Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

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?

Wizard22, your response hinges on several misinterpretations of what was originally stated. Let me clarify a few points. First, scientific laws are not immutable in the sense of being eternal truths—they are our best models to explain observable phenomena, grounded in evidence and always open to revision. This makes them distinct from religious dogma, which typically claims unchanging certainty without empirical validation. My use of "immutable" refers to the consistency of physical processes under these laws as far as we’ve observed them—not an assertion of their ultimate infallibility.

Second, the claim that most of what people do is "undetermined because nobody knows the future" confuses unpredictability with indeterminacy. Not knowing the future doesn’t imply that events aren’t causally determined. Just because we lack full knowledge of all contributing factors doesn’t mean those factors don’t exist or exert influence.

Third, your suggestion that determinism and free will are equally capable of supporting moral structures or societal systems overlooks the key distinction: determinism grounds behavior in cause and effect, inviting analysis and adaptation to improve outcomes. Traditional notions of free will, however, often rely on a metaphysical premise that bypasses causality entirely, leading to frameworks of blame and retribution that ignore underlying factors.

Finally, science thrives on doubt and uncertainty, as you rightly state, but this doesn’t mean it’s directionless or arbitrary. While hypotheses are falsifiable, the deterministic framework has yet to be refuted by any evidence of causeless events. If you believe human behavior escapes causality, provide an example—something concrete and testable, not an abstract appeal to the unknown. Without such evidence, the deterministic perspective remains the most consistent with observable reality.

[Wizard22]

Finally, science thrives on doubt and uncertainty, as you rightly state, but this doesn’t mean it’s directionless or arbitrary. While hypotheses are falsifiable, the deterministic framework has yet to be refuted by any evidence of causeless events. If you believe human behavior escapes causality, provide an example—something concrete and testable, not an abstract appeal to the unknown. Without such evidence, the deterministic perspective remains the most consistent with observable reality.

First you need to address and understand exactly what 'Causes' are. It is not as if human behavior, or all observable events, have "Just One" cause. They don't. Rather you will admit that behaviors and events have 'sets' of causes: aka. "Frameworks".

So your premise is that all behaviors and events, past present and future, have sets or frameworks of causes. Your reliance on Determinism then, is equivalent to your reliance on these frameworks of causes.

But there is no reason or 'cause' to believe that any framework of causes, are universal, with or according to "immutable physical law", or persist forever. Because there is much to Existence that nobody knows. Frameworks are only hypothesized, based on current and modern human understanding and knowledge. Therefore frameworks are purely Epistemological. Your premise of Determinism then, is also Epistemological.

Free-Will then, by your definition of Determinism, hinges on what some organisms know, versus what other organisms know. It's a matter of Intelligence. What an amoeba knows of existence, what a dolphin knows, what a ferret knows, what a gorilla knows, what a human knows, what an AI knows... all of these will present a different and higher notion of Free-Will. Simple organisms are easier to predict, control, and 'determine' than complex organisms. Complex organisms are 'freer' because of higher intelligence.

Therefore an Omniscient being would have Free-Will. Because higher intelligence = more freedom, and more freeing of the Will.

[Belinda]

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?

Wizard22, your response hinges on several misinterpretations of what was originally stated. Let me clarify a few points. First, scientific laws are not immutable in the sense of being eternal truths—they are our best models to explain observable phenomena, grounded in evidence and always open to revision. This makes them distinct from religious dogma, which typically claims unchanging certainty without empirical validation. My use of "immutable" refers to the consistency of physical processes under these laws as far as we’ve observed them—not an assertion of their ultimate infallibility.

Second, the claim that most of what people do is "undetermined because nobody knows the future" confuses unpredictability with indeterminacy. Not knowing the future doesn’t imply that events aren’t causally determined. Just because we lack full knowledge of all contributing factors doesn’t mean those factors don’t exist or exert influence.

Third, your suggestion that determinism and free will are equally capable of supporting moral structures or societal systems overlooks the key distinction: determinism grounds behavior in cause and effect, inviting analysis and adaptation to improve outcomes. Traditional notions of free will, however, often rely on a metaphysical premise that bypasses causality entirely, leading to frameworks of blame and retribution that ignore underlying factors.

Finally, science thrives on doubt and uncertainty, as you rightly state, but this doesn’t mean it’s directionless or arbitrary. While hypotheses are falsifiable, the deterministic framework has yet to be refuted by any evidence of causeless events. If you believe human behavior escapes causality, provide an example—something concrete and testable, not an abstract appeal to the unknown. Without such evidence, the deterministic perspective remains the most consistent with observable reality.

While I agree with Big Mike I claim that belief in God can survive the demise of the age of faith. To survive the cessation of faith God belief must become belief in a God that is a process not an essence. Not only does existence precede essence(Sartre) but also essence will never be known.

