Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Immanuel Can]

No, I got your point. As I say, you're...fractured and desperate to reintegrate yourself.

More to the point [mine], what is IC doing to assist you when he claims to know that the Christian God does in fact exist, that there is substantial evidence to confirm this, that you are an ally of his here politically and, finally, that the last thing he wants is to imagine you burning to Hell for all of eternity without at least making a serious effort to bring you to Christ.

It's very simple: some people already make good judgments, and can be fully trusted to keep making good judgments in the future, on the basis of the judgments they've already been making. And secondly, some people need a little help, and may go back and forth with you, but basically are inclined to end up in the right place. Both of those types are worth talking to.

And then there's the third kind: people who don't make good judgments, and are smug and self-satisfied because they have no judgment, and they don't want to make good judgments, are are going to end up doing the wrong thing, because that's what they really want to do instead.

When you run into the third kind, my advice is to stop talking. There's nothing to be gained. As the Bible puts it, in Proverbs, "One who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And one who rebukes a wicked person gets insults for himself." There are some folks you just have to leave as they are. They're going to be that, anyway.

I leave you to locate yourself on the sliding scale. Let's see if you make good judgments.

[seeds]

Alexis, how exactly does self-consciousness—a mass-less, charge-less, non-physical entity—intervene in anything? What force does it exert? What mechanism allows it to alter physical states? If it has no causal power, then it’s just along for the ride, not an agent of intervention.

Good grief, how many times do I need to answer that question for you as I did in the post linked below,...

viewtopic.php?p=750365#p750365

...before it finally registers in your software, and you stop asking it?
_______

Why don't you just stop answering "that question", then?

That's not how it works, BM.

As long as you keep asking the same dumb question, over and over again, I'll keep providing you with the same logical answer, over and over again.

I'm equally tired of your answers.

Yeah, I don't blame you for that, for I too would probably get tired of being confronted with answers that debunk my assertions.

Hopefully, though, I wouldn't be a coward - like you - and simply ignore the replies that challenge my belief system.
_______

[henry quirk]

Well, with objective morality at stake on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation at stake on the other side, what's that got to do with specks and planks?

Everything. If you truly wanna be saved, be born again, then mebbe look after your business, your own soul, rather than nigglin' away at the other guy about his, especially when the other guy has plainly told you he's not the one to lend you an assist.

And I could not possibly care less about you here in regard to your posts.

And yet here you are: nigglin' away.

Any who, I leave you to work out your own salvation.

Good luck.



'nuff said.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

Here ya go, baby!

In realms beyond our mortal sight
Where dimensions curve, circles take flight

A world of conscious choice unfolds
A tapestry woven, threads of gold

The observer stands in a higher sphere
A circularity beyond the fourfold-year

With freedom's fact, a gift divine
To choose, to act, in a world so fine

Yet proof eludes in our fleeting dream
A mystery that taunts, a secret unseen

We grasp and reach, but cannot hold
The truth that lies beyond the fold

In this realm of maybe, we roam and stray
Seeking answers in life's eternal sway

Between the worlds, we dance and play
In the silence we hear what we may …
____________________________

With intuition sharp as starry light,
The Hyperborean Apollo shines so bright.

Goodnight, my disciples, goodnight!

[Atla]

…

Here ya go, baby!

In realms beyond our mortal sight
Where dimensions curve, circles take flight

A world of conscious choice unfolds
A tapestry woven, threads of gold

The observer stands in a higher sphere
A circularity beyond the fourfold-year

With freedom's fact, a gift divine
To choose, to act, in a world so fine

Yet proof eludes in our fleeting dream
A mystery that taunts, a secret unseen

We grasp and reach, but cannot hold
The truth that lies beyond the fold

In this realm of maybe, we roam and stray
Seeking answers in life's eternal sway

Between the worlds, we dance and play
In the silence we hear what we may …
____________________________

With intuition sharp as starry light,
The Hyperborean Apollo shines so bright.

Goodnight, my disciples, goodnight!

Impressive! Thank you for your guidance, oh great Hyperborean Apollo!

[BigMike]

[.

[
Alexiev, your entire response boils down to vague skepticism for its own sake, without actually offering an alternative or a counterexample. You’re just throwing out science was wrong before as if that automatically invalidates current knowledge. That’s not an argument—it’s a cop-out.

