Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Skepdick]

You can't have a function made of randomness. That's an oxymoron.

What? Like this one?

Code: Select all

In [1]: from random import choice
In [2]: choice(["Determinism's true", "Determinism's false"])
Out[2]: "Determinism's true"
In [3]: choice(["Determinism's true", "Determinism's false"])
Out[3]: "Determinism's false"
In [4]: choice(["Determinism's true", "Determinism's false"])
Out[4]: "Determinism's true"
In [5]: choice(["Determinism's true", "Determinism's false"])
Out[5]: "Determinism's false"
In [6]: choice(["Determinism's true", "Determinism's false"])
Out[6]: "Determinism's true"

[Atla]

You can't have a function made of randomness. That's an oxymoron.

What? Like this one?

Code: Select all

In [1]: from random import choice
In [2]: choice(["Determinism's true", "Determinism's false"])
Out[2]: "Determinism's true"
In [3]: choice(["Determinism's true", "Determinism's false"])
Out[3]: "Determinism's false"
In [4]: choice(["Determinism's true", "Determinism's false"])
Out[4]: "Determinism's true"
In [5]: choice(["Determinism's true", "Determinism's false"])
Out[5]: "Determinism's false"
In [6]: choice(["Determinism's true", "Determinism's false"])
Out[6]: "Determinism's true"

Random functions in programming languages are pseudorandom.

Ok you had your chance, someone else?

[Skepdick]

Random functions in programming languages are pseudorandom.

That's all the easier for you then, isn't it?

Predict its output. Deterministically.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.....
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.

My grounding principle is:
Reality - ALL-there-is [including truth, knowledge, facts, etc.] are contingent upon a human-based [collective-of-subjects] framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS as heavily empirically weighted is the most credible and objective at present, thus the gold standard.
What is an FS
viewtopic.php?t=43232
Why the Scientific FS is the most credible and Objective
viewtopic.php?t=43171

Theistic Religions as part and parcel of reality [all there is] are also contingent upon their specific FS; because the theistic-FS is NOT grounded empirically but merely based on the other extreme that God exists based on faith, the relative ranking of its credibility and objectivity would be almost negligible at say, 1/100 if we index Science's at 100/100.

As such, we can reconcile science and religion on the FS credibility and objectivity continuum.

While Science is critically useful for the human species, religion is critically necessary for the individual[s] to deal with an evolutionary default of an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis with a cognitive dissonance that generate terrible angsts.
Theistic religions provide an immediate relief to these terrible existential pains via God offer of salvation with a promise of eternal life in heaven - just believe and viola one is "saved".
I believe this is adaptive up the present for the majority, else, most would be paralyzed with the terrible fears of mortality.

Within the theistic FS, e.g. the Christianity-FS, one of its critical and imperative element is the idea of free will, i.e. absolute free will.
Absolutely free will is not compatible and an empirically impossible within the scientific FS. So, rationally, it will add greater evidence why the theistic FS would be rated extremely low in credibility and objectivity relative the scientific-FS.
Thus where one has to soothe their existential angst via theistic religion, they must accept absolute free will but the credibility and objectivity is compromised.

Yes, one of the condition of the scientific FS is causal determinism. Since it conditioned with a human-based FS, it cannot be absolute determinism.
The scientific-FS also recognized the concept of free-will within the social-science-psychology FS but this free-will is not absolute [no absoluteness in Science], rather it is merely conditional or relative free will.

Since reality is 'All-there-is', individual fields of reality and knowledge are NOT ultimately mutually exclusive nor absolute independent from one another; they all fall within a continuum of Framework and System [FS].

What is the final say on this?
The objectivity of the meta-FS is grounded on universal rationality and critical thinking.

• Rationality is the quality of being guided by or based on reason. In this regard, a person acts rationally if they have a good reason for what they do, or a belief is rational if it is based on strong evidence. -WIKI
  
  Critical thinking is the process of analyzing available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to make sound conclusions or informed choices. It involves recognizing underlying assumptions, providing justifications for ideas and actions, evaluating these justifications through comparisons with varying perspectives, and assessing their rationality and potential consequences.[1] The goal of critical thinking is to form a judgment through the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation. -WIKI

The above claim is more of less intuitive with a bit of neuroscience of the present.

