Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Immanuel Can]

I choose to be liberal and say there are many paths to God.

Let's see what God says about that.

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Immanuel, I’m curious—who exactly did God say that to, and how?

So you've never heard of Jesus Christ? The words are His. And since He is Himself God, the audience He was addressing is most immediately His present listeners, and by extension, you and me as well.

[Dubious]

Let's see what God says about that.

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Immanuel, I’m curious—who exactly did God say that to, and how?

So you've never heard of Jesus Christ? The words are His. And since He is Himself God, the audience He was addressing is most immediately His present listeners, and by extension, you and me as well.

From the very start, any "god" who unconditionally demands to be believed in is simply another one of humanities miserable frauds...a belief ultimately doomed to nihilism for it leads to nothing or worse.

Why would a god behave like a human tyrant demanding maximum loyalty, which if not given, you will be consigned to a Nazi ending which never ends. Heil Jesus!

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

This saying amounts to a metaphor which can be interpreted in a number of ways. As it stands, there is nothing inherently untrue about it unless interpreted in a purely scriptural context, in which case it becomes absurd and meaningless...that being your specialty.

[accelafine]

I think IC is probably catholic. I went to a family requiem mass the other day and actually listened to the eulogies and readings (I generally switch off when priests witter on) and it was suprising to me how many times the concept of 'free will' came up. It's clearly fundamental to their entire belief system. No wonder he gets so upset with science lol. There were other parts that weren't so far removed from some theories around reality eg time and consciousness. You have to wonder how much 'blurring' either side will be able to tolerate...

[Dubious]

Free will is fundamental to the fate of the first parents. Through free will, Adam & Eve made themselves guilty of the very first sin perpetrated by humans. I guess that's why it's called Original. As more humans showed up, all hell broke loose in sinning, for which the original old guy required atonement. That's when Jesus showed up as the sacrificial lamb, after which he was probably promoted in heaven for going beyond the call of duty on our lost, lonely little planet.

In effect, if you remove free will, the whole Christian saga falls apart from its very inception. It becomes the bedrock upon which most such absurdities are established, as one of the main pillars upon which belief itself is based and upheld. In that regard, free will operates as a religious sine qua non.

[Immanuel Can]

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

This saying amounts to a metaphor which can be interpreted in a number of ways.

Let's see if that turns out to be true.

[Dubious]

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

This saying amounts to a metaphor which can be interpreted in a number of ways.

Let's see if that turns out to be true.

Let's see depends on who decides. Will it be a philosopher, a Jungian type of mystic or one who has decided that any moving parts in his brain amounts to nothing more than wasted energy whenever it strives to go beyond the limited ramparts of what he unequivocally believes.

[BigMike]

It seems abundantly clear that Immanuel Can (along with far too many others here to bother naming individually) has unwittingly provided the answer to the core question of this thread: "Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?" The answer, as ridiculous as it is revealing, boils down to this: they believe they were instructed to do so by God. Not through evidence, reason, or rational discourse, but because of a blind adherence to the idea that some divine being allegedly issued a command.

This kind of thinking exemplifies the very essence of what the thread seeks to address—how faith, rooted in unverifiable claims, overrides logic and dismisses scientific truths. It’s not that they grapple with the evidence and find it unconvincing; it’s that they outright refuse to engage with it on any meaningful level because their "God" has told them not to. This is intellectual abdication at its finest, a rejection of inquiry and a full embrace of comforting impossibilities.

If your argument begins and ends with “because God said so,” then you’ve not only sidestepped the need for evidence—you’ve chosen to abandon reason entirely. This isn’t an exploration of truth; it’s an exercise in willful ignorance. And that, unfortunately, is the legacy of those who prioritize belief in the impossible over the pursuit of understanding.

[Dubious]

Theism couldn't exist without its proclaimed absurdities, lies and liars. If allowed to rule, civilization itself would be forced to reformat itself according to old god beliefs that could change the future entirely. It would be a case where theism, advancing once again to become an ecumenical power, restructures everything in its wake, affirming itself as an enemy to all except its own scripture.

