Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Gary Childress]

Look here, Gary: Mike tells me...

you don’t have a choice.

...but in the same breath he tells me...

if you gained even a basic understanding of how determinism actually works, that knowledge could become one of the many inputs shaping your future actions and thoughts.

...so how am I to gain a basic understanding if I have no say-so at all about where my attention goes, or what I think, or, well, anything?

Mike chastises me for things he sez I can't control.

See the contradiction?

Henry, there’s no contradiction—just your misunderstanding. You don’t choose to gain a basic understanding, just as you don’t choose to misunderstand. I said if "you gained even a basic understanding…", which you evidently didn’t. That’s not your fault; it’s just your underdeveloped brain making it impossible for you to grasp.

Maybe instead of "underdeveloped" brain you ought to use the term "differently developed".

I think many of us have the idea that we are agents of our actions. I mean, I can't give myself a free pass saying, "well I did harm to that person over there but I had no choice." Some of us believe that we have choice and that we are accountable for our choices. And I don't see where that's necessarily a bad thing or indicative of an "underdeveloped" brain. In a sense, it's taking responsibility for one's own actions and that can be seen as a responsible way to comport oneself. That could be seen as a highly developed sense of moral awareness.

[Atla]

Or the psychophats could use their free will to gain a conscience and morph into a human being. Wonder why they don't ever do that. Btw some of them admitted to me that they aren't human, but they're superior to humans.

[Atla]

If they have free will inside their heads then why don't they choose to become smarter?

Good question: so, why don't you get smart and disembark the determinism train to nowhere and be the free will you are?

Hey you have free will, you should be able to come up with an argument for free will that will convince most determinists. Aren't you free to think of an argument like that?

[Impenitent]

Or the psychophats could use their free will to gain a conscience and morph into a human being. Wonder why they don't ever do that. Btw some of them admitted to me that they aren't human, but they're superior to humans.

what's a psychophat? 300 pound Norman Bates?

-Imp

[BigMike]

I hear what he's saying. I just can't refute it any more than I can refute that there is a God or not. I don't know how this world ultimately works. Maybe he's right and punishing people for egregious acts only makes things worse--or to bring it all home, after what my country did in the Middle East, I can't consciously say, "I hope Muslims punish us for our crimes against them". There but for the grace of God go I. Or maybe it's fate, I don't know.

Gary, the difference is this: God is not falsifiable—determinism is. Show me one instance of something physically happening with no cause. If, however, I claimed I felt the presence of a real unicorn yesterday—good luck proving me wrong. Determinism deals with observable, testable cause-and-effect; God and unicorns don’t. That’s the distinction.

It could be the case that God is not falsifiable. Do we know that nothing which is unfalsifiable is the case?

Gary, unfalsifiability doesn’t equate to falsehood, but it also doesn’t equate to truth. If something cannot be tested or observed, its "truth" remains speculative, not established.

[BigMike]

Look here, Gary: Mike tells me......but in the same breath he tells me......so how am I to gain a basic understanding if I have no say-so at all about where my attention goes, or what I think, or, well, anything?

Mike chastises me for things he sez I can't control.

See the contradiction?

Henry, there’s no contradiction—just your misunderstanding. You don’t choose to gain a basic understanding, just as you don’t choose to misunderstand. I said if "you gained even a basic understanding…", which you evidently didn’t. That’s not your fault; it’s just your underdeveloped brain making it impossible for you to grasp.

Maybe instead of "underdeveloped" brain you ought to use the term "differently developed".

I think many of us have the idea that we are agents of our actions. I mean, I can't give myself a free pass saying, "well I did harm to that person over there but I had no choice." Some of us believe that we have choice and that we are accountable for our choices. And I don't see where that's necessarily a bad thing or indicative of an "underdeveloped" brain. In a sense, it's taking responsibility for one's own actions and that can be seen as a responsible way to comport oneself. That could be seen as a highly developed sense of moral awareness.

Gary, I understand your preference for "differently developed," but my point remains: if the necessary synaptic connections for a specific thought or realization are too weak or entirely absent, "underdeveloped" accurately describes the lack of capacity to conceive of or process certain ideas. It wasn’t meant as a moral judgment, just a factual observation about neurological constraints.

Now, about "choice" and accountability: does your view mean your "soul" or "mind" makes choices independently of your brain? If so, does it inform your brain of these choices afterward? And how does this "soul" operate—does it make decisions with its own mysterious "soul-brain," or does it generate choices out of nowhere, without any physical mechanism? The idea of a choice occurring entirely outside physical causation sounds more like magic than morality.

[Alexis Jacobi]

On your answer, Gary, hangs the fate of the world. Please PLEASE think it through!

[seeds]

Look here, Gary: Mike tells me...

you don’t have a choice.

...but in the same breath he tells me...

if you gained even a basic understanding of how determinism actually works, that knowledge could become one of the many inputs shaping your future actions and thoughts.

...so how am I to gain a basic understanding if I have no say-so at all about where my attention goes, or what I think, or, well, anything?

Mike chastises me for things he sez I can't control.

See the contradiction?

Henry, there’s no contradiction—just your misunderstanding. You don’t choose to gain a basic understanding, just as you don’t choose to misunderstand. I said if "you gained even a basic understanding…", which you evidently didn’t. That’s not your fault; it’s just your underdeveloped brain making it impossible for you to grasp.

Oh dear, isn't it funny how our words can come back to bite us on the butt.

For it was only a couple of days ago when you (BigMike) said the following to me...