I believe, in the near future with the exponential advance of knowledge, especially within neuroscience, genetic, AI, IT and advance technologies, it would be able to display more refined images of brain activities where those who are highly religious in theism share similar brain activities with the higher animals as compared to the rational and critical thinkers brain activities in the prefrontal cortex including neuron associated with wisdom.

[BigMike]

.....
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.

My grounding principle is:
Reality - ALL-there-is [including truth, knowledge, facts, etc.] are contingent upon a human-based [collective-of-subjects] framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS as heavily empirically weighted is the most credible and objective at present, thus the gold standard.
What is an FS
viewtopic.php?t=43232
Why the Scientific FS is the most credible and Objective
viewtopic.php?t=43171

Theistic Religions as part and parcel of reality [all there is] are also contingent upon their specific FS; because the theistic-FS is NOT grounded empirically but merely based on the other extreme that God exists based on faith, the relative ranking of its credibility and objectivity would be almost negligible at say, 1/100 if we index Science's at 100/100.

As such, we can reconcile science and religion on the FS credibility and objectivity continuum.

While Science is critically useful for the human species, religion is critically necessary for the individual[s] to deal with an evolutionary default of an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis with a cognitive dissonance that generate terrible angsts.
Theistic religions provide an immediate relief to these terrible existential pains via God offer of salvation with a promise of eternal life in heaven - just believe and viola one is "saved".
I believe this is adaptive up the present for the majority, else, most would be paralyzed with the terrible fears of mortality.

Within the theistic FS, e.g. the Christianity-FS, one of its critical and imperative element is the idea of free will, i.e. absolute free will.
Absolutely free will is not compatible and an empirically impossible within the scientific FS. So, rationally, it will add greater evidence why the theistic FS would be rated extremely low in credibility and objectivity relative the scientific-FS.
Thus where one has to soothe their existential angst via theistic religion, they must accept absolute free will but the credibility and objectivity is compromised.

Yes, one of the condition of the scientific FS is causal determinism. Since it conditioned with a human-based FS, it cannot be absolute determinism.
The scientific-FS also recognized the concept of free-will within the social-science-psychology FS but this free-will is not absolute [no absoluteness in Science], rather it is merely conditional or relative free will.

Since reality is 'All-there-is', individual fields of reality and knowledge are NOT ultimately mutually exclusive nor absolute independent from one another; they all fall within a continuum of Framework and System [FS].

What is the final say on this?
The objectivity of the meta-FS is grounded on universal rationality and critical thinking.

• Rationality is the quality of being guided by or based on reason. In this regard, a person acts rationally if they have a good reason for what they do, or a belief is rational if it is based on strong evidence. -WIKI
  
  Critical thinking is the process of analyzing available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to make sound conclusions or informed choices. It involves recognizing underlying assumptions, providing justifications for ideas and actions, evaluating these justifications through comparisons with varying perspectives, and assessing their rationality and potential consequences.[1] The goal of critical thinking is to form a judgment through the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation. -WIKI

The above claim is more of less intuitive with a bit of neuroscience of the present.

I believe, in the near future with the exponential advance of knowledge, especially within neuroscience, genetic, AI, IT and advance technologies, it would be able to display more refined images of brain activities where those who are highly religious in theism share similar brain activities with the higher animals as compared to the rational and critical thinkers brain activities in the prefrontal cortex including neuron associated with wisdom.

Your analysis of the human condition and the role of religion in alleviating existential angst is profoundly insightful. You correctly acknowledge that religious belief functions as an immediate psychological relief mechanism, providing individuals with a sense of purpose and comfort in the face of mortality and uncertainty. That is a deeply honest assessment of why theistic frameworks persist, despite their fundamental incompatibility with scientific reality.

Where we diverge, however, is in the notion that science and religion can—or should—be reconciled. While your framework suggests a continuum of credibility between different systems of knowledge, this perspective assumes that contradictions between them can be resolved through relative positioning. The issue, however, is not just credibility—it is the logical incompatibility between the two. The scientific method is grounded in falsifiability, empirical verification, and logical consistency. Religion, particularly theistic belief systems, relies on faith, supernatural causation, and ex contradictione quodlibet—the principle that from a contradiction, anything follows.

