Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[accelafine]

.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In its broadest incarnation, determinism is philosophy, as it cannot be tested experimentally nor proved axiomatically.

In that sense, philosophy is an exercise in rationality that does not lend itself to any standardized method, such as the scientific method or the axiomatic method. If problem at hand goes up sufficiently on the metalevel ladder, this will invariably be the case.

A "true" physicist will undoubtedly understand that the subject at hand is in fact philosophical.

Got it. Cordial thanks!

BIGMIKE! Yoo-hoo! Get down here buddy ‘cause you got some EXPLAINING to do!

[Alexis Jacobi]

In its broadest incarnation, determinism is philosophy, as it cannot be tested experimentally nor proved axiomatically.

Then it would seem to me that determinism, as expounded by BigMike (and many others), is really a popular pseudo-scientific belief, not a viable science-compatible theory.

[BigMike]

If our thoughts and decisions are shaped by external inputs, then introducing better inputs—education, exposure to new ideas, and systemic improvements—shapes better outcomes.

Who can introduce, or choose to introduce, better inputs when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

Those who understand causation can act in ways that influence others’ neural pathways

How can anyone influence, or choose to influence, another when when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

A deterministic understanding of human behavior doesn’t negate justice; it redefines it.

Who can redefine justice, or choose to redefine justice, when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

The goal shifts from punishment based on blame to prevention and rehabilitation based on understanding

How can we shift goals, or choose to shift goals, if none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

If actions are caused, then addressing the causes—poverty, trauma, mental health—reduces harmful behaviors.

Who will address the causes, or choose to address the causes, when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

Those of us "stuck in wrong-think" are deterministically nudged toward better thinking when exposed to persuasive arguments—assuming we have the intellectual humility to engage.

Who will argue persuasively, or choose to argue persuasively, when none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions?

If this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is true, then expecting a better world, or just a better man, is no more likely by way of your scheme than getting The Old Man and the Sea from a chimp at a typewriter is.

Ah, Henry, your relentless repetition of "none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions" as though it's a mic-drop moment is as tedious as it is revealing of your inability to grasp the nuances of determinism. Let me clarify—again—why your questions are not the clever dismantling you imagine them to be but rather a parade of willful misunderstanding.

You ask, "Who can introduce, choose, influence, redefine, shift, address, or argue?" The answer, which you seem unable to process, is that we do, through the deterministic processes at work in our brains. Just because our thoughts and actions are caused doesn’t mean they’re random or inconsequential. Determinism doesn’t negate action; it explains it.

Better inputs, persuasive arguments, and systemic changes don’t arise magically—they arise from causally linked processes involving education, exposure, repetition, and experience. The who is determined by those very processes. Your fixation on the illusion of "choice" as something uncaused is irrelevant because all actions—whether introducing better inputs or redefining justice—are the inevitable results of prior causes.

Your comparison to a chimp typing The Old Man and the Sea is embarrassingly off-base. Determinism isn’t randomness; it’s causation. Complex systems like human societies produce change because of feedback loops, adaptation, and the deterministic consequences of better ideas propagating through individuals and institutions.

The better world isn’t a matter of blind hope or chaos; it’s a matter of the deterministic forces we understand driving us toward it. If you can’t see that, perhaps it’s time to stop asking the same tired questions and start reevaluating the assumptions that keep you circling this endless loop of misunderstanding.

[BigMike]

Yes, existence itself is awe-inspiring, and yes, it invokes mystery. But mystery is not a justification for abandoning reason or evidence in favor of metaphysical indulgence. The fact that science doesn’t yet explain the ultimate nature of existence doesn’t mean it won’t, nor does it mean we should turn to vague invocations of a mystical realm to fill the gaps.

However I would not ever advocate for abandoning reason, that’s your take.

And i am well aware that religious conviction — the capability of believing in traditional senses — is in an afflicted state.

What this means is another topic of conversation.

