Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[henry quirk]

Henry, are you seriously suggesting that a 100% deterministic AI can learn and adapt while deterministic humans—whose brains are vastly more complex—cannot?

Great Crom on Your Mountain, gimme strength...

Mike, AI adapts in the same way a sunflower turns toward the sun, unconsciously, without choice. It learns nuthin'. it does exactly what it's programmed to do. It (any version) is not curious, is not ambitious, is not creative. It can't assess or judge. It has no reason or feeling. It cannot hate or love or be compassionate. It cannot measure. Shame and pride are beyond it and always will be. It has no sense of what it means to fail or to win and it'll do both equally, preferring neither. Justice: it can tell you all about it, but it feels no need for it, will not seek it, fight for it, or turn away from it to do wrong. It can't do wrong, or right. It's never nostalgic. It never dreams of what is not, and it will never, ever, strive to make that dream real.

AI is probably a pretty good stand in for the meat machine humanity of your better world: just as empty, just as meaningless.

A human, a person, learns, is curious, is ambitious, is creative. He adapts becuz he's aware and chooses to. He is, and can do, all that AI is not and cannot. He's a free will. He's what your determinism sez he isn't: a cause unto himself. He bends causal chains, starts them, ends them. He's no slave to prior events. His thoughts and actions are his own and he's utterly responsible for them and himself.

Determinism doesn’t render humans incapable of learning or acting any more than it prevents an AI from refining its algorithms or updating its database.

Determinism makes us empty, meaningless, caricatures. It makes us into organic kludge-versions of AI. Like I say: meat machines.

Humans learn in precisely the same deterministic way—through external inputs, repetition, feedback, and adaptation.

Of course we don't. We apprehend. Yes, we use our senses, our bodies, in this apprehension, but it's we who apprehend. AI doesn't. It can't. As I say, it is a pretty stand in for, an example of, what we would be if your determinism were true.

equating determinism with nihilism

I hadn't thought if it that way. Thank you. That's exactiy what your determinism is: nihilism.

[Age]

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.

Which makes one wonder if "henry quirk" REALIZES WHY it JUMPED to the False conclusion and presumption that ALL talk, questioning, and answering is ALL MEANINGLESS, as 'that rock rolling downhill'?

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.

What these PAIR have YET TO RECOGNIZE and SEE is that they BOTH have 'faith' in the EXACT SAME 'thing'. That 'thing' being the EXACT SAME 'thing', LEADING them BOTH to the EXACT SAME CONCLUSION, and END GOAL.

What these two do NOT YET FULLY COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND is that ONLY AFTER they CHOOSE, FREELY, to CHANGE FOR THE BETTER, then, and ONLY THEN, can and WILL the END GOAL, with they BOTH DESIRE, and are SEEKING OUT, WILL COME TO FRUITION, and BE.

Why should these forces drive us toward a better world?

LOL That is like asking WHY is God driving 'us' toward a 'better world'.

LOL you BOTH are talking ABOUT the EXACT SAME 'things', but JUST USING DIFFERENT WORDS.

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?

Can you "henry quirk" direct God, and Its INTENTION for you? Or, can you only be directed by God?

What is the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between what you two are 'TRYING TO' ARGUE and FIGHT FOR, here?

LOL you are BOTH ARGUING and FIGHTING OVER the EXACT SAME 'thing'. But, BECAUSE you BOTH have PRE-EXISTING BELIEFS, one BELIEVING that there is ONLY the ABILITY TO CHOOSE, while the other BELIEVING that there is ONLY DETERMINISM, you two are spending ALL of your time 'TRYING TO' DEBATE OVER what you each BELIEVE IS TRUE, and 'TRYING TO' WIN, here.

you are BOTH AS CLOSED and AS STUPID as 'each other'. Which is WHY you BOTH CANNOT RECOGNIZE and SEE what the ACTUAL, and IRREFUTABLE, Truth IS, HERE.