If two systems contradict one another at a foundational level—one asserting that physical laws govern all phenomena, and the other permitting supernatural exceptions—then any attempt to merge them results in incoherence. This is not merely a debate over which framework is more credible; it is about whether truth itself can remain internally consistent when these opposing paradigms are forced together.

The danger of bridging religion and science lies in the dilution of epistemic integrity. Once you allow even one supernatural exception into a deterministic framework, you undermine the entire basis of scientific inquiry. If we accept that certain claims can exist outside empirical scrutiny, we erode the very foundation that allows us to differentiate truth from falsehood.

While you highlight the psychological necessity of religion for many, that necessity does not make it true. A belief’s utility in reducing suffering does not grant it epistemic legitimacy. Science, though often uncomfortable in its implications, offers something religion cannot: progressive refinement through self-correction. The best way forward is not to merge religious and scientific worldviews but to recognize that truth-seeking, through rationality and empirical rigor, is the best possible approach to understanding reality.

This is not an argument for the abandonment of meaning, purpose, or ethical frameworks—rather, it is an argument for building those frameworks on what is real, not what is comforting. The pursuit of truth, as best as we can grasp it, remains our most reliable path to understanding existence. Anything else is an invitation to contradiction and, ultimately, epistemic collapse.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.....
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.

My grounding principle is:
Reality - ALL-there-is [including truth, knowledge, facts, etc.] are contingent upon a human-based [collective-of-subjects] framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS as heavily empirically weighted is the most credible and objective at present, thus the gold standard.
What is an FS
viewtopic.php?t=43232
Why the Scientific FS is the most credible and Objective
viewtopic.php?t=43171

Theistic Religions as part and parcel of reality [all there is] are also contingent upon their specific FS; because the theistic-FS is NOT grounded empirically but merely based on the other extreme that God exists based on faith, the relative ranking of its credibility and objectivity would be almost negligible at say, 1/100 if we index Science's at 100/100.

As such, we can reconcile science and religion on the FS credibility and objectivity continuum.

While Science is critically useful for the human species, religion is critically necessary for the individual[s] to deal with an evolutionary default of an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis with a cognitive dissonance that generate terrible angsts.
Theistic religions provide an immediate relief to these terrible existential pains via God offer of salvation with a promise of eternal life in heaven - just believe and viola one is "saved".
I believe this is adaptive up the present for the majority, else, most would be paralyzed with the terrible fears of mortality.

Within the theistic FS, e.g. the Christianity-FS, one of its critical and imperative element is the idea of free will, i.e. absolute free will.
Absolutely free will is not compatible and an empirically impossible within the scientific FS. So, rationally, it will add greater evidence why the theistic FS would be rated extremely low in credibility and objectivity relative the scientific-FS.
Thus where one has to soothe their existential angst via theistic religion, they must accept absolute free will but the credibility and objectivity is compromised.

Yes, one of the condition of the scientific FS is causal determinism. Since it conditioned with a human-based FS, it cannot be absolute determinism.
The scientific-FS also recognized the concept of free-will within the social-science-psychology FS but this free-will is not absolute [no absoluteness in Science], rather it is merely conditional or relative free will.

Since reality is 'All-there-is', individual fields of reality and knowledge are NOT ultimately mutually exclusive nor absolute independent from one another; they all fall within a continuum of Framework and System [FS].

What is the final say on this?
The objectivity of the meta-FS is grounded on universal rationality and critical thinking.

• Rationality is the quality of being guided by or based on reason. In this regard, a person acts rationally if they have a good reason for what they do, or a belief is rational if it is based on strong evidence. -WIKI
  
  Critical thinking is the process of analyzing available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to make sound conclusions or informed choices. It involves recognizing underlying assumptions, providing justifications for ideas and actions, evaluating these justifications through comparisons with varying perspectives, and assessing their rationality and potential consequences.[1] The goal of critical thinking is to form a judgment through the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation. -WIKI

The above claim is more of less intuitive with a bit of neuroscience of the present.

