Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexiev]

What does all this have to do with the fact that if there were no assignation between sperm and egg you wouldn't be here.

Once you've arrived, you can be molded by any number of fictions, i.e., beliefs, which can be very different at different times...as nicely described by you. Nothing new here!

Nobody denies that. My reply to Mike agreed that science is a methodology, not a belief system. However, his determinism is a belief systen, not a methodology.

Belief systems (including Mike's) are often derived from fictions as well as facts. How could beliefs about such non-factual topics as morality be derived otherwise?

[BigMike]

Fiction, at its core, has long been a vehicle for shaping human understanding, a mirror reflecting our beliefs, desires, and anxieties. But within this vast realm of storytelling lies a dangerous undercurrent—one that reinforces illusions rather than dismantling them. Among the most pernicious of these is the persistent glorification of free will, an idea so deeply embedded in fictional narratives that it has distorted how people perceive reality itself.

The hero, who through sheer determination and personal resolve triumphs over insurmountable odds, is perhaps the most insidious of all fictional constructs. This archetype is not merely a harmless trope; it perpetuates the fallacy that human beings are self-made, independent agents, able to carve their destiny through sheer willpower alone. The reality is that every action, every decision, every so-called triumph is the inevitable result of a web of preceding causes, dictated by genetics, environment, and external circumstances. But fiction, in its relentless need to create narratives of struggle and triumph, demands that we ignore these causal chains and instead embrace the comforting fantasy that individuals are the masters of their fate.

Worse still, fiction often ventures beyond the mundane and ventures into outright supernaturalism. From divine intervention to magical abilities to unexplainable acts of superhuman strength or wisdom, it continuously reinforces the idea that reality can be bent to human will. This is not merely a creative indulgence—it is a direct assault on rationality. By repeatedly exposing audiences to these ideas, fiction subtly conditions people to expect outcomes that do not align with the deterministic nature of the universe. The implication that an individual, by force of will, can summon untapped reserves of power, outthink destiny, or miraculously change the world is a betrayal of logic itself.

Even in stories that attempt to be more grounded, the same distortions occur. Fiction revels in moments of personal choice, where a character, standing at a crucial crossroads, makes a decision that supposedly defines their future. The weight of these moments suggests that the character's agency is absolute, that their will is the deciding factor. But reality does not work this way. Every so-called choice is nothing more than the inevitable outcome of prior causes, yet fiction, in its pursuit of emotional resonance, crafts an illusion of spontaneity, of self-direction, of independence from the constraints of physics, biology, and psychology.

The damage does not stop with entertainment. These narratives spill into culture, shaping laws, shaping policies, shaping how people treat one another. They fuel systems of justice that demand punishment rather than understanding, economics that reward the illusion of merit over the recognition of structural advantage, and moral frameworks that assume individual responsibility rather than the acknowledgment of deterministic constraints. People look at the fictional hero who overcomes all odds and internalize a false expectation that real-world struggles can be resolved in the same way—by grit, by resolve, by willpower alone. And when reality fails to conform to these narratives, disappointment, frustration, and misplaced blame follow.

At its worst, fiction acts as a kind of mind poison, reinforcing the very ideas that must be dismantled if humanity is ever to develop a rational understanding of itself. It is not merely that fiction misrepresents reality; it conditions people to embrace a version of life that is untethered from scientific truth. While fiction may have been a necessary evolutionary byproduct, once useful for encoding cultural knowledge, it has outlived its purpose. In a world governed by deterministic forces, there is no room for illusions.

[Alexiev]

Fiction, at its core, has long been a vehicle for shaping human understanding, a mirror reflecting our beliefs, desires, and anxieties. But within this vast realm of storytelling lies a dangerous undercurrent—one that reinforces illusions rather than dismantling them. Among the most pernicious of these is the persistent glorification of free will, an idea so deeply embedded in fictional narratives that it has distorted how people perceive reality itself.

