Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

Alexis, I don’t need “help” because I’m not the one making claims that evaporate under scrutiny.

All the claims you make have ‘evaporated under scrutiny’. And you definitely seem trapped in a perspective that keeps you from realizing this.

Philosophical neuroticism?

However, as Resident Sage I recommend that you ride that train till the end of the line.

[Sanskrit mahātmā : mahā-, great; see meg- in Indo-European roots + ātmā, life, spirit.]

Alexis, you say I’m trapped in a perspective—I call it understanding science. You, on the other hand, dismiss empirical reality in favor of metaphysical mysticism, all while posing as if you have some grand wisdom that the rest of us are too blind to see.

The irony is staggering. You wave away scientific principles, conservation laws, and determinism—not because you’ve disproven them, but because they conflict with your vague, self-styled spiritualism. That’s not insight; that’s arrogance masquerading as enlightenment.

So go ahead, keep playing the Resident Sage act. But until you can actually demonstrate a flaw in the scientific framework rather than just sneering at it, all you’re doing is dressing up intellectual laziness as profundity.

[Skepdick]

Alexis, you say I’m trapped in a perspective—I call it understanding science. You, on the other hand, dismiss empirical reality in favor of metaphysical mysticism, all while posing as if you have some grand wisdom that the rest of us are too blind to see.

But you don't understand science.

Theoretical physics IS metaphysical mysticism. You have absolutely no idea what spacetime is.

You have no idea what energy is. You can't measure energy it until you define what it is.

Even to this day we can't measure energy directly. What we really measure are changes and transformations - how much heat is released, how much work is done, how much mass decreases. The concept of energy is just a mathematical instrument to track these transformations. We say energy is "conserved" because we defined it in such a way that it would be conserved. And when it's not conserved... we invent new kinds of energy to balance the equations with. Like dark energy.

In nuclear reactions the measured mass of the products didn't equal the mass of the reactants. Rather than abandoning energy conservation, we introduced the concept of mass-energy equivalence (E=mc²). The mathematical framework was preserved by recognizing mass as another form of energy.

So, welcome to Platonism. Everything is Energy. But what is Energy? Nobody knows!

[Belinda]

Skepdick, this is pure rhetorical smoke with no substance.

1. Claiming that "possible" and "impossible" are unknowable is just lazy skepticism. Conservation laws aren’t hypothetical guesses—they are empirically tested constraints on how the universe operates. If you think something can happen outside of them, show one example. Otherwise, this is just you hoping the impossible is possible because it sounds exciting.

2. Throwing out Clarke’s quotes doesn’t save you. His point about technology being "indistinguishable from magic" applies to human perception, not to the actual governing principles of reality. You can’t "venture past the impossible" unless you’re proposing a testable violation of physics. Which, of course, you aren’t.

3. Calling conservation laws a "reification fallacy" is nonsense. Yes, we describe them using mathematics, but their effects are not human inventions—they are observed facts of reality. The laws don’t exist because we wrote them down; we wrote them down because they describe consistent, inescapable truths about how the universe behaves.

So instead of throwing out philosophical platitudes, answer the real question: Do you have a single verifiable example of something happening outside conservation laws? If not, then all you’re doing is playing word games while the physical universe continues on, fully determined, as always.

Big Miike , if you had ever lived with an animal or human who is in palliative care you would have ample evidence of negentropy. Negentropy happens. Negentropy is a law of nature/science. Whether or not the biosphere will survive until ten years from now is another question.

Are you Manichean? I suppose not.

Belinda, negentropy isn’t a violation of determinism or conservation laws—it’s just local order at the cost of greater disorder elsewhere. Living systems temporarily reduce their internal entropy by consuming energy, but the total entropy of the universe still increases. There’s no magic there, just thermodynamics in action.

As for Manicheanism—no, I don’t deal in dualistic mysticism. I deal in causality, physics, and empirical facts, none of which care about philosophical word games.

I was hoping you would explain about how negentropy fits with determinism and conservation laws,which you did.

Concerning Manicheanism:t truly , I don't understand how a strong determinist can be so uninterested in ethics and morality: Spinoza's strong determinism leads inexorably to the moral superiority of reason over unreason. Spinoza's pschological notes in Ethics stand upon the ethical value of reasoning over unreflecting emotional reaction.