I believe, in the near future with the exponential advance of knowledge, especially within neuroscience, genetic, AI, IT and advance technologies, it would be able to display more refined images of brain activities where those who are highly religious in theism share similar brain activities with the higher animals as compared to the rational and critical thinkers brain activities in the prefrontal cortex including neuron associated with wisdom.

Your analysis of the human condition and the role of religion in alleviating existential angst is profoundly insightful. You correctly acknowledge that religious belief functions as an immediate psychological relief mechanism, providing individuals with a sense of purpose and comfort in the face of mortality and uncertainty. That is a deeply honest assessment of why theistic frameworks persist, despite their fundamental incompatibility with scientific reality.

Where we diverge, however, is in the notion that science and religion can—or should—be reconciled. While your framework suggests a continuum of credibility between different systems of knowledge, this perspective assumes that contradictions between them can be resolved through relative positioning. The issue, however, is not just credibility—it is the logical incompatibility between the two. The scientific method is grounded in falsifiability, empirical verification, and logical consistency. Religion, particularly theistic belief systems, relies on faith, supernatural causation, and ex contradictione quodlibet—the principle that from a contradiction, anything follows.

If two systems contradict one another at a foundational level—one asserting that physical laws govern all phenomena, and the other permitting supernatural exceptions—then any attempt to merge them results in incoherence. This is not merely a debate over which framework is more credible; it is about whether truth itself can remain internally consistent when these opposing paradigms are forced together.

The danger of bridging religion and science lies in the dilution of epistemic integrity. Once you allow even one supernatural exception into a deterministic framework, you undermine the entire basis of scientific inquiry. If we accept that certain claims can exist outside empirical scrutiny, we erode the very foundation that allows us to differentiate truth from falsehood.

While you highlight the psychological necessity of religion for many, that necessity does not make it true. A belief’s utility in reducing suffering does not grant it epistemic legitimacy. Science, though often uncomfortable in its implications, offers something religion cannot: progressive refinement through self-correction. The best way forward is not to merge religious and scientific worldviews but to recognize that truth-seeking, through rationality and empirical rigor, is the best possible approach to understanding reality.

This is not an argument for the abandonment of meaning, purpose, or ethical frameworks—rather, it is an argument for building those frameworks on what is real, not what is comforting. The pursuit of truth, as best as we can grasp it, remains our most reliable path to understanding existence. Anything else is an invitation to contradiction and, ultimately, epistemic collapse.

I believe putting science and religion on a continuum can nail theistic beliefs to the lower bunk near the rubbish bin of the continuum.
We can straight away rate the following falsifiability, empirical verification, testability, reproducibility and logical consistency with ZERO.
By justifying that theistic religion should be at the other end of the normal distribution facilitates objective analysis of the placement of theistic in its delusional bin.

From my experience, if not nailed and pinned to its appropriate delusion bin in contrast to the gold standard of the scientific FS, that will give theists the opportunity to eel their way around without a fixed-goal to score at them.

With a continuum approach, it is then up to theists to justify whether they can climb up the credibility and objective ladder relative to the scientific FS gold standard.

While you highlight the psychological necessity of religion for many, that necessity does not make it true. A belief’s utility in reducing suffering does not grant it epistemic legitimacy.

We have not discussed this in detail.
I have done a lot of research in this area and based on what I have found, I find this thesis very tenable.

Anything else is an invitation to contradiction and, ultimately, epistemic collapse.

Epistemology is merely a part of the grand scheme of humanity.
I adopt Kant's vision and mission for humanity, i.e.
1. Who am I? - Principles of Apperception in CPR
2. What can we know? -Epistemology - CPR
3. What should we do? -Morality -Ethics -Critique of Practical Reason
4. What can we hope for? - Highest Good- Perpetual Peace - Critique of Judgment

[Belinda]

.....
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.