The hero, who through sheer determination and personal resolve triumphs over insurmountable odds, is perhaps the most insidious of all fictional constructs. This archetype is not merely a harmless trope; it perpetuates the fallacy that human beings are self-made, independent agents, able to carve their destiny through sheer willpower alone. The reality is that every action, every decision, every so-called triumph is the inevitable result of a web of preceding causes, dictated by genetics, environment, and external circumstances. But fiction, in its relentless need to create narratives of struggle and triumph, demands that we ignore these causal chains and instead embrace the comforting fantasy that individuals are the masters of their fate.

Worse still, fiction often ventures beyond the mundane and ventures into outright supernaturalism. From divine intervention to magical abilities to unexplainable acts of superhuman strength or wisdom, it continuously reinforces the idea that reality can be bent to human will. This is not merely a creative indulgence—it is a direct assault on rationality. By repeatedly exposing audiences to these ideas, fiction subtly conditions people to expect outcomes that do not align with the deterministic nature of the universe. The implication that an individual, by force of will, can summon untapped reserves of power, outthink destiny, or miraculously change the world is a betrayal of logic itself.

Even in stories that attempt to be more grounded, the same distortions occur. Fiction revels in moments of personal choice, where a character, standing at a crucial crossroads, makes a decision that supposedly defines their future. The weight of these moments suggests that the character's agency is absolute, that their will is the deciding factor. But reality does not work this way. Every so-called choice is nothing more than the inevitable outcome of prior causes, yet fiction, in its pursuit of emotional resonance, crafts an illusion of spontaneity, of self-direction, of independence from the constraints of physics, biology, and psychology.

The damage does not stop with entertainment. These narratives spill into culture, shaping laws, shaping policies, shaping how people treat one another. They fuel systems of justice that demand punishment rather than understanding, economics that reward the illusion of merit over the recognition of structural advantage, and moral frameworks that assume individual responsibility rather than the acknowledgment of deterministic constraints. People look at the fictional hero who overcomes all odds and internalize a false expectation that real-world struggles can be resolved in the same way—by grit, by resolve, by willpower alone. And when reality fails to conform to these narratives, disappointment, frustration, and misplaced blame follow.

At its worst, fiction acts as a kind of mind poison, reinforcing the very ideas that must be dismantled if humanity is ever to develop a rational understanding of itself. It is not merely that fiction misrepresents reality; it conditions people to embrace a version of life that is untethered from scientific truth. While fiction may have been a necessary evolutionary byproduct, once useful for encoding cultural knowledge, it has outlived its purpose. In a world governed by deterministic forces, there is no room for illusions.

I say sadly, MIke, that your understanding of fiction is even worse than your understanding of science and philosophy. Have you never read Oedipius? How about stories of Perseus? Fate drives these stories. The heroes of old don't change of their own free will -- their fates are sealed and their characters determined by birth (hint: it helps if one of your parents is a God).

Your silly idea that justice demands acceptance of determinism ignores the question of how we develop concepts of justice in the first place. What makes a "better" society? These are subjective concepts, and no scientific approach can deal with them.

OH, no! FIction sometimes traffics in "outright supernaturalism"! Horrors! Call the science police! Good grief! Who cares (other than those of us who like fantasies)?

Oh, well. Mike has now decided to become a book burner. Only those tomes approved as determinist must be distributed and read. Ban Goldilocks! (That the Mama bear's porridge cooled more quickly than the smaller baby bear's portion is unscientific! It violates conservation laws!)

Mike, you are quickly becoming not just the mere crank who once entertained us, but a dangerous lunatic. (Or you would be dangerous, if anyone listened to you or agreed with you).

[BigMike]

Fiction, at its core, has long been a vehicle for shaping human understanding, a mirror reflecting our beliefs, desires, and anxieties. But within this vast realm of storytelling lies a dangerous undercurrent—one that reinforces illusions rather than dismantling them. Among the most pernicious of these is the persistent glorification of free will, an idea so deeply embedded in fictional narratives that it has distorted how people perceive reality itself.