Yes, scientific understanding evolves. But it evolves through evidence, not through aimless doubt. The principle of relativity didn’t emerge from someone just insisting that time might not be constant—it came from empirical inconsistencies in Newtonian mechanics that led to testable, repeatable discoveries.

So, let’s get to the heart of your deflection:
- If fundamental scientific principles have changed, it’s because we found empirical reasons to change them—not because someone just philosophized them away.
- If you want to challenge determinism, point to a single empirical event that violates the conservation laws or the four fundamental interactions.
- Until then, your “doubt” isn’t the beginning of wisdom—it’s the end of engagement with reality.

And as for your last bit of hand-waving—determinism is irrelevant if we can’t predict choices? That’s a complete misunderstanding. Determinism isn’t about human-level predictability; it’s about cause and effect being absolute at all levels. Just because we don’t have the computational power to predict every neuron firing in your brain doesn’t mean they aren’t determined by prior states. Your inability to predict something doesn’t make it free.

Once again, Mike, you are blathering aimlessly. Why would you argue that an inability to predict choices doesn't make ihem undetermined? I've never suggested otherwise. Neither have I ever said determinism is clearly incorrect. You appear to be incapable of reading my posts. I never claimed to "challenge determinism".

Good grief! How many times must I tell you this? It's like shouting into the void. I won't bother repeating myself again, because you appear to be incapable of understanding anything I write.

Thanks, though, for explaining that science evolves through evidence. Without you to inform us, who would have guessed?

Alexiev, if you’re not challenging determinism, then what exactly is your point? Because so far, your entire contribution has been nothing but vague contrarianism—skepticism for its own sake without ever actually committing to a counter-position.

You imply that scientific principles are subject to change, but you refuse to acknowledge that change requires evidence, not just doubt. You throw out science has been wrong before as if that somehow undermines its current conclusions, yet you never present a single example of a deterministic principle being overturned.

So, let’s cut through the noise:
1. Do you accept that all known interactions obey conservation laws and the four fundamental forces?
2. Do you have any counterexample—just one—that demonstrates a choice or event occurring outside those constraints?

If the answer to (1) is yes and (2) is no, then what exactly are you arguing? Because so far, all you’ve done is try to make skepticism sound profound while avoiding any substantive challenge to determinism itself.

[Gary Childress]

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.

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.

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.

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.

So, it seems that I had no choice but to post this response. There was nothing I could do to not post it. I could NOT have looked at my response before posting it and decided to have deleted it. By virtue of the fact that this response has been posted, there was no other possible alternative that I could have decided against it. Is that correct?

And if it is the case that the religious embrace the impossible, then the answer to your question in the subject line should be obvious, that they do so because that is the way it must be. In a sense, it's not their "fault". It doesn't make them some sort of 'defective' being to simply play out what the universe has determined, does it?

So in a sense, all is as it is and cannot be other than what it is.

Is all the above correct or am I in error at any or all points?

[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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

So, it seems that I had no choice but to post this response. There was nothing I could do to not post it. I could NOT have looked at my response before posting it and decided to have deleted it. By virtue of the fact that this response has been posted, there was no other possible alternative that I could have decided against it. Is that correct?

And if it is the case that the religious embrace the impossible, then the answer to your question in the subject line should be obvious, that they do so because that is the way it must be. In a sense, it's not their "fault". It doesn't make them some sort of 'defective' being to simply play out what the universe has determined, does it?

So in a sense, all is as it is and cannot be other than what it is.

Is all the above correct or am I in error at any or all points?

Gary, you’ve got it exactly right. Every word you just typed, every decision leading up to it, and every thought you had about whether to hit "submit" were all determined by prior causes—your genetics, your environment, your past experiences, and the current state of your brain. You couldn’t have chosen otherwise because nothing in the universe happens without a cause.

And yes, this applies to religious belief as well. Religious adherents don’t choose to embrace the impossible; they believe what they believe because of the deterministic chain of influences that shaped them—culture, upbringing, psychological predispositions, and so on. It’s not their "fault" any more than it’s a rock’s "fault" for rolling downhill.