Theism is no-longer a matter of mere personal belief. Instead, it becomes the most potent means by which one true god challenges the verity of other true gods vehemently denouncing them as blasphemy, resulting in a severe dehumanization because their gods are not compatible.

An atheist is an atheist whoever he is or whatever land he inhabits. There is no choosing between deities. Conversely, hating and wishing death upon those who prefer their own gods has been the status quo of theism since the day religion was invented.

[Wizard22]

Your appeal to quantum physics as some vague escape hatch for "freedom" is equally absurd. Quantum mechanics operates under probabilistic rules, but those probabilities are still governed by physical laws.

So here you admit that your position is a mere probability, hence Indeterminate.

I'm glad that you admit your flaw.

There’s no room for your "uncaused choices" in this framework. And the idea that choices are "unpredictable" doesn’t mean they’re uncaused—it just means we lack complete information about the variables at play. Uncertainty is not the same as freedom.

You clearly wouldn't know the difference though, would you?

Physical theories can only "probably" predict Human choices and actions. Therefore your position is conditioned on nothing sufficient, compared to Free-Will. Free-Will... which must Exist precisely because there is no Pre-Determinism, no Pre-Destiny, and no sufficient degree of Determinism, to predict what is currently beyond human limits. Because these limits are routinely broken by Great humans.

[BigMike]

Your appeal to quantum physics as some vague escape hatch for "freedom" is equally absurd. Quantum mechanics operates under probabilistic rules, but those probabilities are still governed by physical laws.

So here you admit that your position is a mere probability, hence Indeterminate.

I'm glad that you admit your flaw.

There’s no room for your "uncaused choices" in this framework. And the idea that choices are "unpredictable" doesn’t mean they’re uncaused—it just means we lack complete information about the variables at play. Uncertainty is not the same as freedom.

You clearly wouldn't know the difference though, would you?

Physical theories can only "probably" predict Human choices and actions. Therefore your position is conditioned on nothing sufficient, compared to Free-Will. Free-Will... which must Exist precisely because there is no Pre-Determinism, no Pre-Destiny, and no sufficient degree of Determinism, to predict what is currently beyond human limits. Because these limits are routinely broken by Great humans.

Wizard22, your argument is a trainwreck of logical fallacies and fundamental misunderstandings of science. Let's unpack your absurdity piece by piece.

First, your claim that determinism is "a mere probability" reveals a complete lack of comprehension. Probabilistic rules in quantum mechanics do not negate determinism on the macroscopic scale—they are part of how physical systems operate within a framework governed by the conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces). These are not suggestions; they are the bedrock of observable reality.

Second, your notion of "uncaused choices" is insanity wrapped in pseudoscience. If a choice is uncaused, it means it exists outside the influence of any physical process, which is to say, it’s a magical, disconnected event. Show me one such event that doesn’t violate the conservation of energy, momentum, or any other fundamental principle of physics. Go ahead. Which conservation law(s) or fundamental interaction(s) are you rejecting to prop up this nonsense? Because if you accept them all, your argument crumbles under its own weight.

And your laughable claim that "limits are routinely broken by Great humans"? That’s the cherry on this absurd cake. No human, no matter how "great," has ever or will ever operate outside the deterministic framework of physics. Einstein, Hawking, Curie—they all worked within the constraints of the physical world. If you think otherwise, you’re deluding yourself.

Your failure to understand that unpredictability and uncertainty are not the same as freedom is telling. Uncertainty arises from incomplete information, not the magical absence of causation. You’ve confused your ignorance of the variables with evidence of their nonexistence. That’s not just bad reasoning—it’s embarrassing.

So, Wizard22, stop waving around empty abstractions like a sword of truth and face the reality of your argument: it’s a nonsensical denial of the laws that govern the universe. If you’re going to continue this line of reasoning, at least have the courage to explicitly reject which conservation law or interaction you think is wrong. Otherwise, your argument isn’t worth the electrons used to transmit it.