And, the FUNNIEST PART, here, is you BOTH ARE TOTALLY CLOSED TO, and IGNORANT OF, what I AM POINTING OUT, SHOWING, and REVEALING, here.

[Age]

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.

And this PROVES, IRREFUTABLY, just HOW STUPID SOME people REALLY WERE, back in the days when this was being written.

Now, could absolutely ANY one of 'these people' even begin to start EXPLAINING HOW A 'person' COULD live FOREVER, and HOW sometime in that FOREVER, Create ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then GREAT. I, for One, would LOVE TO SEE 'you' BEGIN.

[Age]

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.

you people here are ABSOLUTE IDIOTS.

1. you have NOT YET even DECIDED and AGREED UPON, or DETERMINED, what the word 'determinsim' even MEANS and is REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

2. Absolutely EVERY thing being talked ABOUT here can be RESOLVED 'scientifically'.

you posters, here, REALLY ARE SO FAR BEHIND.

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.

AGAIN, what is SEEN, here, is ANOTHER CLEAR EXAMPLE of one BELIEVING in ANOTHER ABSOLUTE Falsehood.

[Age]

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.

LOL These people REALLY DID SPEAK as though there WAS 'a beginning'.

This REALLY WAS how BLIND and STUPID they REALLY WERE.

And, EVERY time they were QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED OVER there 'beginning' CLAIM, they would RUN AWAY, COWER, and HIDE. And, it did NOT matter how 'high up' the ladder of scientific knowledge they had, they would ALL 'cower' when QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED OVER their CLAIMS.

Where he falters, or cheats, is in insisting the blind, amoral deterministic forces governing and directing all things will lead to a better world

LOL
LOL
LOL

ONCE AGAIN, SPOKEN and WRITTEN as though this one KNOWS ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing FOREVER MORE.

How does this one KNOW that past events will NOT LEAD TO A BETTER WORLD?

And, the ABSOLUTE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS 'it does NOT'.

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).

OBVIOUSLY MISSED what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING, HERE. And thus HAS MISSED THE POINT, ALSO, COMPLETELY.

[Age]

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.

LOL AGAIN these two are MISUNDERSTANDING each other's OWN PERSONAL DEFINITIONS for words being USED, here,

While BOTH MISUNDERSTANDING that their OWN PERSONAL DEFINITIONS for words, here, ARE MISSING and MISINTERPRETING what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct, here, in Life.

Let’s clear up your errors

See HOW these people ACTUALLY BELIEVE that their OWN PERSONAL DEFINITIONS are the ONLY TRUE and RIGHT ones, in Life.

And, ABSOLUTELY ANY and EVERY 'error' is ALWAYS the FAULT of 'the other'.

—again—because your repetitive oversimplifications aren’t clever rebuttals; they’re just tiresome.

LOL Is your own personal definition of 'free will', which is some thing that is IMPOSSIBLE to exist, therefore, your repetitive argument that 'determinism' therefore MUST ONLY exist, NOT also an 'oversimplification' and 'tiresome' ALSO?

You repeatedly equate determinism with meaninglessness,

you ALSO repeatedly equate 'free will' with impossibleness.

as if being part of a causally driven system renders human actions equivalent to rocks rolling downhill or chimps banging on typewriters.

If a typewriter is introduced into Existence, then, OBVIOUSLY, through evolution 'one day' a species will type the words of one known as "Shakespeare" AS WELL AS 'the words' that are BEING SEEN before 'us', HERE.

AGAIN, a Fact, which OBVIOUSLY could NOT be REFUTED. ONCE MORE, the IRREFUTABLE of things IS VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to FIND, RECOGNIZE, and SEE.

But here’s what you fail to grasp: complex systems produce complex outcomes.

But there are NO 'complex systems' EVER, in Life.