Religions are composed of codified morals, foundation myths, and established rituals. The uses of religions are partly social control and partly personal consolation and fellowship. A religion that's viable for the age of reason would be existential and liberal as to its codified morality. Foundation myths would be Humanist ones that centre on historical persons such as Jesus of Nazareth , Confucius, Socrates, or Buddha, instead of supernatural beings. Rituals are easily adapted to suit a reasonable religion, and there is no need to stop songs and dances of praise, and communal meals, and there is a sound therapeutic reason for Lent and Ramadan. The governance of a reasonable religion would be democratic so as not to idolise tyrants.

[Wizard22]

Consciousness is that which first Divides reality.

[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.

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

What can a free will do? He can try just about anything he sets his mind to.

[BigMike]

Finally, science thrives on doubt and uncertainty, as you rightly state, but this doesn’t mean it’s directionless or arbitrary. While hypotheses are falsifiable, the deterministic framework has yet to be refuted by any evidence of causeless events. If you believe human behavior escapes causality, provide an example—something concrete and testable, not an abstract appeal to the unknown. Without such evidence, the deterministic perspective remains the most consistent with observable reality.

First you need to address and understand exactly what 'Causes' are. It is not as if human behavior, or all observable events, have "Just One" cause. They don't. Rather you will admit that behaviors and events have 'sets' of causes: aka. "Frameworks".

So your premise is that all behaviors and events, past present and future, have sets or frameworks of causes. Your reliance on Determinism then, is equivalent to your reliance on these frameworks of causes.

But there is no reason or 'cause' to believe that any framework of causes, are universal, with or according to "immutable physical law", or persist forever. Because there is much to Existence that nobody knows. Frameworks are only hypothesized, based on current and modern human understanding and knowledge. Therefore frameworks are purely Epistemological. Your premise of Determinism then, is also Epistemological.

Free-Will then, by your definition of Determinism, hinges on what some organisms know, versus what other organisms know. It's a matter of Intelligence. What an amoeba knows of existence, what a dolphin knows, what a ferret knows, what a gorilla knows, what a human knows, what an AI knows... all of these will present a different and higher notion of Free-Will. Simple organisms are easier to predict, control, and 'determine' than complex organisms. Complex organisms are 'freer' because of higher intelligence.

Therefore an Omniscient being would have Free-Will. Because higher intelligence = more freedom, and more freeing of the Will.

Wizard22, causes are not isolated entities or abstractions—they are interactions, and fundamentally, these interactions always involve one or more of the four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, or the weak nuclear force. Causality is not an epistemological framework we impose on reality; it’s a description of the physical interactions we observe.

For example, when two objects collide, their behavior isn’t guided by arbitrary frameworks but by electromagnetic interactions at the molecular level, alongside gravitational effects. Similarly, human behavior emerges from the interaction of countless physical, chemical, and biological processes, each governed by these same fundamental forces.

Your assertion that frameworks of causes are merely epistemological overlooks this physical reality. Even if our understanding evolves, the underlying interactions—mediated by these universal forces—remain consistent. Intelligence, whether in amoebas, dolphins, or humans, doesn’t create “freedom” from causality. It’s simply the result of more complex neural interactions governed by the same physical principles. Even an "omniscient being," if it existed, would not escape these constraints but would operate with complete understanding of them.

The deterministic framework isn't a "belief" or subjective lens; it's a reflection of how every cause-and-effect relationship in the universe has been observed to function. If you think intelligence introduces a “higher” notion of free will, point to an instance where physical interactions stop determining outcomes. Until then, your argument hinges on redefining freedom, not demonstrating it.

[BigMike]

Wizard22, your response hinges on several misinterpretations of what was originally stated. Let me clarify a few points. First, scientific laws are not immutable in the sense of being eternal truths—they are our best models to explain observable phenomena, grounded in evidence and always open to revision. This makes them distinct from religious dogma, which typically claims unchanging certainty without empirical validation. My use of "immutable" refers to the consistency of physical processes under these laws as far as we’ve observed them—not an assertion of their ultimate infallibility.

Second, the claim that most of what people do is "undetermined because nobody knows the future" confuses unpredictability with indeterminacy. Not knowing the future doesn’t imply that events aren’t causally determined. Just because we lack full knowledge of all contributing factors doesn’t mean those factors don’t exist or exert influence.

Third, your suggestion that determinism and free will are equally capable of supporting moral structures or societal systems overlooks the key distinction: determinism grounds behavior in cause and effect, inviting analysis and adaptation to improve outcomes. Traditional notions of free will, however, often rely on a metaphysical premise that bypasses causality entirely, leading to frameworks of blame and retribution that ignore underlying factors.

Finally, science thrives on doubt and uncertainty, as you rightly state, but this doesn’t mean it’s directionless or arbitrary. While hypotheses are falsifiable, the deterministic framework has yet to be refuted by any evidence of causeless events. If you believe human behavior escapes causality, provide an example—something concrete and testable, not an abstract appeal to the unknown. Without such evidence, the deterministic perspective remains the most consistent with observable reality.