My grounding principle is:
Reality - ALL-there-is [including truth, knowledge, facts, etc.] are contingent upon a human-based [collective-of-subjects] framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS as heavily empirically weighted is the most credible and objective at present, thus the gold standard.
What is an FS
viewtopic.php?t=43232
Why the Scientific FS is the most credible and Objective
viewtopic.php?t=43171

Theistic Religions as part and parcel of reality [all there is] are also contingent upon their specific FS; because the theistic-FS is NOT grounded empirically but merely based on the other extreme that God exists based on faith, the relative ranking of its credibility and objectivity would be almost negligible at say, 1/100 if we index Science's at 100/100.

As such, we can reconcile science and religion on the FS credibility and objectivity continuum.

While Science is critically useful for the human species, religion is critically necessary for the individual[s] to deal with an evolutionary default of an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis with a cognitive dissonance that generate terrible angsts.
Theistic religions provide an immediate relief to these terrible existential pains via God offer of salvation with a promise of eternal life in heaven - just believe and viola one is "saved".
I believe this is adaptive up the present for the majority, else, most would be paralyzed with the terrible fears of mortality.

Within the theistic FS, e.g. the Christianity-FS, one of its critical and imperative element is the idea of free will, i.e. absolute free will.
Absolutely free will is not compatible and an empirically impossible within the scientific FS. So, rationally, it will add greater evidence why the theistic FS would be rated extremely low in credibility and objectivity relative the scientific-FS.
Thus where one has to soothe their existential angst via theistic religion, they must accept absolute free will but the credibility and objectivity is compromised.

Yes, one of the condition of the scientific FS is causal determinism. Since it conditioned with a human-based FS, it cannot be absolute determinism.
The scientific-FS also recognized the concept of free-will within the social-science-psychology FS but this free-will is not absolute [no absoluteness in Science], rather it is merely conditional or relative free will.

Since reality is 'All-there-is', individual fields of reality and knowledge are NOT ultimately mutually exclusive nor absolute independent from one another; they all fall within a continuum of Framework and System [FS].

What is the final say on this?
The objectivity of the meta-FS is grounded on universal rationality and critical thinking.

• Rationality is the quality of being guided by or based on reason. In this regard, a person acts rationally if they have a good reason for what they do, or a belief is rational if it is based on strong evidence. -WIKI
  
  Critical thinking is the process of analyzing available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to make sound conclusions or informed choices. It involves recognizing underlying assumptions, providing justifications for ideas and actions, evaluating these justifications through comparisons with varying perspectives, and assessing their rationality and potential consequences.[1] The goal of critical thinking is to form a judgment through the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation. -WIKI

The above claim is more of less intuitive with a bit of neuroscience of the present.

I believe, in the near future with the exponential advance of knowledge, especially within neuroscience, genetic, AI, IT and advance technologies, it would be able to display more refined images of brain activities where those who are highly religious in theism share similar brain activities with the higher animals as compared to the rational and critical thinkers brain activities in the prefrontal cortex including neuron associated with wisdom.

Your analysis of the human condition and the role of religion in alleviating existential angst is profoundly insightful. You correctly acknowledge that religious belief functions as an immediate psychological relief mechanism, providing individuals with a sense of purpose and comfort in the face of mortality and uncertainty. That is a deeply honest assessment of why theistic frameworks persist, despite their fundamental incompatibility with scientific reality.

Where we diverge, however, is in the notion that science and religion can—or should—be reconciled. While your framework suggests a continuum of credibility between different systems of knowledge, this perspective assumes that contradictions between them can be resolved through relative positioning. The issue, however, is not just credibility—it is the logical incompatibility between the two. The scientific method is grounded in falsifiability, empirical verification, and logical consistency. Religion, particularly theistic belief systems, relies on faith, supernatural causation, and ex contradictione quodlibet—the principle that from a contradiction, anything follows.

If two systems contradict one another at a foundational level—one asserting that physical laws govern all phenomena, and the other permitting supernatural exceptions—then any attempt to merge them results in incoherence. This is not merely a debate over which framework is more credible; it is about whether truth itself can remain internally consistent when these opposing paradigms are forced together.

The danger of bridging religion and science lies in the dilution of epistemic integrity. Once you allow even one supernatural exception into a deterministic framework, you undermine the entire basis of scientific inquiry. If we accept that certain claims can exist outside empirical scrutiny, we erode the very foundation that allows us to differentiate truth from falsehood.

