcomes.

Blame, in the traditional moral sense, may be meaningless in a deterministic framework, but accountability isn’t. Justice can shift from retribution to prevention and rehabilitation, focusing on reducing harm and addressing root causes. My arguments for reform are part of this causal chain, aiming to influence future conditions. They’re not futile; they’re how determinism works in practice. Dismissing efforts to improve as "impossible" misunderstands that change is caused by actions in the present, which are themselves part of the deterministic web.

[Skepdick]

Conservation laws, as derived from Noether's theorem, are not self-evident starting points—they are rigorously tested hypotheses supported by centuries of empirical evidence.

That one sentence demonstrates obliviousness to your own methodological ignorance.

You don't even understand how testable hypotheses are generated.

Anything derrived from a theorem is a "self-evident starting point". Given the axioms from which the theorem follows..
The existence of symmetries is not testable; or empirically derrivable. This is an operating assumption (e.g an axiom!) of the equational model.

The foundational principles of a scientific paradigm aren't conclusions drawn from data - they are the starting axioms that define the framework through which we interpret and organize data.

Until you work this out you'll perpetually fall into the trap you are currently stuck in.

[BigMike]

Deterministic systems don’t "figure out" how to defy predictions—they follow fixed rules.

Exactly. So what's all this falderal about education and learning? We are deterministic systems, yes? We can't, by your own admission, figure out anything.

Henry, determinism doesn’t mean we can’t “figure out” anything; it means that our figuring out is part of the causal chain. Learning and education are physical processes where the brain adapts by encoding new information and forming connections. These processes enable us to predict outcomes and make choices that align with those predictions. "Figuring out" is just the deterministic brain doing its work within the system. It’s not magic, but it’s not meaningless either—it’s causality in action.

[henry quirk]

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?

As deterministic systems they have no say in the matter. All they think, say, do is causally inevitable.

Every thought, every action, every choice we believe we make is a product of these deterministic processes.

Yes, so why give 'em grief about it?

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.

As deterministic systems they have no say in the matter. All they think, say, do is causally inevitable.

Why, then, does this cognitive dissonance persist?

Causal inevitability.

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?

To be naughty in that way would mean...

They had a choice...

...therefore...

...they could be blamed.

But, as deterministic systems they have no say in the matter. All they think, say, do is causally inevitable.

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.

Indeed. As deterministic systems we have no say in the matter. All we think, say, do is causally inevitable. We control nuthin', cannot be educated into or out of anything, are blameless.

How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws?

However they do: it's causally inevitable they should. So, why give 'em grief about it?

Why do they resist scientific findings, like the absence of free will, that challenge these beliefs?

Their resistance, their beliefs: all causally inevitable. They have no say in the matter.

[BigMike]

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?

As deterministic systems they have no say in the matter. All they think, say, do is causally inevitable.

Every thought, every action, every choice we believe we make is a product of these deterministic processes.

Yes, so why give 'em grief about it?

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.

As deterministic systems they have no say in the matter. All they think, say, do is causally inevitable.

Why, then, does this cognitive dissonance persist?

Causal inevitability.

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?

To be naughty in that way would mean...

They had a choice...

...therefore...

...they could be blamed.

But, as deterministic systems they have no say in the matter. All they think, say, do is causally inevitable.

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.

Indeed. As deterministic systems we have no say in the matter. All we think, say, do is causally inevitable. We control nuthin', cannot be educated into or out of anything, are blameless.

How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws?

However they do: it's causally inevitable they should. So, why give 'em grief about it?

Why do they resist scientific findings, like the absence of free will, that challenge these beliefs?

Their resistance, their beliefs: all causally inevitable. They have no say in the matter.

I give them "grief" because causality doesn’t mean passivity—it means actions and ideas, including critique and debate, are themselves part of the deterministic chain. My pointing out the flaws in religious thinking isn’t a contradiction of determinism; it’s a cause aimed at influencing future outcomes. Determinism doesn’t erase responsibility or change—it reframes it.

The religious resistance to science is causally inevitable, as is my critique of it. Both are part of the system, driving the ongoing evolution of ideas. Just because something is determined doesn’t mean it’s static; causality is dynamic, and progress arises from engaging in this very process. If you think determinism means sitting back and doing nothing, then you’re not understanding it—you’re avoiding it.

[Skepdick]

I give them "grief" because causality doesn’t mean passivity—it means actions and ideas, including critique and debate, are themselves part of the deterministic chain. My pointing out the flaws in religious thinking isn’t a contradiction of determinism; it’s a cause aimed at influencing future outcomes. Determinism doesn’t erase responsibility or change—it reframes it.

The religious resistance to science is causally inevitable, as is my critique of it. Both are part of the system, driving the ongoing evolution of ideas. Just because something is determined doesn’t mean it’s static; causality is dynamic, and progress arises from engaging in this very process. If you think determinism means sitting back and doing nothing, then you’re not understanding it—you’re avoiding it.

One thing should be absolutely clear. "Determinism" is a psychological profile.

Synonymous with "stubborn"; "dogmatic".

Whatever responsibility for changing his mind - the determinist is unable; or unwilling. Either way - the outcome is exactly the same.

Inability to self-correct. While preaching scientism. A self-limiting belief for sure.

[henry quirk]

Every atom, every synapse in your brain, every fleeting thought you believe you’ve “freely” chosen is simply the inevitable consequence of these laws in motion.

Learning, evaluating, deciding all causally inevitable. If you're a determinist, Mike, you need to accept this. If you're a compatibilist, and you are, then you need to explain how you sneak in a lil bit of free will, cuz that's what you're doing, into a deterministic system.