As for your claim that subjective experience reveals "special truths," let’s not pretend this adds anything to the discussion. Subjective experience is indeed a rich part of life, but elevating it as a source of "other sorts of truths" without defining or substantiating them simply muddies the waters. Are these truths actionable? Are they consistent? Or are they just comforting stories we tell ourselves? You dismiss the explanatory power of determinism as if rejecting it elevates your preferred metaphysics, but you provide no actual argument, just appeals to awe and an ill-defined "special realm."

It adds to the conversation very definitely, but depends on who the participants are.

I don’t dismiss the explanatory power of the science-determinism perspective within its domain. But what “faith” means at this point in intellectual history — that is another conversation.

Your dig about "doctrines felt as absolute facts" is a weak attempt to pathologize adherence to reason and evidence. What you label as "locked within a loop" is simply a refusal to entertain ungrounded speculation masquerading as wisdom. If that’s a loop, it’s one I’m happy to inhabit— at least it’s tethered to reality.

Not weak. Apropos! You seek an explanatory model that is final and absolute. You certainly do not see that need as “pathological” and I see it as an attempt to to fulfill a deep (human) need. In this sense “doctrines held as absolute facts” fits your project.

..,at least it’s tethered to reality.

“Tethering” is an interesting word. While I understand what you mean by that, I am quite uncertain if you, Big Mike, are “tethered to reality”.

But really, that is another aspect of this conversation.

Ever the artful dodger, sidestepping the core of the critique while couching your evasions in lofty prose. Let’s untangle your latest attempt to reframe this discussion.

You claim not to advocate for abandoning reason, yet you continuously invoke an ill-defined "special realm" of subjective experience and faith, refusing to provide clear definitions or actionable insights. You concede the explanatory power of determinism "within its domain," but you cling to a nebulous metaphysical alternative without substantiating its relevance. This isn't a dialogue—it's a dance around the edges of the argument, unwilling to commit to clarity.

Your assertion that I seek an "absolute" explanatory model is a strawman. Determinism doesn’t claim to explain everything yet—it claims to be a framework grounded in observable reality, capable of expanding our understanding through evidence and reason. In contrast, your metaphysical musings offer nothing actionable, consistent, or falsifiable—just the comforting fog of "awe and mystery."

And as for "tethering to reality," let me remind you: reality is not an abstract concept to be endlessly speculated upon; it’s the observable, testable framework within which we exist. If you find my commitment to that tether disconcerting, it says more about your reluctance to engage with grounded thought than it does about any perceived limitation on my end.

So yes, Alexis, by all means, continue to philosophize about "faith" and "the afflicted state of religious conviction." But until you’re ready to define these ideas with clarity and demonstrate their relevance, don’t pretend they rival the explanatory power of a deterministic framework. Your tether to "mystery" may feel profound, but from here, it just looks like an anchor to nowhere.

[Belinda]

Then you and Mike disagree. He sez......and there ain't no way a man can be accountable in that scheme.



I don't see the quandary. God created man, man chose sumthin' other than God, God let man suffer the consequence of his bad choice and then offered man redemption.



Like I said: If man had no true choice, if his thoughts and actions were causally inevitable, then he could bear no responsibility, never be accountable, and couldn't be redeemed. And he wouldn't need to be. If man is not a free will then he is as Mike describes him. And, as I say, there ain't no way a man can be accountable in that scheme.



A loving one. A hopeful one. One who has faith in us even when we have no faith in Him.



You know folks who do that, especially in God's name, have lost the narrative, right? They aren't the baseline, nor should they be.

What happened to being a pantheist? You get more and more 'god-bothering' by the day. It doesn't suit you.

And the funniest thing here is "henry quirk" actually BELIEVES, absolutely, that God is a 'person', of ALL things.

Most people in the Abrahamic tradition used to believe God is a person . Moses for instance spoke of God as a person with whom he could walk and talk, ,and others at the time understood what Moses meant.
Henry is perhaps a little old fashioned or conservative but he is not unusual i his belief , except perhaps he gets away with his stubborn nature. because he is entertaining.