Generally as a rule about doing philosophy the point of the whole exercise is how to live a good life. How to live a good life is no "word game".

[Skepdick]

Belinda, negentropy isn’t a violation of determinism or conservation laws—it’s just local order at the cost of greater disorder elsewhere. Living systems temporarily reduce their internal entropy by consuming energy, but the total entropy of the universe still increases. There’s no magic there, just thermodynamics in action.

The magic is precisely in the thing you can't explain. The bootstrapping problem of negentropy.

How does a negentropic process emerge from an entropic one?
How do self-replicating systems emerge from non-self-replicating matter?
A stateful system from stateless wave functions?

How does physical matter magically gain functionality it didn't have?

Your tautological bean-counting approach of conservation laws can't explain this because only quantum information is conserved - classical information can be created and destroyed. Think - forming memories all your life followed by permanent amnesia.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis, you say I’m trapped in a perspective—I call it understanding science. You, on the other hand, dismiss empirical reality in favor of metaphysical mysticism, all while posing as if you have some grand wisdom that the rest of us are too blind to see.

First, I have no reason to dismiss ‘the findings of science’ in toto. I largely accept the logic, or perhaps the presuppositions, of determinism if they are carefully qualified. (I have talked of this in various posts). It is an issue of “common sense” in many ways, right?

What I merely say is that we human beings have unique capabilities and I have referred to them as “a cubic centimeter of a chance” to (as IC might say) initiate causal chains. I am uncertain how, ultimately, to explain that.

I do not dismiss the world of ‘becoming’. It is what it is. We are in it, enmeshed in it. The world is its processes carries us all along. But we have the chance to see that.

The act of seeing (it) speaks about that unique capability.

I hold to those ideas (like those expressed by Guénon) because I understand them to be true. My mysticism is indeed a mysticism! I really do understand why people resist those ideas.

[Belinda]

Belinda, negentropy isn’t a violation of determinism or conservation laws—it’s just local order at the cost of greater disorder elsewhere. Living systems temporarily reduce their internal entropy by consuming energy, but the total entropy of the universe still increases. There’s no magic there, just thermodynamics in action.

The magic is precisely in the thing you can't explain. The bootstrapping problem of negentropy.

How does a negentropic process emerge from an entropic one?
How do self-replicating systems emerge from non-self-replicating matter?
A stateful system from stateless wave functions?

How does physical matter magically gain functionality it didn't have?

Your tautological bean-counting approach of conservation laws can't explain this because only quantum information is conserved - classical information can be created and destroyed. Think - forming memories all your life followed by permanent amnesia.

I would have thought that self preservation among any species is a given. Species with big brains that evolved largely via culture are social but not social like bees are social, because of the relative speediness of cultural evolution.

Forming memories all your life followed by permanent amnesia is not a waste of energy because of cultural evolution; each individual however obscure and ephemeral is an agent of the culture as a whole. Sure , accidents happen and entire cultures are wiped out sometimes, however these events don't negate the fact of cultural evolution by natural selection. Sheep or goats :we must choose.

[BigMike]

Big Miike , if you had ever lived with an animal or human who is in palliative care you would have ample evidence of negentropy. Negentropy happens. Negentropy is a law of nature/science. Whether or not the biosphere will survive until ten years from now is another question.

Are you Manichean? I suppose not.

Belinda, negentropy isn’t a violation of determinism or conservation laws—it’s just local order at the cost of greater disorder elsewhere. Living systems temporarily reduce their internal entropy by consuming energy, but the total entropy of the universe still increases. There’s no magic there, just thermodynamics in action.

As for Manicheanism—no, I don’t deal in dualistic mysticism. I deal in causality, physics, and empirical facts, none of which care about philosophical word games.

I was hoping you would explain about how negentropy fits with determinism and conservation laws,which you did.

Concerning Manicheanism:t truly , I don't understand how a strong determinist can be so uninterested in ethics and morality: Spinoza's strong determinism leads inexorably to the moral superiority of reason over unreason. Spinoza's pschological notes in Ethics stand upon the ethical value of reasoning over unreflecting emotional reaction.

Generally as a rule about doing philosophy the point of the whole exercise is how to live a good life. How to live a good life is no "word game".