[henry quirk]

it means that our figuring out is part of the causal chain.

Causally inevitable. We have no say so.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Henry, your argument conflates determinism with fatalism, a fundamental misunderstanding. Determinism says that all events, including human actions, are caused by preceding factors. Fatalism, on the other hand, is the belief that outcomes are fixed regardless of our actions. These are not the same. Determinism recognizes that our actions, thoughts, and decisions are part of the causal chain and thus influence future outcomes.

Well then, there you have it: It seems quite possible then that, to whatever degree, we may indeed make choices within the context of our *situation* (i.e. in the flow of long causal chains) and which are *free* in some sense of the word. That is to say that a decision I make is not fatalistically determined.

Surely any choice I make has relationship to the causal situation. How could it be otherwise? And who could propose that it does not?

If I understand things aright: determinism, in the sense of an object following its course if no other object impinges on it, is how *determinism* is generally defined. So, the material universe in its flowing-out follows deterministic pathways (laws one might say).

A series of physical and material events, when no *consciousness* enters in, can only be purely deterministic (again if I understand aright). An object in motion cannot make a choice to behave differently. It has no volition.

But the issue here -- and everyone who opposes you comes at the problem from different angles of view -- is that our own choices are not *absolutely determined*. In any case that is my own view. We have *a cubic centimeter of a chance* to alter our own movement within a largely determined context. That is to say that our will enters in as a choice.

Therefore, I am quite happy with your recognition of the possibility that my actions may *influence future outcomes*!

Thank you!

[Now, I must confess to you that I spent the weekend in our orchard where I taught apples with a very fatalistic outlook that they did not have to fall down but could, if they got their mind right, fly upward. I finally got through to one. Was this not a miracle!? It dropped off the twig that held it, descended a foot or so, then quavered in mid-air, thinking perhaps, musing over my preachings. It bobbed a few seconds and then :::shazzam!::: shot up into the air at a fantastic speed and disappeared from view!]

[Atla]

Atla, science doesn’t “prove” perspective 1 or disprove perspective 2 because science doesn’t deal in proof—it deals in evidence and falsification. Perspective 1 is consistent with forward causality as observed in all empirical evidence and governed by conservation laws. Perspective 2, however, implies retrocausality, which lacks any supporting evidence and contradicts our current understanding of physics.

The conservation of energy, derived from Noether's theorem and tied to time symmetry, supports the idea that physical laws remain constant as time progresses. This framework aligns with forward causality—cause leads to effect. Retrocausality, as implied by perspective 2, would require evidence of effects influencing causes, something that has never been observed in nature and would fundamentally violate the framework established by conservation laws.

If you think perspective 2 is valid, the burden is on you to present evidence demonstrating retrocausality or a mechanism that could explain how it operates without violating established physics. Otherwise, we have no reason to take it seriously within the current scientific framework.

You are pushing your philosophical axiom, "forward causation", while rejecting the symmetrical axiom, "retrocausation", for no logical reason. But neither really make sense.

We can't prove that causality has a direction at all, because we are unable to leave the present. We always look at the result of an empirical experiment in the present, and then theorize a causal chain backwards in time and/or forwards in time. Perspective 2 is just as consistent with all known empirical evidence, as perspective 1 is. Bet you didn't know that about determinism.

Application approved!

Next time look up what empirical evidence means before trying to come across as smart. Empirical evidence doesn't allow you to peek into the future or the past.

[henry quirk]

I give them "grief"

As a deterministic system: it is what is is, you are as you are. You do as you must.

...or...

Becuz, as a free will, you can.

causality...means actions and ideas, including critique and debate, are themselves part of the deterministic chain.

Yes, inevitable, necessary, cannot be any other way.

My pointing out the flaws

As a deterministic system: it is what is is, you are as you are. You do as you must.

...or...

Becuz, as a free will, you can.

The religious resistance to science is causally inevitable, as is my critique of it.

Yes, full stop. They, and you do as you must. None of you have any so.

[BigMike]

Every atom, every synapse in your brain, every fleeting thought you believe you’ve “freely” chosen is simply the inevitable consequence of these laws in motion.

Learning, evaluating, deciding all causally inevitable. If you're a determinist, Mike, you need to accept this. If you're a compatibilist, and you are, then you need to explain how you sneak in a lil bit of free will, cuz that's what you're doing, into a deterministic system.

Henry, I fully accept that learning, evaluating, and deciding are causally inevitable. There’s no “sneaking in” free will because I reject it entirely. What you’re failing to grasp is that determinism doesn’t eliminate these processes; it explains them. Learning and deciding are deterministic processes themselves, shaped by prior causes like experience, environment, and biology.

I’m not sneaking in free will—I’m describing how deterministic systems, like brains, operate. Your attempt to equate determinism with some kind of inert, robotic stasis shows a misunderstanding. A deterministic system can adapt, learn, and change based on inputs because those inputs are also part of the causal chain. No need for "free will" to enter the picture—causality handles it all.

[henry quirk]

A series of physical and material events, when no *consciousness* enters in, can only be purely deterministic (again if I understand aright). An object in motion cannot make a choice to behave differently. It has no volition.

In the determinism Mike claims to promote, it matters not one jot if consciousness enters becuz consciousness is causally inevitable. Consciousness is just another result, another event. Mike, however, is a compatibilist. In his view consciousness, which can be educated, which can evaluate, which can decide, does matter. Somehow this educable, evaluating, deciding consciousness exercises control over itself. It self-directs.

Sounds a lot like some kind of free will to me.