So where does that leave us? Well, recognizing determinism doesn’t mean we just throw up our hands. Understanding that people are determined by causes allows us to change those causes—through education, better environments, and reasoned discussion. The goal isn’t blame; it’s understanding what influences belief and behavior and then acting accordingly.

[Gary Childress]

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.

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.

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.

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.

So, it seems that I had no choice but to post this response. There was nothing I could do to not post it. I could NOT have looked at my response before posting it and decided to have deleted it. By virtue of the fact that this response has been posted, there was no other possible alternative that I could have decided against it. Is that correct?

And if it is the case that the religious embrace the impossible, then the answer to your question in the subject line should be obvious, that they do so because that is the way it must be. In a sense, it's not their "fault". It doesn't make them some sort of 'defective' being to simply play out what the universe has determined, does it?

So in a sense, all is as it is and cannot be other than what it is.

Is all the above correct or am I in error at any or all points?

Gary, you’ve got it exactly right. Every word you just typed, every decision leading up to it, and every thought you had about whether to hit "submit" were all determined by prior causes—your genetics, your environment, your past experiences, and the current state of your brain. You couldn’t have chosen otherwise because nothing in the universe happens without a cause.

And yes, this applies to religious belief as well. Religious adherents don’t choose to embrace the impossible; they believe what they believe because of the deterministic chain of influences that shaped them—culture, upbringing, psychological predispositions, and so on. It’s not their "fault" any more than it’s a rock’s "fault" for rolling downhill.

So where does that leave us? Well, recognizing determinism doesn’t mean we just throw up our hands. Understanding that people are determined by causes allows us to change those causes—through education, better environments, and reasoned discussion. The goal isn’t blame; it’s understanding what influences belief and behavior and then acting accordingly.

Wouldn't it be more precise to say that "understanding that people are determined by causes MAY CAUSE us to change"? Either we do or we do not change depending upon the influences that cause our behavior. I mean technically nothing "allows" us to change.

And furthermore, you seem to suggest that this realization will only result in an improvement in human behavior. Why should we assume that recognizing that our behaviors are determined should result in some sort of net improvement in the world of human beings?

For example, what if it results in some people becoming more prone to behaving in ways that essentially downplay personal responsibility and therefore more decisions which are self-serving but bad for the overall community happen? How do we know that there is no downside to this? (Not that we can do otherwise if we have no choice.) Why is fatalism NOT also a possible product of this realization for some?

[BigMike]

So, it seems that I had no choice but to post this response. There was nothing I could do to not post it. I could NOT have looked at my response before posting it and decided to have deleted it. By virtue of the fact that this response has been posted, there was no other possible alternative that I could have decided against it. Is that correct?

And if it is the case that the religious embrace the impossible, then the answer to your question in the subject line should be obvious, that they do so because that is the way it must be. In a sense, it's not their "fault". It doesn't make them some sort of 'defective' being to simply play out what the universe has determined, does it?

So in a sense, all is as it is and cannot be other than what it is.

Is all the above correct or am I in error at any or all points?

Gary, you’ve got it exactly right. Every word you just typed, every decision leading up to it, and every thought you had about whether to hit "submit" were all determined by prior causes—your genetics, your environment, your past experiences, and the current state of your brain. You couldn’t have chosen otherwise because nothing in the universe happens without a cause.

And yes, this applies to religious belief as well. Religious adherents don’t choose to embrace the impossible; they believe what they believe because of the deterministic chain of influences that shaped them—culture, upbringing, psychological predispositions, and so on. It’s not their "fault" any more than it’s a rock’s "fault" for rolling downhill.

So where does that leave us? Well, recognizing determinism doesn’t mean we just throw up our hands. Understanding that people are determined by causes allows us to change those causes—through education, better environments, and reasoned discussion. The goal isn’t blame; it’s understanding what influences belief and behavior and then acting accordingly.

Wouldn't it be more precise to say that "understanding that people are determined by causes MAY CAUSE us to change"? Either we do or we do not change depending upon the influences that cause our behavior. I mean technically nothing "allows" us to change.

And furthermore, you seem to suggest that this realization will only result in an improvement in human behavior. Why should we assume that recognizing that our behaviors are determined should result in some sort of net improvement in the world of human beings?