AGAIN, just because one of you has NOT YET UNDERSTOOD some thing/s, then this IN NO WAY MEANS that there are 'complex systems'. you have just NOT YET LEARNED, and UNDERSTOOD, just HOW SIMPLE ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing IS, in Life, including Life, Itself.

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;

Adding the words 'magical metaphysical' in front of the words 'free will' does NOT MEAN that 'free will' is 'magical' nor 'metaphysical'. you using 'those words' just SHOWS and PROVES what your 'current' BELIEFS ARE, EXACTLY.

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.

So, WHY then can you NOT YET RECOGNIZE the UNDERSTANDING that 'causality' allowed 'you' human beings 'free will' AS WELL?

What do you IMAGINE is BLOCKING and PREVENTING 'you' FROM SEEING and COMPREHENDING this, here?

The ANSWER, by the way, is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS. Well to some of 'us', here, anyway.

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.

THEREFORE, the SAME deterministic forces that shaped your penchant for misunderstanding also allowed you to identify and address the conditions that foster progress - the ABILITY TO CHANGE, for the BETTER. Also known as 'free will'.

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.

WAIT, 'what'?

If 'determinism' determines ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing, then, OBVIOUSLY, "henry quirk's" FAILINGS, here, just like your OWN FAILINGS, here, "bigmike" MUST BE so-called 'determinism's'.

LOL you can NOT have 'it' BOTH WAYS. you can NOT CLAIM EVERY thing is BECAUSE OF 'determinism', however, if there are ANY FAILINGS on the part of others, then that is NOT BECAUSE of 'determinism'.

These people REALLY WERE SO BLIND and STUPID WHEN they were 'trying to' FIGHT and ARGUE for their 'currently HELD ONTO POSITIONS and BELIEFS and/or FIGHT and ARGUE AGAINST another's 'currently' HELD ONTO POSITIONS and BELIEFS.

These people would try to find just about ANY words that they could USE in their HOPE of trying to back up and support their 'current' BELIEFS.

So, Henry, keep rolling downhill with your arguments if you must, but don’t mistake gravity for insight.

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of 'finding' words in one's HOPE of PROVING their 'current' BELIEF being true.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And let’s not pretend your reimagining of the Lord’s Prayer constitutes some profound philosophical victory. It’s a rhetorical exercise, nothing more—a way to shoehorn your metaphysical leanings into a conversation grounded in logic and evidence. If that’s your idea of "turning everything to your advantage," it’s a hollow win.

I said many times “I am here for my own purposes”. I opt to gain all that I can even if philosophical conversation is often afflicted here.

My real concerns are spiritual. In brief “the status of my soul” in this life — and beyond. I struggle a great deal with Christianity. All of that is another topic, naturally, yet what I wrote about The Lord’s Prayer (a restatement of it really) actually, for me, involves a breakthrough. And you (inadvertently) helped to bring the understanding into relief. Small realizations can have large effects. And sometimes (this is my opinion) we stumble (I stumble) over small blockages.

If that’s your idea of "turning everything to your advantage," it’s a hollow win.

You are entitled to your framing of course.

And what “winning” is, is such an interesting topic. Really.

[Age]

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.

Mike, this is yours...

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.

...own it. If you're right, then human thought and action, and whatever meaning we think our thoughts or actions have, is meaningless.

What an ABSOLUTE IDIOTIC and RIDICULOUS CLAIM.

For if your, literal, person/al God INTENDED or PRE-DETERMINED for there to be MEANING, then through 'determinism' there WOULD BE MEANING.

complex systems produce complex outcomes.

Sure, but, in context, irrelevant. Again, If you're right...

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.

...then an outcome, simple or complex, is empty, no different than single rock rollin' dowhill or an avalanche. How can it be otherwise?

intricate networks and feedback loops that enable cognition, creativity, and intentionality—all of which emerge from deterministic processes.

Mike, if a person has no control over his thoughts, desires, and decisions then he is never thinking or creating or intending. He is a puppet doin' what is causally inevitable.