Belinda, determinism doesn’t eliminate morality or ethics—it just reframes them in terms of causal responsibility rather than free will. Spinoza’s approach makes perfect sense: reason is superior to unreason not because we "choose" it, but because rational thought leads to more stable, predictable, and beneficial outcomes for individuals and societies.

Ethics in a deterministic framework isn’t about punishing bad choices or rewarding good ones—it’s about understanding what causes certain behaviors and then shaping environments to encourage better ones. Moral progress happens not because people freely choose to be better, but because conditions improve in ways that make better behavior more likely.

So no, philosophy isn’t just a "word game"—but clinging to outdated notions of free will in moral philosophy is. If we want to build a better world, we need to stop pretending that people act independently of their causes and start working to change the conditions that shape behavior.

[BigMike]

Belinda, negentropy isn’t a violation of determinism or conservation laws—it’s just local order at the cost of greater disorder elsewhere. Living systems temporarily reduce their internal entropy by consuming energy, but the total entropy of the universe still increases. There’s no magic there, just thermodynamics in action.

The magic is precisely in the thing you can't explain. The bootstrapping problem of negentropy.

How does a negentropic process emerge from an entropic one?
How do self-replicating systems emerge from non-self-replicating matter?
A stateful system from stateless wave functions?

How does physical matter magically gain functionality it didn't have?

Your tautological bean-counting approach of conservation laws can't explain this because only quantum information is conserved - classical information can be created and destroyed. Think - forming memories all your life followed by permanent amnesia.

Skepdick, there’s no “magic” in negentropy—it’s just a system exporting disorder elsewhere while locally increasing order. There’s no bootstrapping problem; the second law of thermodynamics never states that all parts of a system must increase in entropy at once. Open systems, like life, take in energy and use it to reduce their own entropy while increasing the entropy of their surroundings.

As for self-replicating systems, they emerge gradually through deterministic physical and chemical interactions—from simple molecular self-assembly to autocatalytic cycles to full-blown biological reproduction. This isn’t some inexplicable mystery; it’s been studied extensively in abiogenesis research, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, and complex systems science.

And no, quantum information conservation doesn’t override classical physics. Quantum effects operate at microscopic scales but don’t negate classical conservation laws at macroscopic levels. Your memory analogy is a false comparison—classical information isn’t a conserved quantity, but energy and momentum are. Information loss in a biological system doesn’t mean the underlying physics are violated.

So no, there’s no "magical gain of functionality"—just deterministic processes giving rise to complexity through time and selection. If you think there’s an actual contradiction, point to it in physics, not in vague rhetorical puzzles.

[BigMike]

Alexis, you say I’m trapped in a perspective—I call it understanding science. You, on the other hand, dismiss empirical reality in favor of metaphysical mysticism, all while posing as if you have some grand wisdom that the rest of us are too blind to see.

First, I have no reason to dismiss ‘the findings of science’ in toto. I largely accept the logic, or perhaps the presuppositions, of determinism if they are carefully qualified. (I have talked of this in various posts). It is an issue of “common sense” in many ways, right?

What I merely say is that we human beings have unique capabilities and I have referred to them as “a cubic centimeter of a chance” to (as IC might say) initiate causal chains. I am uncertain how, ultimately, to explain that.

I do not dismiss the world of ‘becoming’. It is what it is. We are in it, enmeshed in it. The world is its processes carries us all along. But we have the chance to see that.

The act of seeing (it) speaks about that unique capability.

I hold to those ideas (like those expressed by Guénon) because I understand them to be true. My mysticism is indeed a mysticism! I really do understand why people resist those ideas.

Alexis, you try to hedge by claiming you largely accept determinism but then immediately contradict yourself by suggesting humans have some undefined “cubic centimeter of a chance” to initiate causal chains. That’s just hand-waving mysticism—a poetic way of sneaking in uncaused agency without actually defending it.

If you accept determinism, then every event, every thought, every action has prior causes. There’s no mystical loophole where humans suddenly step outside the laws of physics to “initiate” something freely. That’s just you wanting to have it both ways—to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for determinism while still clinging to metaphysical special pleading.

And your idea that seeing the deterministic process somehow sets us apart? That’s just awareness of causality, not freedom from it. Recognizing we are in the current doesn’t mean we can swim against it. It just means we understand it better.