Resorting to ad hominem attacks cloaked in philosophical language doesn’t strengthen your position—it underscores its weakness.

_______

[henry quirk]

Hey you have free will, you should be able to come up with an argument for free will that will convince most determinists.

Being a free will doesn't mean I can convince the dim. Doin' so would be, in fact, magic.

[henry quirk]

Master Meta teaches:

Hate the sin, love the sinner?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

No.

[Atla]

Hey you have free will, you should be able to come up with an argument for free will that will convince most determinists.

Being a free will doesn't mean I can convince the dim. Doin' so would be, in fact, magic.

What CAN your free will do? Is it good for anything?

[Gary Childress]

On your answer, Gary, hangs the fate of the world. Please PLEASE think it through!

How does the fate of the world hang on my answer?

[Gary Childress]

Now, about "choice" and accountability: does your view mean your "soul" or "mind" makes choices independently of your brain? If so, does it inform your brain of these choices afterward? And how does this "soul" operate—does it make decisions with its own mysterious "soul-brain," or does it generate choices out of nowhere, without any physical mechanism? The idea of a choice occurring entirely outside physical causation sounds more like magic than morality.

From what I can make of all this, I must just be a passenger on a ride. It doesn't appear I do anything or am even required to be here for my body to do what it does. There are plenty of acts the body performs autonomously--heart beating, blood pumping. I don't consciously exert any thought into doing those things. Perhaps my whole body is indeed running on its own all the way up to whether or not I help the proverbial little old lady across the street or else let her walk across on her own.

I feel pain or pleasure, I look at the sky and experience it as beautiful or ugly. I'm pretty sure my analytical skills have declined over the years. My brain is likely underdeveloped as well. I mean, maybe that puts me in with Henry, IC, Seeds and Alexis. Nothing I can realistically do about that.

I yield the floor to the better developed brain. Take the floor, BigMike! I can still look up into the sky and experience the wonder of the cosmos--at least until my heart decides on its own to stop beating and my blood stops pumping. (Come to think of it, I can't even see stars in the sky anymore due to all the light pollution.)

Such is life.

[BigMike]

Now, about "choice" and accountability: does your view mean your "soul" or "mind" makes choices independently of your brain? If so, does it inform your brain of these choices afterward? And how does this "soul" operate—does it make decisions with its own mysterious "soul-brain," or does it generate choices out of nowhere, without any physical mechanism? The idea of a choice occurring entirely outside physical causation sounds more like magic than morality.

From what I can make of all this, I must just be a passenger on a ride. It doesn't appear I do anything or am even required to be here for my body to do what it does. There are plenty of acts the body performs autonomously--heart beating, blood pumping. I don't consciously exert any thought into doing those things. Perhaps my whole body is indeed running on its own all the way up to whether or not I help the proverbial little old lady across the street or else let her walk across on her own.

I feel pain or pleasure, I look at the sky and experience it as beautiful or ugly. I'm pretty sure my analytical skills have declined over the years. My brain is likely underdeveloped as well. I mean, maybe that puts me in with Henry, IC, Seeds and Alexis. Nothing I can realistically do about that.

I yield the floor to the better developed brain. Take the floor, BigMike! I can still look up into the sky and experience the wonder of the cosmos--at least until my heart decides on its own to stop beating and my blood stops pumping. (Come to think of it, I can't even see stars in the sky anymore due to all the light pollution.)

Such is life.

Gary, I appreciate your yielding the floor with such grace, but your reflective tone suggests a deeper understanding than you let on. You’ve touched on something vital: the body operates largely autonomously, from heartbeats to reactions. Yet, this doesn’t diminish the value of consciousness—it reframes it. Consciousness is not about overriding physical laws; it’s about experiencing, learning, and adapting within them.

Whether it's marveling at the cosmos or reflecting on moral choices, these processes emerge from the same deterministic mechanisms. They're no less profound for being caused; in fact, their beauty lies in their inevitability, shaped by a universe of causes that brought you—and your wonder—into existence. Life is, indeed, such.

[Wizard22]

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.

This is false. Scientific Physical Laws are hypotheses, and therefore not "Immutable". The premise of absolute certainty or truth, is the realm of religious fundamentalism, not science. So you're practicing the same religious belief that you are accusing of others.

There’s no room for free will in this framework.

This is a Non-Sequitur Fallacy. You cannot base Free-Will upon a false premise ("immutable scientific law"), without first proving your premise, along with connecting Free-Will to your premise. You have done neither of these.

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

That's simply not true. Most of what people do, is Un-determined. Because nobody knows the Future.

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.

This is simply a bad argument.

Why, then, does this cognitive dissonance persist?

Ask yourself...cognitive dissonance is primarily the direct consequence of bad/faulty premises.

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.

Not true--whether the Universe is governed by Determinism or Free-Will, either have resulted in blame, rewards, punishments, Sin, etc.

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?

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.

Science is the realm of Doubt and Uncertainty. So your premise that Science/Physical Laws are "Immutable", is deeply flawed, and similar to the "religious" mindset that you accuse others, in the first few sentences and statements. Religion is the realm of Faith and Certainty. So there's your first problem. Science is based on Hypotheses and Theses, which are refutable.

Secondly, whether the premise is Determinism or Free-Will, both can be used to justify Science or Religion. It's not mutually-exclusive. There's your second problem. I've seen religious people claim that Determinism comes from God, or Free-Will comes from God. And I've seen the same applied to Science. Science is used to prove things, based on "Evidence". So is it "Evident" that people are 'fundamentally' free, or are they not?