[Belinda]

Yes, existence itself is awe-inspiring, and yes, it invokes mystery. But mystery is not a justification for abandoning reason or evidence in favor of metaphysical indulgence. The fact that science doesn’t yet explain the ultimate nature of existence doesn’t mean it won’t, nor does it mean we should turn to vague invocations of a mystical realm to fill the gaps.

However I would not ever advocate for abandoning reason, that’s your take.

And i am well aware that religious conviction — the capability of believing in traditional senses — is in an afflicted state.

What this means is another topic of conversation.

As for your claim that subjective experience reveals "special truths," let’s not pretend this adds anything to the discussion. Subjective experience is indeed a rich part of life, but elevating it as a source of "other sorts of truths" without defining or substantiating them simply muddies the waters. Are these truths actionable? Are they consistent? Or are they just comforting stories we tell ourselves? You dismiss the explanatory power of determinism as if rejecting it elevates your preferred metaphysics, but you provide no actual argument, just appeals to awe and an ill-defined "special realm."

It adds to the conversation very definitely, but depends on who the participants are.

I don’t dismiss the explanatory power of the science-determinism perspective within its domain. But what “faith” means at this point in intellectual history — that is another conversation.

Your dig about "doctrines felt as absolute facts" is a weak attempt to pathologize adherence to reason and evidence. What you label as "locked within a loop" is simply a refusal to entertain ungrounded speculation masquerading as wisdom. If that’s a loop, it’s one I’m happy to inhabit— at least it’s tethered to reality.

Not weak. Apropos! You seek an explanatory model that is final and absolute. You certainly do not see that need as “pathological” and I see it as an attempt to to fulfill a deep (human) need. In this sense “doctrines held as absolute facts” fits your project.

..,at least it’s tethered to reality.

“Tethering” is an interesting word. While I understand what you mean by that, I am quite uncertain if you, Big Mike, are “tethered to reality”.

But really, that is another aspect of this conversation.

Ever the artful dodger, sidestepping the core of the critique while couching your evasions in lofty prose. Let’s untangle your latest attempt to reframe this discussion.

You claim not to advocate for abandoning reason, yet you continuously invoke an ill-defined "special realm" of subjective experience and faith, refusing to provide clear definitions or actionable insights. You concede the explanatory power of determinism "within its domain," but you cling to a nebulous metaphysical alternative without substantiating its relevance. This isn't a dialogue—it's a dance around the edges of the argument, unwilling to commit to clarity.

Your assertion that I seek an "absolute" explanatory model is a strawman. Determinism doesn’t claim to explain everything yet—it claims to be a framework grounded in observable reality, capable of expanding our understanding through evidence and reason. In contrast, your metaphysical musings offer nothing actionable, consistent, or falsifiable—just the comforting fog of "awe and mystery."

And as for "tethering to reality," let me remind you: reality is not an abstract concept to be endlessly speculated upon; it’s the observable, testable framework within which we exist. If you find my commitment to that tether disconcerting, it says more about your reluctance to engage with grounded thought than it does about any perceived limitation on my end.

So yes, Alexis, by all means, continue to philosophize about "faith" and "the afflicted state of religious conviction." But until you’re ready to define these ideas with clarity and demonstrate their relevance, don’t pretend they rival the explanatory power of a deterministic framework. Your tether to "mystery" may feel profound, but from here, it just looks like an anchor to nowhere.

I am not endorsing Alexis and especially not his lofty prose, but science cannot get a grip on the ultimate question: why is there anything at all why not nothing.

It' s not to abandon reason to worship that which is eternal not caused. Eternity is perhaps impossible to imagine or talk about, however sages such as Jesus of Nazareth are reasoning pointers to the significance of eternity.

[BigMike]

I am not endorsing Alexis and especially not his lofty prose, but science cannot get a grip on the ultimate question: why is there anything at all why not nothing.