[Wizard22]

Wizard22, your argument is a trainwreck of logical fallacies and fundamental misunderstandings of science. Let's unpack your absurdity piece by piece.

First, your claim that determinism is "a mere probability" reveals a complete lack of comprehension. Probabilistic rules in quantum mechanics do not negate determinism on the macroscopic scale—they are part of how physical systems operate within a framework governed by the conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces). These are not suggestions; they are the bedrock of observable reality.

Second, your notion of "uncaused choices" is insanity wrapped in pseudoscience. If a choice is uncaused, it means it exists outside the influence of any physical process, which is to say, it’s a magical, disconnected event. Show me one such event that doesn’t violate the conservation of energy, momentum, or any other fundamental principle of physics. Go ahead. Which conservation law(s) or fundamental interaction(s) are you rejecting to prop up this nonsense? Because if you accept them all, your argument crumbles under its own weight.

Human imagination is unbound by physical laws and reality. In my imagination, I can move any direction, any time, past present and future. I can create matter. I can destroy matter. I can conjure fantastical beasts and dragons. There is no Causality, or, as much Causality as I desire. I can Cause things to be. I can Uncause things to be.

Imagination influences Choice. Therefore something "Impossible" affects the decision-making process, something Uncaused. Do you not have an Imagination, BigMike?

And your laughable claim that "limits are routinely broken by Great humans"? That’s the cherry on this absurd cake. No human, no matter how "great," has ever or will ever operate outside the deterministic framework of physics. Einstein, Hawking, Curie—they all worked within the constraints of the physical world. If you think otherwise, you’re deluding yourself.

That's not true. The greatest Scientists have always worked outside the Frameworks which you hold as "immutable".

Your limitations are simply that: yours and yours alone. Your argumentation comes down to: imposing your limitations onto others.

You are Determined to do so.

Your failure to understand that unpredictability and uncertainty are not the same as freedom is telling. Uncertainty arises from incomplete information, not the magical absence of causation. You’ve confused your ignorance of the variables with evidence of their nonexistence. That’s not just bad reasoning—it’s embarrassing.

So, Wizard22, stop waving around empty abstractions like a sword of truth and face the reality of your argument: it’s a nonsensical denial of the laws that govern the universe. If you’re going to continue this line of reasoning, at least have the courage to explicitly reject which conservation law or interaction you think is wrong. Otherwise, your argument isn’t worth the electrons used to transmit it.

#1 You don't know what "laws govern the universe" in the first place.
#2 Humans have always had the ability to defy those "laws", hence, have Free-Will, including what you call "Causality" or "Determinism".

Human Choice is based on Uncaused-Causes, and all other things you call "Impossible".

It's "impossible" to you, and you alone.

[Wizard22]

In the Year 1400, an Architect "imagined" buildings so tall that they would reach the sky. He imagined "skyscrapers". At that time, BigMike said that these "skyscrapers" were "impossible" and "not based on physical reality". However, at that time, BigMike was unaware of what was to be Determined. Skyscrapers were not yet real or "Reality".

Today in 2025, humans know more. What was previously "impossible" and "not based on physical reality", is possible, and is physical. So using this example, BigMike is not in a position to dictate what is or is not "impossible", is or is not "physical reality". BigMike is not fit to dictate what is "Determined" or not.

Precisely because he doesn't know these hypothetical "Causes" of Causality.

[Belinda]

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

This saying amounts to a metaphor which can be interpreted in a number of ways.

Let's see if that turns out to be true.

The exhortation as quoted is already true and probably will continue to be true. It also was true, that in the early days of the Jewish sect that came to be called Christianity, it was hard to belong to that minority Jewish sect that was not in cahoots with the Roman colonisers of Palestine.
It is still true today that those who are religiously and politically in the less powerful minority have a harder life and are often sidelined or actively punished.

