Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[attofishpi]

..For instance, when you seek the cause of how a broken bone heals without medical or surgical intervention please consider if the healing was magical or was it more probably bones' tendency to heal themselves.

I have no idea wot u r talking about. What's that about then, I have never claimed anything so ridiculous, of course bones heal naturally.

[reasonvemotion]

Belinda wrote:

Remember Jesus was a respected rabbi. and folks would take his advice.

That appears to be rather dismissive of who He was. The son of God as written in the Scriptures.

For example He says, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life"

"No one comes to the Father except by Me"

and today this Jesus is being marginalized and especially what they call the new Reformation movement is disseminating the Bible and ripping the heart out of the Messianic side of the Bible.

.

[Belinda]

Belinda wrote:

Remember Jesus was a respected rabbi. and folks would take his advice.

That appears to be rather dismissive of who He was. The son of God as written in the Scriptures.

For example He says, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life"

"No one comes to the Father except by Me"

and today this Jesus is being marginalized and especially what they call the new Reformation movement is disseminating the Bible and ripping the heart out of the Messianic side of the Bible.

.

I take your point. However I was applying the human side, the Son of Man aspect of Jesus Christ. In the case of the wedding at Cana /water to wine , that JC was a respected rabbi is more appropriate and respectful than that Jesus was a magician.

[attofishpi]

Belinda wrote:

Remember Jesus was a respected rabbi. and folks would take his advice.

That appears to be rather dismissive of who He was. The son of God as written in the Scriptures.

For example He says, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life"

"No one comes to the Father except by Me"

and today this Jesus is being marginalized and especially what they call the new Reformation movement is disseminating the Bible and ripping the heart out of the Messianic side of the Bible.

.

I take your point. However I was applying the human side, the Son of Man aspect of Jesus Christ. In the case of the wedding at Cana /water to wine , that JC was a respected rabbi is more appropriate and respectful than that Jesus was a magician.

You become more stupid with age. Magicians fool people with deceptive, concealed conduct. Is that what Christ did?


..also, I am still wondering why you made up these lies about me?

..For instance, when you seek the cause of how a broken bone heals without medical or surgical intervention please consider if the healing was magical or was it more probably bones' tendency to heal themselves.

[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???

Spheres, let’s set aside the juvenile quips and focus on the glaring intellectual missteps in your response. Your argument doesn’t just misunderstand free will and determinism—it completely sidesteps the overwhelming evidence against the existence of free will. Ironically, you’re making the very errors I highlighted: redefining concepts to fit your narrative and clinging to comforting illusions.

First off, your notion that free will is “choices within the physical universal construct” is an exercise in semantic acrobatics. What you’re describing isn’t free will—it’s determinism wearing a disguise. Yes, humans perceive options, but even that perception is dictated by prior causes: your genetics, environment, upbringing, and past experiences. The fact that you “choose” A over B doesn’t mean you exercised free will. It means deterministic factors led you to that specific choice, whether you’re aware of them or not.

Now, let’s address your claim that “science hasn’t proven there isn’t free will.” This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science operates. Science doesn’t “prove” things in the absolute sense—it disproves hypotheses and builds evidence-based frameworks by systematically eliminating ideas that don’t hold up under scrutiny. Free will, as traditionally understood, has been effectively disproven by neuroscience and physics. Studies show decisions are made in the brain milliseconds before we become consciously aware of them. Physics operates under immutable laws of causality, leaving no room for the kind of uncaused, autonomous action free will requires. Your claim that science hasn’t settled this is willfully ignorant of the evidence.

And let’s tackle your misrepresentation of determinism. Accepting determinism doesn’t mean absolving people of accountability with an attitude of “determinism did it.” That’s not how it works. Understanding determinism means addressing the root causes of behavior and creating systems—legal, social, and educational—that are better equipped to handle those causes. It’s about progress, not excuses. On the other hand, belief in free will has been the justification for endless cruelty—punishing people as though they’re autonomous agents entirely responsible for their actions instead of products of forces beyond their control.

Finally, the irony in your response is palpable. You accuse me of dodging the topic, yet your argument is a scattershot of misconceptions, personal jabs, and philosophical hand-waving. If you truly want to engage with this subject, address the actual evidence. Explain how free will, as you claim to understand it, can exist in a universe governed by causality and demonstrated neural mechanisms.

Until then, this isn’t a meaningful debate. It’s you throwing darts in the dark, hoping something sticks, while steadfastly ignoring the spotlight of evidence shining directly on determinism.