It' s not to abandon reason to worship that which is eternal not caused. Eternity is perhaps impossible to imagine or talk about, however sages such as Jesus of Nazareth are reasoning pointers to the significance of eternity.

Belinda, your point about science not addressing "why there is something rather than nothing" is a familiar refrain, but it doesn’t hold the weight you seem to think it does. Science operates within the realm of the observable and testable—its strength lies in explaining how things work, not in indulging speculative metaphysics about ultimate origins. To fault science for not answering what is inherently outside its scope is like criticizing a map for not showing you the meaning of life.

As for "worshiping that which is eternal and not caused," this is where things spiral into ungrounded mysticism. You invoke eternity as though it’s a concept that adds clarity, but in reality, it’s a placeholder for the incomprehensible—a poetic shrug rather than a substantive contribution. Reason doesn’t require us to "worship" anything, least of all something undefined and unsupported by evidence.

And invoking Jesus of Nazareth as a "reasoning pointer to the significance of eternity" doesn’t make eternity any more intelligible or relevant to this discussion. Whatever wisdom or parables Jesus offered, they don’t bridge the gap between the observable universe and the metaphysical abstractions you’re advocating for.

If anything, clinging to eternity and metaphysical worship distracts from the pressing, grounded questions of existence—questions determinism does address. Let’s not muddy the waters of reason with vague gestures toward eternity that add nothing actionable or explanatory to the conversation.

[henry quirk]

Ah, Henry, your relentless repetition of "none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions" as though it's a mic-drop moment is as tedious as it is revealing of your inability to grasp the nuances of determinism.

Mike, this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is yours. There's nuthin' ambiguous or nuanced about it.

You ask, "Who can introduce, choose, influence, redefine, shift, address, or argue?" The answer, which you seem unable to process, is that we do, through the deterministic processes at work in our brains. Just because our thoughts and actions are caused doesn’t mean they’re random or inconsequential. Determinism doesn’t negate action; it explains it.

If everything we think and do is causally inevitable, when we introduce, choose, influence, redefine, shift, address, or argue we aren't doin' anything more than that rock rollin' downhill. And the response we get from another when we introduce, choose, influence, redefine, shift, address, or argue is exactly as meaningless as that rock rollin' downhill. We're null points doin' nada. This is your determinism.

Your comparison to a chimp typing The Old Man and the Sea is embarrassingly off-base. Determinism isn’t randomness; it’s causation.

Mike, the chimp is no different than us. Its brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. The gibberish it pokes out on the typewriter is no different in substance, or origin, than the gibberish we spew when we introduce, choose, influence, redefine, shift, address, or argue. This is your determinism.

The better world isn’t a matter of blind hope or chaos; it’s a matter of the deterministic forces we understand driving us toward it.

You sure have a lot of faith in blind and amoral deterministic forces. Why should these forces drive us toward a better world? We, being as subject (slaved) to these forces as the rock, can't direct them (we can only be directed by them), so what's causally inevitable about a better world?

[henry quirk]

Most people in the Abrahamic tradition used to believe God is a person .

Used to? Seems to me Christians, Jews, Muslims, and at least one Deist still believe God is a person.

[FlashDangerpants]

In its broadest incarnation, determinism is philosophy, as it cannot be tested experimentally nor proved axiomatically.

Then it would seem to me that determinism, as expounded by BigMike (and many others), is really a popular pseudo-scientific belief, not a viable science-compatible theory.

Correct. Science could never actually prove or disprove determinism because the question belongs to metaphysics not to physics. Science can be used by people to inspire them to adopt a particular metaphysics, but the position they adopt is unfalsifiable, the result of story telling not experiment.

[henry quirk]

Then it would seem to me that determinism, as expounded by BigMike (and many others), is really a popular pseudo-scientific belief, not a viable science-compatible theory.

Problem is: determinism is a catch-all for a lot of ideas, scientific, philosophic, theologic. In context, though, what Mike is talkin' about is cause & effect, unbroken causal chains or lines stretchin' back to the beginning. Where he falters, or cheats, is in insisting the blind, amoral deterministic forces governing and directing all things will lead to a better world if we, as slaved to those forces as a rock rollin' downhill, let them (as though we had some say over our thoughts and acts, which, of course, he sez we don't).