For example, what if it results in some people becoming more prone to behaving in ways that essentially downplay personal responsibility and therefore more decisions which are self-serving but bad for the overall community happen? How do we know that there is no downside to this? (Not that we can do otherwise if we have no choice.) Why is fatalism NOT also a possible product of this realization for some?

Gary, you’re absolutely right to push for precision here. Yes, it would be more technically accurate to say that recognizing determinism may cause us to change rather than allows us to change. Any shift in understanding, like all cognitive processes, is itself caused—not freely chosen.

And how does that happen? Understanding may start as a bio-chemical temporary strengthening of relevant synapses, much like short-term memory. If reinforced—through repetition, further thought, or new experiences—it can cause permanent structural changes in the brain, such as the growth of new axon terminals, synapses, and pathways. In other words, learning and change aren’t mysterious acts of free will; they are physical transformations driven by prior causes.

Now, on to your second point: Does recognizing determinism necessarily improve human behavior? No, not in some automatic, utopian sense. You’re correct that one potential response could be fatalism—the sense that "nothing matters since everything is determined anyway." But this reaction is just one possible outcome, not an inevitable one.

The key difference is how determinism is framed and understood. If people see determinism as a reason to stop caring, that’s just another learned response—one that could be countered by emphasizing pragmatic determinism:
- Understanding cause and effect allows us to optimize those causes for better outcomes.
- We can still shape the future, not by “choosing freely,” but by understanding and influencing what leads to better results.
- Personal responsibility doesn’t disappear; it’s just reframed as causal responsibility—a recognition that our actions affect the world in predictable ways, and we should take that into account.

So, yes, determinism could lead to people rationalizing selfishness or inaction, just like it could lead to greater accountability and smarter decision-making. The difference lies in how the understanding is reinforced and applied—which, again, comes down to the environment, experiences, and the structure of our learning processes.

Determinism doesn’t dictate a specific response—it just tells us that whatever response emerges will be caused by the conditions that shape it. And that means we have a role to play in shaping those conditions.

[henry quirk]

1. Do you accept that all known interactions obey conservation laws and the four fundamental forces?

No, not when it comes to persons.

2. Do you have any counterexample—just one—that demonstrates a choice or event occurring outside those constraints?

Yes, you.

[BigMike]

1. Do you accept that all known interactions obey conservation laws and the four fundamental forces?

No, not when it comes to persons.

2. Do you have any counterexample—just one—that demonstrates a choice or event occurring outside those constraints?

Yes, you.

Henry, this is peak nonsense—pure, unfiltered magical thinking. You’re seriously claiming that persons somehow operate outside the laws of physics? That human choices—unlike literally everything else in existence—are exempt from conservation laws, fundamental forces, and causality itself?

That’s not an argument; it’s superstition. You might as well be claiming that people can levitate if they just really believe in their choices hard enough.

And your “counterexample”—me? That’s just lazy hand-waving. I am composed of matter and energy, governed by neuroscience, biochemistry, and physics. Every thought I have, every action I take, every supposed "choice" I make is a product of prior states of my brain and environment, just like yours.

If you think otherwise, then prove it. Show me a single, controlled experiment where a human being has made a decision that violates causality, conservation laws, or the fundamental interactions of physics. If you can’t—and you can’t—then all you’ve got is the wishful thinking of someone who really, really wants to believe they have magic powers.

[Alexiev]

[
Alexiev, if you’re not challenging determinism, then what exactly is your point? Because so far, your entire contribution has been nothing but vague contrarianism—skepticism for its own sake without ever actually committing to a counter-position.

You imply that scientific principles are subject to change, but you refuse to acknowledge that change requires evidence, not just doubt. You throw out science has been wrong before as if that somehow undermines its current conclusions, yet you never present a single example of a deterministic principle being overturned.

So, let’s cut through the noise:
1. Do you accept that all known interactions obey conservation laws and the four fundamental forces?
2. Do you have any counterexample—just one—that demonstrates a choice or event occurring outside those constraints?

If the answer to (1) is yes and (2) is no, then what exactly are you arguing? Because so far, all you’ve done is try to make skepticism sound profound while avoiding any substantive challenge to determinism itself.