Meaning doesn’t arise from some magical metaphysical free will

It actually does, yeah. Only a free will can reason or create or intend. Only a free will can choose. Only a free will can impart or find meaning. Only a free will can do wrong or be justly outraged at wrong-doing. Only a free will can cause becuz he, himself is a cause, full stop. Your meat machine humanity can only go thru the motions, grotesque parodies of free wills.

it emerges from context, relationships, and outcomes within the deterministic web.

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 context, relationships, outcomes are all beyond us. We are mere conductors of forces, forces we have no say over.

we are part of a dynamic system where actions have consequences, and those consequences shape the world.

We, according to you, don't control our thoughts or actions. We can't. So why should our collected and pointless interactions and the pointless consequences of those interactions carry any more weight, have any more meaning, be of any more import, than a single meat machine's pointless actions, and the pointless consequences of its actions?

A warehouse of nuthin' is equal to a fistfull of nuthin'. You got nuthin' either way.

And your claim about "faith in deterministic forces" driving us toward a better world? A transparent strawman.

No, Mike. Your deterministic forces are blind and immoral. We are impotent (we control nuthin') and yet you insist a better world is around the corner if we just let go of our free will fantasies. You have an enormous faith, I think.

understanding causality allows us to influence outcomes.

How? Ignorant or knowledgable, we don't control our thoughts, desires, or decisions. Any influence we have, good or bad, is not in our control. We only do -- influence or be influenced -- as we must be. And the causal inevitability of our thoughts, actions, and influence is wholly the result of how deterministic forces move us. Almost sounds like a god, these deterministic forces, a blind, amoral god. Like Lovecraft's Azathoth. And you have faith that that will bring about a better world.

This isn’t faith; it’s causally inevitable for those who grasp the process.

It's nuthin' but faith. Faith that blind, deterministic forces will move us to think and do this instead or that. We don't figure into at all 'cept as conductors of those forces.

[Age]

I've never seen such deliciously eloquent insults. They are a wonder to behold

And, for 'this' to happening in philosophical discussions, on a public philosophy forum, in the way that it is, then one could very easily imagine what the rest of society was like, back in those very 'olden days' when this was being written.

WHY there was so much hatred, fighting, wars, and murders is of NO surprise AT ALL considering this is HOW supposed 'grown ups' were like in philosophical discussions of all things. And, that there were supposed 'grown ups' like "accelafine" here who LOVED to watch the 'insults' shows and proves just how BAD and BARBARIC society was, back then.

[Age]

I said I’d post the definition of “intelligence” that coincides with my own standards and values:

Intellectus

(Latin intelligere — inter and legere — to choose between, to discern; Greek nous; German Vernunft, Verstand; French intellect; Italian intelletto).

The faculty of thought. As understood in Catholic philosophical literature it signifies the higher, spiritual, cognitive power of the soul. It is in this view awakened to action by sense, but transcends the latter in range. Amongst its functions are attention, conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness. All these modes of activity exhibit a distinctly suprasensuous element, and reveal a cognitive faculty of a higher order than is required for mere sense-cognitions. In harmony, therefore, with Catholic usage, we reserve the terms intellect, intelligence, and intellectual to this higher power and its operations, although many modern psychologists are wont, with much resulting confusion, to extend the application of these terms so as to include sensuous forms of the cognitive process. By thus restricting the use of these terms, the inaccuracy of such phrases as "animal intelligence" is avoided. Before such language may be legitimately employed, it should be shown that the lower animals are endowed with genuinely rational faculties, fundamentally one in kind with those of man. Catholic philosophers, however they differ on minor points, as a general body have held that intellect is a spiritual faculty depending extrinsically, but not intrinsically, on the bodily organism. The importance of a right theory of intellect is twofold: on account of its bearing on epistemology, or the doctrine of knowledge; and because of its connexion with the question of the spirituality of the soul.