While you highlight the psychological necessity of religion for many, that necessity does not make it true. A belief’s utility in reducing suffering does not grant it epistemic legitimacy. Science, though often uncomfortable in its implications, offers something religion cannot: progressive refinement through self-correction. The best way forward is not to merge religious and scientific worldviews but to recognize that truth-seeking, through rationality and empirical rigor, is the best possible approach to understanding reality.

This is not an argument for the abandonment of meaning, purpose, or ethical frameworks—rather, it is an argument for building those frameworks on what is real, not what is comforting. The pursuit of truth, as best as we can grasp it, remains our most reliable path to understanding existence. Anything else is an invitation to contradiction and, ultimately, epistemic collapse.

Religion and science merge when the gods have to be propitiated. Science becomes independent of religion when the forces of nature are seen to be controlled by technology. In the latter case religiosity continues when the regime wants to control what people believe as is the case with many people today.
However science defined as that which describes and explains nature as a coherent system is consistent with modernised religion. That's because God maintains coherence and makes order out of chaos (see Genesis 1).

(BTW so called "free" will is a political strategy for social control)

[BigMike]

I believe putting science and religion on a continuum can nail theistic beliefs to the lower bunk near the rubbish bin of the continuum.
We can straight away rate the following falsifiability, empirical verification, testability, reproducibility and logical consistency with ZERO.
By justifying that theistic religion should be at the other end of the normal distribution facilitates objective analysis of the placement of theistic in its delusional bin.

From my experience, if not nailed and pinned to its appropriate delusion bin in contrast to the gold standard of the scientific FS, that will give theists the opportunity to eel their way around without a fixed-goal to score at them.

With a continuum approach, it is then up to theists to justify whether they can climb up the credibility and objective ladder relative to the scientific FS gold standard.

While you highlight the psychological necessity of religion for many, that necessity does not make it true. A belief’s utility in reducing suffering does not grant it epistemic legitimacy.

We have not discussed this in detail.
I have done a lot of research in this area and based on what I have found, I find this thesis very tenable.

Anything else is an invitation to contradiction and, ultimately, epistemic collapse.

Epistemology is merely a part of the grand scheme of humanity.
I adopt Kant's vision and mission for humanity, i.e.
1. Who am I? - Principles of Apperception in CPR
2. What can we know? -Epistemology - CPR
3. What should we do? -Morality -Ethics -Critique of Practical Reason
4. What can we hope for? - Highest Good- Perpetual Peace - Critique of Judgment

Your approach of positioning theistic beliefs at the lower extreme of a continuum of epistemic credibility, with science as the gold standard, is an effective tool for categorization. It provides a clear and systematic way to differentiate between frameworks based on their capacity for falsifiability, empirical verification, and logical consistency. By doing so, it forces theists to confront the reality that their beliefs do not—and cannot—meet the rigorous standards required for knowledge that reliably describes reality.

However, while this continuum is useful for analysis, the problem remains that many theists do not operate within a framework that acknowledges epistemic ranking at all. Their beliefs are not predicated on justification in any scientific or logical sense; they rely on faith, which by definition circumvents the need for empirical validation. The very tools of rational discourse—falsifiability, testability, reproducibility—are often dismissed as inappropriate measures for their worldview. The danger of allowing even one exception, of entertaining religion as a valid category of knowledge, is that it provides an escape hatch for irrationality to persist under the guise of a competing "framework." If theists could be compelled to justify their beliefs relative to the scientific standard, they would indeed be forced to confront their placement at the bottom of the continuum. But the reality is, they refuse to engage on those terms.

Your point about the psychological necessity of religion is crucial. Theism survives not because it is true, but because it is psychologically adaptive. People turn to faith as a coping mechanism, a way to mitigate existential dread and uncertainty. This is why, even when the epistemic falsehood of theistic claims is completely demonstrated, believers still cling to them—because their function is emotional, not intellectual. The problem, of course, is that psychological utility is not an argument for truth. The fact that a belief is comforting, or even evolutionarily advantageous, does not give it epistemic legitimacy.