You claim to “understand” why people resist your mysticism, but the truth is, people resist it because it collapses under scrutiny. It’s not a deeper truth—it’s a retreat into vagueness when precision threatens your worldview.

[Belinda]

Belinda, negentropy isn’t a violation of determinism or conservation laws—it’s just local order at the cost of greater disorder elsewhere. Living systems temporarily reduce their internal entropy by consuming energy, but the total entropy of the universe still increases. There’s no magic there, just thermodynamics in action.

As for Manicheanism—no, I don’t deal in dualistic mysticism. I deal in causality, physics, and empirical facts, none of which care about philosophical word games.

I was hoping you would explain about how negentropy fits with determinism and conservation laws,which you did.

Concerning Manicheanism:t truly , I don't understand how a strong determinist can be so uninterested in ethics and morality: Spinoza's strong determinism leads inexorably to the moral superiority of reason over unreason. Spinoza's pschological notes in Ethics stand upon the ethical value of reasoning over unreflecting emotional reaction.

Generally as a rule about doing philosophy the point of the whole exercise is how to live a good life. How to live a good life is no "word game".

Belinda, determinism doesn’t eliminate morality or ethics—it just reframes them in terms of causal responsibility rather than free will. Spinoza’s approach makes perfect sense: reason is superior to unreason not because we "choose" it, but because rational thought leads to more stable, predictable, and beneficial outcomes for individuals and societies.

Ethics in a deterministic framework isn’t about punishing bad choices or rewarding good ones—it’s about understanding what causes certain behaviors and then shaping environments to encourage better ones. Moral progress happens not because people freely choose to be better, but because conditions improve in ways that make better behavior more likely.

So no, philosophy isn’t just a "word game"—but clinging to outdated notions of free will in moral philosophy is. If we want to build a better world, we need to stop pretending that people act independently of their causes and start working to change the conditions that shape behavior.

I agree with all that. However if you apply your philosophy to actual life decisions, I think you must also embrace a moral theory of good and evil. For instance a determinist will inevitably believe that it's good to find out the causes of crimes and deal with those, as opposed to it's evil to deal with crime by retribution. For instance a determinist will inevitably try for a peace treaty before he plans a bombing raid if only by reason of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Above all ,a determinist must in all reason be incisive, whereas a believer in so called 'Free' Will may feel no such duty to have the courage of her beliefs; this, because she may rationalise whatever she chooses by claiming her action to be in her spirit of Free Will.

Determinism implies a moral stance. I could not have done otherwise than I did, but the future is open and chaotic due to my ignorance of it, therefore what I will do tomorrow relates to unknown conditions of tomorrow,. Statistical probability is never 100% sure whereas blind fortune is a certainty. Reason and the force of causality, not 'Free Will' , is the only defence against misfortune.

Truly, believers in Free Will are thinking within the pre-scientific enlightenment paradigm .

[BigMike]

I was hoping you would explain about how negentropy fits with determinism and conservation laws,which you did.

Concerning Manicheanism:t truly , I don't understand how a strong determinist can be so uninterested in ethics and morality: Spinoza's strong determinism leads inexorably to the moral superiority of reason over unreason. Spinoza's pschological notes in Ethics stand upon the ethical value of reasoning over unreflecting emotional reaction.

Generally as a rule about doing philosophy the point of the whole exercise is how to live a good life. How to live a good life is no "word game".

Belinda, determinism doesn’t eliminate morality or ethics—it just reframes them in terms of causal responsibility rather than free will. Spinoza’s approach makes perfect sense: reason is superior to unreason not because we "choose" it, but because rational thought leads to more stable, predictable, and beneficial outcomes for individuals and societies.

Ethics in a deterministic framework isn’t about punishing bad choices or rewarding good ones—it’s about understanding what causes certain behaviors and then shaping environments to encourage better ones. Moral progress happens not because people freely choose to be better, but because conditions improve in ways that make better behavior more likely.

So no, philosophy isn’t just a "word game"—but clinging to outdated notions of free will in moral philosophy is. If we want to build a better world, we need to stop pretending that people act independently of their causes and start working to change the conditions that shape behavior.