[BigMike]

Ah, Henry, your relentless repetition of "none of us control our thoughts, our desires, or our decisions" as though it's a mic-drop moment is as tedious as it is revealing of your inability to grasp the nuances of determinism.

Mike, this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is yours. There's nuthin' ambiguous or nuanced about it.

You ask, "Who can introduce, choose, influence, redefine, shift, address, or argue?" The answer, which you seem unable to process, is that we do, through the deterministic processes at work in our brains. Just because our thoughts and actions are caused doesn’t mean they’re random or inconsequential. Determinism doesn’t negate action; it explains it.

If everything we think and do is causally inevitable, when we introduce, choose, influence, redefine, shift, address, or argue we aren't doin' anything more than that rock rollin' downhill. And the response we get from another when we introduce, choose, influence, redefine, shift, address, or argue is exactly as meaningless as that rock rollin' downhill. We're null points doin' nada. This is your determinism.

Your comparison to a chimp typing The Old Man and the Sea is embarrassingly off-base. Determinism isn’t randomness; it’s causation.

Mike, the chimp is no different than us. Its brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. The gibberish it pokes out on the typewriter is no different in substance, or origin, than the gibberish we spew when we introduce, choose, influence, redefine, shift, address, or argue. This is your determinism.

The better world isn’t a matter of blind hope or chaos; it’s a matter of the deterministic forces we understand driving us toward it.

You sure have a lot of faith in blind and amoral deterministic forces. Why should these forces drive us toward a better world? We, being as subject (slaved) to these forces as the rock, can't direct them (we can only be directed by them), so what's causally inevitable about a better world?

Ah, Henry, still proudly championing your misunderstanding of determinism as though it’s a revelation. Let’s clear up your errors—again—because your repetitive oversimplifications aren’t clever rebuttals; they’re just tiresome.

You repeatedly equate determinism with meaninglessness, as if being part of a causally driven system renders human actions equivalent to rocks rolling downhill or chimps banging on typewriters. But here’s what you fail to grasp: complex systems produce complex outcomes. Rocks and chimps aren’t analogous to human brains because they lack the intricate networks and feedback loops that enable cognition, creativity, and intentionality—all of which emerge from deterministic processes.

Your insistence that deterministic actions are “meaningless” betrays your misunderstanding of meaning itself. Meaning doesn’t arise from some magical metaphysical free will; it emerges from context, relationships, and outcomes within the deterministic web. When we act, we don’t do so in isolation—we are part of a dynamic system where actions have consequences, and those consequences shape the world. This isn’t randomness or nihilism; it’s causality at work.

And your claim about "faith in deterministic forces" driving us toward a better world? A transparent strawman. It’s not blind faith; it’s the recognition that understanding causality allows us to influence outcomes. The same deterministic forces that shaped your penchant for misunderstanding also allow us to identify and address the conditions that foster progress—education, cooperation, and systemic reform. This isn’t faith; it’s causally inevitable for those who grasp the process.

You dismiss these ideas because you cannot separate causality from your crude caricatures of rocks and typewriters. That’s your failing, not determinism’s. So, Henry, keep rolling downhill with your arguments if you must, but don’t mistake gravity for insight.

[Alexis Jacobi]

BigMike writes: You claim not to advocate for abandoning reason, yet you continuously invoke an ill-defined "special realm" of subjective experience and faith, refusing to provide clear definitions or actionable insights. You concede the explanatory power of determinism "within its domain," but you cling to a nebulous metaphysical alternative without substantiating its relevance. This isn't a dialogue—it's a dance around the edges of the argument, unwilling to commit to clarity.

Really, all of •that• could only be discussed in another thread and conversation context. I refer to another realm of knowing which people access and live through.