As for epistemology being just one part of the grand scheme of humanity, Kant’s framework provides an elegant structure for understanding our place in the universe. However, hope—the question of what we can aspire to—is not necessarily contingent on religious thinking. One of the greatest falsehoods promoted by religious traditions is that meaning, morality, and purpose must be derived from a supernatural source. In reality, meaning is something that emerges from us, not something imposed upon us from outside reality. The rejection of free will does not negate responsibility, nor does the rejection of divine meaning negate the possibility of human-created meaning.

In short, I agree with your continuum approach in terms of analysis, but I think the greatest challenge is not just demonstrating that religion belongs at the bottom—it is getting theists to accept that the ranking matters in the first place. As long as faith remains their primary method of "knowing," they will continue to evade rational critique. The most effective strategy, therefore, is not just to demonstrate that religion is epistemically bankrupt, but to show that living by truth, even when it is uncomfortable, is more valuable than living by comforting illusions. That is the real battle.

[BigMike]

Religion and science merge when the gods have to be propitiated. Science becomes independent of religion when the forces of nature are seen to be controlled by technology. In the latter case religiosity continues when the regime wants to control what people believe as is the case with many people today.
However science defined as that which describes and explains nature as a coherent system is consistent with modernised religion. That's because God maintains coherence and makes order out of chaos (see Genesis 1).

(BTW so called "free" will is a political strategy for social control)

Science doesn’t “merge” with religion—it replaces the need for supernatural explanations by providing testable, coherent models of reality. The idea that modernized religion can coexist with science by invoking a god who “maintains coherence” is just repackaged deism, an unnecessary placeholder for natural laws that function without divine intervention. Science progresses by eliminating unverified assumptions, not by accommodating them.

And yes, free will has always been a tool for control—a convenient myth that shifts responsibility from systemic causes to individuals, reinforcing the illusion of moral agency where none exists.

[henry quirk]

(BTW so called "free" will is a political strategy for social control)

No, the political/social strategy for control is convincing free wills they're meat machines.

Determinism is just another name for impotence.

[Skepdick]

And yes, free will has always been a tool for control—a convenient myth that shifts responsibility from systemic causes to individuals, reinforcing the illusion of moral agency where none exists.

What is this talk of "responsibility"? I don't understand.

Do individuals have any responsibility to tackle systemic issues; or not?

If we have no moral agency; then I guess we cal all just stand idly and watch the system fix itself.

[Belinda]

Religion and science merge when the gods have to be propitiated. Science becomes independent of religion when the forces of nature are seen to be controlled by technology. In the latter case religiosity continues when the regime wants to control what people believe as is the case with many people today.
However science defined as that which describes and explains nature as a coherent system is consistent with modernised religion. That's because God maintains coherence and makes order out of chaos (see Genesis 1).

(BTW so called "free" will is a political strategy for social control)

Science doesn’t “merge” with religion—it replaces the need for supernatural explanations by providing testable, coherent models of reality. The idea that modernized religion can coexist with science by invoking a god who “maintains coherence” is just repackaged deism, an unnecessary placeholder for natural laws that function without divine intervention. Science progresses by eliminating unverified assumptions, not by accommodating them.

And yes, free will has always been a tool for control—a convenient myth that shifts responsibility from systemic causes to individuals, reinforcing the illusion of moral agency where none exists.

You talk as if science is its own justification . But it's not. Science is a human activity. Humans do science in order to gain control of natural reality. Do you actually not understand that modern academic science is historical ?( please see 'scientific enlightenment' )and that its predecessor was part of religion ; religion was at one time the only medium for explaining the world.

University curriculums for the natural sciences don't have sufficient time to devote to history and philosophy of science.

[BigMike]

Religion and science merge when the gods have to be propitiated. Science becomes independent of religion when the forces of nature are seen to be controlled by technology. In the latter case religiosity continues when the regime wants to control what people believe as is the case with many people today.
However science defined as that which describes and explains nature as a coherent system is consistent with modernised religion. That's because God maintains coherence and makes order out of chaos (see Genesis 1).

(BTW so called "free" will is a political strategy for social control)

Science doesn’t “merge” with religion—it replaces the need for supernatural explanations by providing testable, coherent models of reality. The idea that modernized religion can coexist with science by invoking a god who “maintains coherence” is just repackaged deism, an unnecessary placeholder for natural laws that function without divine intervention. Science progresses by eliminating unverified assumptions, not by accommodating them.