I'm astounded that you ask for my "point", since I've repeated it a dozen times. I have two basic points:

1) Even if the universe is 100% determined (I offer no opinion on whether this is the case), in those cases where we puny humans (that means you, Mike) are unaware of, ignorant of, or unable to predict the future, it is irrelevent. We must continue to act as if the world, in these respects, is indeterminate. Which it is, from our perspective.

2) (This is relevant to my recent posts). Scientific orthodoxy is, as you so condescendingly point out, based on evidence. So what? The problem with induction is that new evidence shows up and the laws of physics change. Your challenge is ridiculous. If the new evidence was available, the laws of physics would have already changed. This change would alter the principles on which determinism is based, but it would establish new principles. The universe could still be deterministic under those new principles. So the challenge (which, for some bizarre reason, you've repeated a dozen times) is irrelevant to the question of whether the universe is deterministic.

To answer your other question: of course I "accept" the standard orthodoxy of physics. I accept it as the best we can do right now. I am also aware the such orthodoxies have changed throughout human history, and I assume they will continue to do so. If I had a counter example, I would be a genius, like Einstein. Your challenge is therefore ridiculous and irrelevant.

[BigMike]

[
Alexiev, if you’re not challenging determinism, then what exactly is your point? Because so far, your entire contribution has been nothing but vague contrarianism—skepticism for its own sake without ever actually committing to a counter-position.

You imply that scientific principles are subject to change, but you refuse to acknowledge that change requires evidence, not just doubt. You throw out science has been wrong before as if that somehow undermines its current conclusions, yet you never present a single example of a deterministic principle being overturned.

So, let’s cut through the noise:
1. Do you accept that all known interactions obey conservation laws and the four fundamental forces?
2. Do you have any counterexample—just one—that demonstrates a choice or event occurring outside those constraints?

If the answer to (1) is yes and (2) is no, then what exactly are you arguing? Because so far, all you’ve done is try to make skepticism sound profound while avoiding any substantive challenge to determinism itself.

I'm astounded that you ask for my "point", since I've repeated it a dozen times. I have two basic points:

1) Even if the universe is 100% determined (I offer no opinion on whether this is the case), in those cases where we puny humans (that means you, Mike) are unaware of, ignorant of, or unable to predict the future, it is irrelevent. We must continue to act as if the world, in these respects, is indeterminate. Which it is, from our perspective.

2) (This is relevant to my recent posts). Scientific orthodoxy is, as you so condescendingly point out, based on evidence. So what? The problem with induction is that new evidence shows up and the laws of physics change. Your challenge is ridiculous. If the new evidence was available, the laws of physics would have already changed. This change would alter the principles on which determinism is based, but it would establish new principles. The universe could still be deterministic under those new principles. So the challenge (which, for some bizarre reason, you've repeated a dozen times) is irrelevant to the question of whether the universe is deterministic.

To answer your other question: of course I "accept" the standard orthodoxy of physics. I accept it as the best we can do right now. I am also aware the such orthodoxies have changed throughout human history, and I assume they will continue to do so. If I had a counter example, I would be a genius, like Einstein. Your challenge is therefore ridiculous and irrelevant.

Alexiev, your entire argument boils down to "We don’t know everything, so nothing is certain." That’s just intellectual laziness disguised as skepticism.

1) Yes, humans act as if the world is indeterminate because we lack complete knowledge, not because it actually is indeterminate. That’s just epistemic limitation, not a refutation of determinism.

2) Your claim that “scientific laws change” is meaningless unless you can show a fundamental principle—like conservation laws or causality—being overturned. Science refines its understanding, but never once has it discovered something that breaks determinism.

And no, my challenge is not "ridiculous"—it’s just inconvenient for your argument. You admit you have no counterexample, yet still insist skepticism is warranted. That’s just doubt for the sake of doubt, not a serious position.

[henry quirk]

You’re seriously claiming that persons somehow operate outside the laws of physics? That human choices—unlike literally everything else in existence—are exempt from conservation laws, fundamental forces, and causality itself?

Yes. Why is this news to you? This has been my position from the start.

I am composed of matter and energy...

...and a soul.

Every thought I have, every action I take, every supposed "choice" I make is a product of prior states of my brain and environment

You mebbe wanna believe that, but I don't think you really do.