The metaphor is "life". Obviously the preacher does not refer to the literal birth canal process. The preacher refers to how to protect one's dearest aspirations against the temptations to live an easy life.

The Christian ethic of moral support for the poor, the despised, and the rejected was new and incomprehensible to the Romans who literally glorified power and powerful people.

[BigMike]

Wizard22, your argument is a trainwreck of logical fallacies and fundamental misunderstandings of science. Let's unpack your absurdity piece by piece.

First, your claim that determinism is "a mere probability" reveals a complete lack of comprehension. Probabilistic rules in quantum mechanics do not negate determinism on the macroscopic scale—they are part of how physical systems operate within a framework governed by the conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces). These are not suggestions; they are the bedrock of observable reality.

Second, your notion of "uncaused choices" is insanity wrapped in pseudoscience. If a choice is uncaused, it means it exists outside the influence of any physical process, which is to say, it’s a magical, disconnected event. Show me one such event that doesn’t violate the conservation of energy, momentum, or any other fundamental principle of physics. Go ahead. Which conservation law(s) or fundamental interaction(s) are you rejecting to prop up this nonsense? Because if you accept them all, your argument crumbles under its own weight.

Human imagination is unbound by physical laws and reality. In my imagination, I can move any direction, any time, past present and future. I can create matter. I can destroy matter. I can conjure fantastical beasts and dragons. There is no Causality, or, as much Causality as I desire. I can Cause things to be. I can Uncause things to be.

Imagination influences Choice. Therefore something "Impossible" affects the decision-making process, something Uncaused. Do you not have an Imagination, BigMike?

And your laughable claim that "limits are routinely broken by Great humans"? That’s the cherry on this absurd cake. No human, no matter how "great," has ever or will ever operate outside the deterministic framework of physics. Einstein, Hawking, Curie—they all worked within the constraints of the physical world. If you think otherwise, you’re deluding yourself.

That's not true. The greatest Scientists have always worked outside the Frameworks which you hold as "immutable".

Your limitations are simply that: yours and yours alone. Your argumentation comes down to: imposing your limitations onto others.

You are Determined to do so.

Your failure to understand that unpredictability and uncertainty are not the same as freedom is telling. Uncertainty arises from incomplete information, not the magical absence of causation. You’ve confused your ignorance of the variables with evidence of their nonexistence. That’s not just bad reasoning—it’s embarrassing.

So, Wizard22, stop waving around empty abstractions like a sword of truth and face the reality of your argument: it’s a nonsensical denial of the laws that govern the universe. If you’re going to continue this line of reasoning, at least have the courage to explicitly reject which conservation law or interaction you think is wrong. Otherwise, your argument isn’t worth the electrons used to transmit it.

#1 You don't know what "laws govern the universe" in the first place.
#2 Humans have always had the ability to defy those "laws", hence, have Free-Will, including what you call "Causality" or "Determinism".

Human Choice is based on Uncaused-Causes, and all other things you call "Impossible".

It's "impossible" to you, and you alone.

Wizard22, your argument is an escalating display of ignorance wrapped in self-congratulatory fantasy. Let’s dive into the absurdity you’ve just served up.

You claim that human imagination is “unbound by physical laws and reality.” Really? What powers this so-called “unbound imagination”? Your physical brain, running on energy derived from physical processes, is what enables imagination. Neurons fire, neurotransmitters interact, and voilà, you conjure your dragons and fantasies. These aren’t “uncaused causes”—they’re the result of a massively complex deterministic system. You’re not defying physics when you daydream; you’re obeying it.

Now, let’s address your bizarre assertion that "the greatest scientists worked outside frameworks." Nonsense. Einstein didn’t ignore the conservation of energy when formulating relativity—he worked with it. Hawking didn’t break the laws of physics; he used them to predict black hole radiation. What you’re confusing here is creativity within constraints with the outright rejection of physical laws. Science advances not by ignoring these laws but by better understanding their scope and limitations.