I agree with all that. However if you apply your philosophy to actual life decisions, I think you must also embrace a moral theory of good and evil. For instance a determinist will inevitably believe that it's good to find out the causes of crimes and deal with those, as opposed to it's evil to deal with crime by retribution. For instance a determinist will inevitably try for a peace treaty before he plans a bombing raid if only by reason of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Above all ,a determinist must in all reason be incisive, whereas a believer in so called 'Free' Will may feel no such duty to have the courage of her beliefs; this, because she may rationalise whatever she chooses by claiming her action to be in her spirit of Free Will.

Determinism implies a moral stance. I could not have done otherwise than I did, but the future is open and chaotic due to my ignorance of it, therefore what I will do tomorrow relates to unknown conditions of tomorrow,. Statistical probability is never 100% sure whereas blind fortune is a certainty. Reason and the force of causality, not 'Free Will' , is the only defence against misfortune.

Truly, believers in Free Will are thinking within the pre-scientific enlightenment paradigm .

Belinda, I completely agree—determinism does imply a moral stance, but not in the way traditional moral philosophy conceives of it. In a deterministic framework, “good” and “evil” aren’t supernatural forces or autonomous moral choices; they’re descriptions of outcomes based on cause and effect.

If we understand that behavior is determined by prior causes, then morality becomes a question of causal engineering—how do we reduce harmful behaviors and increase beneficial ones? This naturally leads to the idea that preventing crime by addressing its causes is superior to punishing criminals for "choosing" to do wrong. It also aligns with reasoned diplomacy over reactionary violence, since negotiation changes conditions before destructive consequences unfold.

What determinism completely removes is the illusion that people deserve retribution for their actions. There is no cosmic justice, only causal justice—what works to improve human well-being versus what perpetuates suffering. Free will believers, by contrast, often justify irrational moral stances because they cling to the pre-scientific notion that people “deserve” punishment rather than asking why they act as they do.

So yes, determinism demands a moral stance, but one based on understanding causes and improving conditions, rather than outdated notions of moral blame. And you’re absolutely right—clinging to free will is clinging to a pre-Enlightenment, pre-scientific worldview, one that keeps people locked in cycles of retribution rather than progress.

[accelafine]

Classic.

I will suggest that "immanuel can" LOOKS AT the actual thread title, here.

Which could also be worded,

Why do those who EMBRACE BELIEFS like; The WHOLE Universe was Created, once upon a time, by A 'male', (which is OBVIOUSLY BOTH physically and logically ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE,) while ALSO REJECTING the ACTUAL PROOF OPPOSING that CLAIM, and BELIEF?

Are you ABLE TO JUST ANSWER this VERY SIMPLE CLARIFYING QUESTION, here, "immanuel can"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

What IS ACTUALLY Wrong with you?

[accelafine]

I read this interpretation once (I forget where). Jesus turning water into wine is the rapid version of the miracle God performs whenever wine is made. The water nourishes the grapes, which ripen and then ferment, turning into wine. Jesus just did it quicker.

Classic.

And what IS MORE CLASSIC is BELIEVING, ABSOLUTELY, that the WHOLE Universe, Itself, was created by A 'male', once upon a time.

Which is some thing that you can NOT EVEN EXPLAIN. Do you WONDER WHY you GET LAUGHED AT SO MUCH, here, "immanuel can"?

[accelafine]

No I have not that much creative talent.
I have however a passing acquaintance with anthropology .

Not much with exegesis or theology, however. That much, I can tell.

And, 'we' can tell that you do NOT have ANY actual acquaintance WITH actual 'theology', itself.

And I've never run into a single credible theologian who would take your interpretation of the Wedding in Cana.

And, what you call and refer to as 'a credible theologian' is NOT an actual credible 'theologian' AT ALL.

LOL Those who say or write just what you WANT TO HEAR are NOT actually 'credible theologians'. As has ALREADY been SHOWN and PROVED.

It's the first time I've ever seen something so completely speculative and unrelated to the text drawn out of it. So it must come from anthropology, because no other department of academia would be nutty enough to suggest it.

LOL What you "immanuel can" take as CREDIBLE are 'those departments', which CLAIM that God is A 'male gendered'.

Talk about A PRIME example of departments that are 'ABSOLUTELY Truly NUTTY', as some would say.

[Alexis Jacobi]

[error]