You've done the same crap that you've labeled juvenile that I have. The difference between you and I is that you've read a book and become it's clone, it's parrot without truly understanding it. It's easy to become a fool by reading a fools book. I think for myself, no clone here! Quantum mechanic's is bull shit, the cat is either dead or alive, it's impossible to be both at the same time, thus quantum mechanics is bullshit. But then all fools want to believe in something they don't understand so they can act like they are better than others that don't read and believe in such nonsense. So go figure why quantum computers still don't work (aren't accurate) and they never will be, numbers (zeros and ones) are quantifiable, randomness is not. If it's here and there at the same time it's neither nor there. Have fun with your fiction, it's still in it's infancy. If I'm wrong please explain your

overwhelming evidence

You're talking around it, as if your words are potent, not about it, which would be potent. Observation does not change it, it's proximity that changes it! Electromagnetic energy! Magnetic flux! The difference between the macro and the micro, and the relative forces thereof acting on one another! Actually, the larger acting upon the smaller! Not observation! Like Gravity bending Electromagnetic Energy. The entire Universe all about electrical potential the positive and the negative. It's not chemistry, it's electricity!

Did you even notice that I don't believe in religion, I'm an Agnostic, I KNOW that neither side KNOWS!

I'm still wondering BIG MIKE, how big are you? What, do you weigh a TON or do you believe you're a BIG MAN, a TOUGH GUY??? EGO PROBLEMS, BOY? Problems with testerone and estrogen Big Mike? Or do you just believe you're smarter than everyone else because you believe books that you didn't write?

[reasonvemotion]

BigMike wrote:

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?

or viceversa.......

Heard it all before.

[accelafine]

BigMike wrote:

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?

or viceversa.......

Heard it all before.

As in 'scientific facts rejecting religious adherents'?

[reasonvemotion]

accelafine wrote

As in 'scientific facts rejecting religious adherents'?

There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the earth.

To seek to explain the origins of life in terms of a process of chemical evolution, produced in some warm little pond, simply does not fit the (Scientific) facts.

[accelafine]

accelafine wrote

As in 'scientific facts rejecting religious adherents'?

There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the earth.

To seek to explain the origins of life in terms of a process of chemical evolution, produced in some warm little pond, simply does not fit the (Scientific) facts.

Actually they do know pretty much exactly how 'warm' that 'pond' would have been at that time. They even know what the temperature of the universe was 3 minutes after the Big Bang. There's nothing to respond to here. You've made a weird little statement that doesn't mean anything. I'm not arguing evolution with a creationist nut-job. There's no point.

[reasonvemotion]

accelafine wrote

Actually they do know pretty much exactly how 'warm' that 'pond' would have been at that time. They even know what the temperature of the universe was 3 minutes after the Big Bang. There's nothing to respond to here. You've made a weird little statement that doesn't mean anything. I'm not arguing evolution with a creationist nut-job. There's no point.

But, there is a point.

You cannot be dismissive if you want your statement to be valid, because at this juncture you are peddling a weak argument.

Firstly, exactly who are the "they" you refer to?

[accelafine]

It's easy to see why 'determinism' fills many people with despair. Just think; it was determined at the Big Bang that you will die in a fireball/drowned/blown into the sky at 20K feet, in a horrific plane crash at 11:06 am on Monday, the nth day of the nth month of 20___ and there's not a thing you can do about it. Who would have thought that the 'destiny' of fantasy novels was reality after all? Next they will be telling us that we can't die, and that our consciousness merely 'hops' infinitely into another universe...

[Age]

accelafine wrote

As in 'scientific facts rejecting religious adherents'?

There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the earth.

To seek to explain the origins of life in terms of a process of chemical evolution, produced in some warm little pond, simply does not fit the (Scientific) facts.

Actually they do know pretty much exactly how 'warm' that 'pond' would have been at that time. They even know what the temperature of the universe was 3 minutes after the Big Bang. There's nothing to respond to here. You've made a weird little statement that doesn't mean anything. I'm not arguing evolution with a creationist nut-job. There's no point.

There is NO point in what is called 'arguing' with a "creationist" NOR with an "evolutionist". BOTH are CLOSED.

[attofishpi]

accelafine wrote

As in 'scientific facts rejecting religious adherents'?

There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the earth.

To seek to explain the origins of life in terms of a process of chemical evolution, produced in some warm little pond, simply does not fit the (Scientific) facts.

This is the truth of evolution, according to Southpark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs

[accelafine]

accelafine wrote

As in 'scientific facts rejecting religious adherents'?

There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the earth.

To seek to explain the origins of life in terms of a process of chemical evolution, produced in some warm little pond, simply does not fit the (Scientific) facts.

This is the truth of evolution, according to Southpark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs

I like this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tj77Thk_4c

[attofishpi]

accelafine wrote


There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the earth.

To seek to explain the origins of life in terms of a process of chemical evolution, produced in some warm little pond, simply does not fit the (Scientific) facts.

This is the truth of evolution, according to Southpark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs

I like this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tj77Thk_4c

OMG!! Finally, this year you have shown you have some remnant of humour within you..

..wish that vid was longer, I love Brian and the cartoon Brian.