While I agree with Big Mike I claim that belief in God can survive the demise of the age of faith. To survive the cessation of faith God belief must become belief in a God that is a process not an essence. Not only does existence precede essence(Sartre) but also essence will never be known.

Religions are composed of codified morals, foundation myths, and established rituals. The uses of religions are partly social control and partly personal consolation and fellowship. A religion that's viable for the age of reason would be existential and liberal as to its codified morality. Foundation myths would be Humanist ones that centre on historical persons such as Jesus of Nazareth , Confucius, Socrates, or Buddha, instead of supernatural beings. Rituals are easily adapted to suit a reasonable religion, and there is no need to stop songs and dances of praise, and communal meals, and there is a sound therapeutic reason for Lent and Ramadan. The governance of a reasonable religion would be democratic so as not to idolise tyrants.

Belinda, your vision of a "reasonable religion" as one rooted in existential and humanist values rather than supernatural claims is certainly an appealing proposal for aligning moral systems with the age of reason. However, it hinges on a fundamental shift: the abandonment of metaphysical certainties in favor of viewing "God" as a process rather than an essence. While such a shift might preserve some societal and personal functions of religion, it challenges the traditional concept of a deity as a supernatural, omniscient being, which many adherents still hold.

Your approach seems to reinterpret religious elements—foundation myths, rituals, and governance—within a framework grounded in humanist and democratic principles. This reinterpretation could indeed provide a sense of purpose and community without conflicting with reason or evidence. But it does raise a question: how do you reconcile deeply entrenched supernatural beliefs with this reformed existential perspective? Would such a religion still resonate with those for whom the supernatural is central to their faith?

The challenge lies in ensuring that this "reasonable religion" can function as more than just a philosophical exercise. It would need to provide the same emotional and existential comfort that traditional religions offer, while also embracing the evidence-based mindset necessary for a modern, rational age.

[Age]

'Science' is some thing that some people embrace 'religiously', even when False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect, while rejecting what is ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

[Impenitent]

to claim that the future will resemble the past, based on past events is the inductive fallacy...

-Imp

[Atla]

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?

What can a free will do? He can try just about anything he sets his mind to.

A determinist can do that too. Anything else?

[henry quirk]

A determinist can do that too.

Not accordin' to Mike.

[BigMike]

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

What can a free will do? He can try just about anything he sets his mind to.

Henry, 'free will,' as something supposedly lacking mass, charge, or any other physical property, can’t do anything because it doesn’t interact with the physical world. Without a mechanism to exert influence—no energy, no force, no medium—how would it operate? It’s like claiming a ghost can move furniture without ever explaining how it overcomes the laws of physics. That’s why 'free will,' as traditionally conceived, doesn’t just fail to do anything—it fails to even exist.

[Immanuel Can]

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

What can a free will do? He can try just about anything he sets his mind to.

Henry, 'free will,' as something supposedly lacking mass, charge, or any other physical property, can’t do anything because it doesn’t interact with the physical world.

Nobody's dumb enough to think that's true.

Free will is manifestly a feature of mind, and minds inhabit brains, and brains are in human beings; human beings have bodies, and bodies are physical and can do stuff. That's how it works every time, including this moment, in which Mikey's volition is in his mind, telling his brain to actuate his fingers to type his last message, as well as his next reply that will deny all this, which will be an expression of that free will he insists simply cannot exist.

[promethean75]

I don't see what the cotton pickin problem is, Henry. You can get along just fine without freewill. I know this because you never had freewill and you got along fine.

You can still be angry, offended and accusatory toward anyone you wanna be even though they don't have free will either. Those forms of psychological warfare (blaming, holding guilty, shaming) have proven to be extremely effective at controlling the unruly ones and, therefore, have an evolutionary advantage.

A society is a group of individual consequentialists (not deontologists) who are conditioned to associate being penalized when they do certain 'wrong' things. Nobody knows what 'wrong' means, but they don't have to to observe the consequences that follow 'wrong' behavior. One man doesn't steal because he doesn't want to go to hell, another, because he doesn't want to go to jail. Both must be made to believe that if they decide ever to steal, they aren't just guilty of stealing, but also guilty of freely choosing to do the 'wrong' thing.

The consequences are of two types. Physical punishment and shame. The punishment is real but the shame is not. It's in everyone's head beside their belief in freewill. Now, since neither freewill or shame are real, it could have only ever been the sheer physical consequences of a prohibited behavior that bred in man a natural deterence to what is called 'wrong' behavior.

Finally, milennia later, the shame becomes real... a kind of dissonant effect that saps man of his pride. When they 'stare daggers at you', ostracize you, etc. And all this would still happen if nary a person believed in freewill.

You don't need freewill to be a hater or the hated, Hylomorph Henry. We can keep right on truckin as if we always had it.

[henry quirk]

Henry, 'free will,' as something supposedly lacking mass, charge, or any other physical property

Shows how much you know. I -- a free will -- am 5' 8", and I weigh 150 lb.

I have mass, physicality, and umph.