You also hilariously claim that humans have the ability to "defy the laws that govern the universe." Really? Which law did you personally defy today? Gravity when you didn’t float into space? Conservation of energy when you ate lunch and metabolized it? If you think you can reject these principles, demonstrate it. Otherwise, stop throwing around baseless claims like you’ve transcended the cosmos.

Your assertion that human choice is based on “uncaused causes” is the height of delusion. The phrase itself is a contradiction. Causes, by definition, are not uncaused. If your choices arise from “uncaused causes,” then they’re magical, disconnected, and nonsensical. But every shred of neuroscience, physics, and common sense shows that choices are outcomes of complex, interdependent physical processes.

Finally, your #1 and #2 points are laughable non-arguments. The idea that humans “defy laws” or that I “don’t know what governs the universe” is as empty as your grasp of science. If you’re so certain humans operate outside physical laws, I challenge you again: identify which conservation law or fundamental interaction you’re rejecting. Is it gravity? Electromagnetism? The strong or weak nuclear forces? Name it. Until you do, your claims are nothing more than flights of fancy, utterly detached from reality.

Your imagination doesn’t break laws of physics—it’s a product of them. Deal with it.

[Wizard22]

Wizard22, your argument is an escalating display of ignorance wrapped in self-congratulatory fantasy. Let’s dive into the absurdity you’ve just served up.

You claim that human imagination is “unbound by physical laws and reality.” Really? What powers this so-called “unbound imagination”? Your physical brain, running on energy derived from physical processes, is what enables imagination. Neurons fire, neurotransmitters interact, and voilà, you conjure your dragons and fantasies. These aren’t “uncaused causes”—they’re the result of a massively complex deterministic system. You’re not defying physics when you daydream; you’re obeying it.

Now, let’s address your bizarre assertion that "the greatest scientists worked outside frameworks." Nonsense. Einstein didn’t ignore the conservation of energy when formulating relativity—he worked with it. Hawking didn’t break the laws of physics; he used them to predict black hole radiation. What you’re confusing here is creativity within constraints with the outright rejection of physical laws. Science advances not by ignoring these laws but by better understanding their scope and limitations.

You also hilariously claim that humans have the ability to "defy the laws that govern the universe." Really? Which law did you personally defy today? Gravity when you didn’t float into space? Conservation of energy when you ate lunch and metabolized it? If you think you can reject these principles, demonstrate it. Otherwise, stop throwing around baseless claims like you’ve transcended the cosmos.

Your assertion that human choice is based on “uncaused causes” is the height of delusion. The phrase itself is a contradiction. Causes, by definition, are not uncaused. If your choices arise from “uncaused causes,” then they’re magical, disconnected, and nonsensical. But every shred of neuroscience, physics, and common sense shows that choices are outcomes of complex, interdependent physical processes.

Finally, your #1 and #2 points are laughable non-arguments. The idea that humans “defy laws” or that I “don’t know what governs the universe” is as empty as your grasp of science. If you’re so certain humans operate outside physical laws, I challenge you again: identify which conservation law or fundamental interaction you’re rejecting. Is it gravity? Electromagnetism? The strong or weak nuclear forces? Name it. Until you do, your claims are nothing more than flights of fancy, utterly detached from reality.

Your imagination doesn’t break laws of physics—it’s a product of them. Deal with it.

Your robotic persistence and mechanical responses are impressive...but not good enough.

Gravity is a Theory, as are all "Physical Laws". These Theories and "Laws" were discovered by great European Scientists, such as Isaac Newton. Human knowledge is not limited by them, however. They are merely the best current understanding of Physics, Science, and Reality that we have. The "Laws" are made to be broken, undone, disproved, and replaced. So too does this apply to what you call "Causality".

Many Paradigms have been broken in the past, and will continue to be so in the future. So your reliance on "Laws" and "Determinism" represents your own, personal, subjective limitations.

You show no capacity for imagination too--something which every human has some experience with.