'Intelligence' is just having the ABILITY TO learn, understand, and reason ANY and EVERY thing. Obviously, ONLY you human beings have THIS ABILITY.

Or, you ALL DID AT BIRTH. you all, however, LOSE THIS ABILITY WHEN you START/ED BELIEVING or PRESUMING things are true. you all, however, can RETURN BACK to being Truly INTELLIGENT Beings, WHEN you RID "yourself" of BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

[reasonvemotion]

BigMike wrote:

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?

What we observe in research laboratories today is DNA slowly deteriorating, not new DNA evolving,

This means the very opposite of evolution.

Of course there are many scientists who believe that "God" cannot be used as an explanation of our universe.

They are entitled to their "view".

[accelafine]

BigMike wrote:

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?

What we observe in research laboratories today is DNA slowly deteriorating, not new DNA evolving,

This means the very opposite of evolution.

Of course there are many scientists who believe that "God" cannot be used as an explanation of our universe.

They are entitled to their "view".

[attofishpi]

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?

Could you give some examples?

[BigMike]

And let’s not pretend your reimagining of the Lord’s Prayer constitutes some profound philosophical victory. It’s a rhetorical exercise, nothing more—a way to shoehorn your metaphysical leanings into a conversation grounded in logic and evidence. If that’s your idea of "turning everything to your advantage," it’s a hollow win.

I said many times “I am here for my own purposes”. I opt to gain all that I can even if philosophical conversation is often afflicted here.

My real concerns are spiritual. In brief “the status of my soul” in this life — and beyond. I struggle a great deal with Christianity. All of that is another topic, naturally, yet what I wrote about The Lord’s Prayer (a restatement of it really) actually, for me, involves a breakthrough. And you (inadvertently) helped to bring the understanding into relief. Small realizations can have large effects. And sometimes (this is my opinion) we stumble (I stumble) over small blockages.

If that’s your idea of "turning everything to your advantage," it’s a hollow win.

You are entitled to your framing of course.

And what “winning” is, is such an interesting topic. Really.

Alexis, I want to take a moment to sincerely apologize if I’ve been too harsh, confrontational, or dismissive at times. It’s clear that your perspective comes from a place of deep reflection, and while we may approach the world differently, I respect the sincerity and gravity of the issues you’re wrestling with. As an atheist, I haven’t faced the profound spiritual struggles or the existential depth you describe, and my own experiences may indeed be far removed from what you’re going through. I can only imagine the weight of those questions about the status of your soul and your connection to Christianity, both in this life and beyond.

What I’ve been trying—perhaps too forcefully—to convey is the value of going back to the basics: stripping away assumptions, ideologies, and distractions to uncover what is observable, testable, and foundational. For me, that’s the rock-solid ground I trust. I truly believe that from this bedrock of understanding, we can rebuild, rethink, and reshape our worldview in a way that’s compassionate, constructive, and inclusive.

You mentioned breakthroughs and the transformative power of small realizations. That resonates deeply with me. I think the process of growth and understanding often comes in those moments when something clicks—a connection, a perspective, a new way of framing a question—and that ripple can create profound change.

In this forum, I’ve been hoping to share ideas and perspectives that might spark those ripples, even if indirectly, in a “six degrees of separation” way. My goal isn’t to win debates but to plant seeds of thought that might lead, eventually, to a kinder, more empathetic world. I truly believe that a better world is possible—not through force or blind faith, but through knowledge, understanding, and the courage to question and build anew.

Thank you for sharing your perspective and for being willing to engage, even when our views differ. I hope you can see that beneath the sharp edges of my words, there’s a genuine desire to connect, to understand, and to encourage others to “dare to know.”

[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?

Could you give some examples?

Attofishpi, are you genuinely telling me—cross your heart and hope to die—that you've never encountered examples of religious adherents rejecting scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview? Not even once?