Your assertion that I seek an "absolute" explanatory model is a strawman. Determinism doesn’t claim to explain everything yet—it claims to be a framework grounded in observable reality, capable of expanding our understanding through evidence and reason. In contrast, your metaphysical musings offer nothing actionable, consistent, or falsifiable—just the comforting fog of "awe and mystery."

You say it doesn’t explain everything (yet) but your entire shtick is presented in sheerly absolutist terms. You employ all your reductionist arguments for one sole purpose and dismiss alternatives.

Your zealousness is missionary.

And as for "tethering to reality," let me remind you: reality is not an abstract concept to be endlessly speculated upon; it’s the observable, testable framework within which we exist. If you find my commitment to that tether disconcerting, it says more about your reluctance to engage with grounded thought than it does about any perceived limitation on my end.

In the sense you mean, and in relation to facts a science-perspective is concerned about (tangibles) I definitely agree. But there certainly are larger questions. They have always been there and they will continue.

So yes, Alexis, by all means, continue to philosophize about "faith" and "the afflicted state of religious conviction." But until you’re ready to define these ideas with clarity and demonstrate their relevance, don’t pretend they rival the explanatory power of a deterministic framework. Your tether to "mystery" may feel profound, but from here, it just looks like an anchor to nowhere.

As I say: all that is certainly doable. A great deal of my own interest and reading (obviously) centers in those questions. But in general, and for most who gravitate to this forum, I don’t think it is a welcome conversation.

Let me say this: For all that you crow on about the “relevance” of your reductionist doctrines and your world-betterment project, which is really a metaphysics and a philosophical position you have crafted (dressed up in scientistic terms) it doesn’t help me much in the decisions I must make and do make every day or in life generally.

But certainly I am alluding to things outside of your domain and that of this thread.

I will say that by •causing• (heh heh) me to reconfigure The Lord’s Prayer into different language that places emphasis on the concept of something standing outside of causation to which one has (conceptual and also “real”) access, that you did me some service!

As I say I am here really for my own purposes, resolved to turn everything to my advantage.

[Belinda]

I am not endorsing Alexis and especially not his lofty prose, but science cannot get a grip on the ultimate question: why is there anything at all why not nothing.

It' s not to abandon reason to worship that which is eternal not caused. Eternity is perhaps impossible to imagine or talk about, however sages such as Jesus of Nazareth are reasoning pointers to the significance of eternity.

Belinda, your point about science not addressing "why there is something rather than nothing" is a familiar refrain, but it doesn’t hold the weight you seem to think it does. Science operates within the realm of the observable and testable—its strength lies in explaining how things work, not in indulging speculative metaphysics about ultimate origins. To fault science for not answering what is inherently outside its scope is like criticizing a map for not showing you the meaning of life.

As for "worshiping that which is eternal and not caused," this is where things spiral into ungrounded mysticism. You invoke eternity as though it’s a concept that adds clarity, but in reality, it’s a placeholder for the incomprehensible—a poetic shrug rather than a substantive contribution. Reason doesn’t require us to "worship" anything, least of all something undefined and unsupported by evidence.

And invoking Jesus of Nazareth as a "reasoning pointer to the significance of eternity" doesn’t make eternity any more intelligible or relevant to this discussion. Whatever wisdom or parables Jesus offered, they don’t bridge the gap between the observable universe and the metaphysical abstractions you’re advocating for.

If anything, clinging to eternity and metaphysical worship distracts from the pressing, grounded questions of existence—questions determinism does address. Let’s not muddy the waters of reason with vague gestures toward eternity that add nothing actionable or explanatory to the conversation.

I don't "fault science"! I'm just saying an obvious fact.
Timeless, spaceless, and forceless amount to eternal.
Worthship literally means worthship ,and it's in the sense of worthship I apply the word to eternity.
Eternity is a worthy concept because it enables less hubris concerning time, space, and force;also the concepts of timelessness, spacelessness , and forcelessness have been addressed by quantum physics: uncertainty, and the EPR/ entanglement experiment.