And yes, free will has always been a tool for control—a convenient myth that shifts responsibility from systemic causes to individuals, reinforcing the illusion of moral agency where none exists.

You talk as if science is its own justification . But it's not. Science is a human activity. Humans do science in order to gain control of natural reality. Do you actually not understand that modern academic science is historical ?( please see 'scientific enlightenment' )and that its predecessor was part of religion ; religion was at one time the only medium for explaining the world.

University curriculums for the natural sciences don't have sufficient time to devote to history and philosophy of science.

Science isn’t its own justification—it’s justified by its ability to explain, predict, and manipulate reality with unparalleled accuracy. That’s the difference between a self-referential belief system and a method grounded in empirical validation. Yes, science has a history, and yes, it evolved out of earlier religious attempts to explain the world—but that’s precisely the point. It outgrew those origins because it worked, while religious explanations failed.

Acknowledging that religion was once the primary framework for understanding nature doesn’t mean it still holds any epistemic value. Alchemy preceded chemistry, astrology preceded astronomy—both were abandoned because they were wrong. The fact that science has historical roots in religious thinking doesn’t mean it’s still tethered to them. It means it replaced them.

[Skepdick]

Science isn’t its own justification—it’s justified by its ability to explain, predict, and manipulate reality with unparalleled accuracy.

"unparallelled accuracy" at what scale? Science has always been notoriously bad at keeping track of N-th order effects in complex domains.

That's literally why you can't smoothly transition from physics to biology to neuroscience to sociology.

Reductionism is practically worthless for tackling irreducible complexity.

Acknowledging that religion was once the primary framework for understanding nature doesn’t mean it still holds any epistemic value.

Do you even grasp the fact that complexity science/systems science is closer to theology than whatever it is you are peddling?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your analysis of the human condition and the role of religion in alleviating existential angst is profoundly insightful. You correctly acknowledge that religious belief functions as an immediate psychological relief mechanism, providing individuals with a sense of purpose and comfort in the face of mortality and uncertainty. That is a deeply honest assessment of why theistic frameworks persist, despite their fundamental incompatibility with scientific reality.

Such a broad reduction as to what religion is for man, and more specifically what Christian religiosity is and has been for Occidental civilization, is predictably one large area where your view is “skewed” and, thus, your predicate is not well enough grounded.

Your view, your position, your ideology, is simply a restatement of a relatively recent reductionism that “the revelation of God to man” is man’s means of tricking himself, deceiving himself, of holding to a child’s perception of Ultimate Reality when — and here you gun the engines of declarative rhetoric at max RPMs — you reduce the entire manifestation of man in a mysterious cosmos to sheer physicalism.

Through your intellectual reductions — it is a result of illiteracy in my opinion — you establish a skewed perspective which serves your rhetorical boldness in grand acts of dismissal.

Naturally, you “resonate” with VA who, for his own reasons, works with an essentially skewed perspective.

This is not an argument for the abandonment of meaning, purpose, or ethical frameworks—rather, it is an argument for building those frameworks on what is real, not what is comforting. The pursuit of truth, as best as we can grasp it, remains our most reliable path to understanding existence. Anything else is an invitation to contradiction and, ultimately, epistemic collapse.

Meaning, in your system, has any platform it might have had swept out from under it by the necessities of those facts that spin out of sheer physicalism. Meaning could only be recognized by you if it supports your skewed physicalism. Any “meanings” which contradict your reduced perspectives will be classed as illusions — comforting illusions perhaps.

Ethical frameworks will be determined by physicalist necessity and logically reduced to power machinations. Physicalism is naturalism, and nature’s ethics are in no sense man’s. You imagine, falsely I think, that meaning and ethics would survive under your system. But what of purpose? Pragmatism, utilitarianism seem the logical components of your physicalist dreams.

True indeed, that religiousness in the Occident is in substantial trouble when considered at a mass level. But my view is that your illiteracy in the realm of religious (Christian) thought locks you out of an understanding of those domains where meaning & value have actually been defined.