The hero, who through sheer determination and personal resolve triumphs over insurmountable odds, is perhaps the most insidious of all fictional constructs. This archetype is not merely a harmless trope; it perpetuates the fallacy that human beings are self-made, independent agents, able to carve their destiny through sheer willpower alone. The reality is that every action, every decision, every so-called triumph is the inevitable result of a web of preceding causes, dictated by genetics, environment, and external circumstances. But fiction, in its relentless need to create narratives of struggle and triumph, demands that we ignore these causal chains and instead embrace the comforting fantasy that individuals are the masters of their fate.

Worse still, fiction often ventures beyond the mundane and ventures into outright supernaturalism. From divine intervention to magical abilities to unexplainable acts of superhuman strength or wisdom, it continuously reinforces the idea that reality can be bent to human will. This is not merely a creative indulgence—it is a direct assault on rationality. By repeatedly exposing audiences to these ideas, fiction subtly conditions people to expect outcomes that do not align with the deterministic nature of the universe. The implication that an individual, by force of will, can summon untapped reserves of power, outthink destiny, or miraculously change the world is a betrayal of logic itself.

Even in stories that attempt to be more grounded, the same distortions occur. Fiction revels in moments of personal choice, where a character, standing at a crucial crossroads, makes a decision that supposedly defines their future. The weight of these moments suggests that the character's agency is absolute, that their will is the deciding factor. But reality does not work this way. Every so-called choice is nothing more than the inevitable outcome of prior causes, yet fiction, in its pursuit of emotional resonance, crafts an illusion of spontaneity, of self-direction, of independence from the constraints of physics, biology, and psychology.

The damage does not stop with entertainment. These narratives spill into culture, shaping laws, shaping policies, shaping how people treat one another. They fuel systems of justice that demand punishment rather than understanding, economics that reward the illusion of merit over the recognition of structural advantage, and moral frameworks that assume individual responsibility rather than the acknowledgment of deterministic constraints. People look at the fictional hero who overcomes all odds and internalize a false expectation that real-world struggles can be resolved in the same way—by grit, by resolve, by willpower alone. And when reality fails to conform to these narratives, disappointment, frustration, and misplaced blame follow.

At its worst, fiction acts as a kind of mind poison, reinforcing the very ideas that must be dismantled if humanity is ever to develop a rational understanding of itself. It is not merely that fiction misrepresents reality; it conditions people to embrace a version of life that is untethered from scientific truth. While fiction may have been a necessary evolutionary byproduct, once useful for encoding cultural knowledge, it has outlived its purpose. In a world governed by deterministic forces, there is no room for illusions.

I say sadly, MIke, that your understanding of fiction is even worse than your understanding of science and philosophy. Have you never read Oedipius? How about stories of Perseus? Fate drives these stories. The heroes of old don't change of their own free will -- their fates are sealed and their characters determined by birth (hint: it helps if one of your parents is a God).

Your silly idea that justice demands acceptance of determinism ignores the question of how we develop concepts of justice in the first place. What makes a "better" society? These are subjective concepts, and no scientific approach can deal with them.

OH, no! FIction sometimes traffics in "outright supernaturalism"! Horrors! Call the science police! Good grief! Who cares (other than those of us who like fantasies)?

Oh, well. Mike has now decided to become a book burner. Only those tomes approved as determinist must be distributed and read. Ban Goldilocks! (That the Mama bear's porridge cooled more quickly than the smaller baby bear's portion is unscientific! It violates conservation laws!)

Mike, you are quickly becoming not just the mere crank who once entertained us, but a dangerous lunatic. (Or you would be dangerous, if anyone listened to you or agreed with you).

Alexiev, you’ve managed to completely miss the point while constructing a comically exaggerated version of my argument. No one is banning books or sending the "science police" after Goldilocks—though, amusingly, your mock outrage only reinforces how deeply fiction distorts thinking.

Yes, ancient myths sometimes acknowledged fate, but they were hardly lessons in determinism. The gods in those stories were capricious, driven by human-like emotions, and their influence was anything but systematic or scientific. They weren’t bound by the laws of physics; they were storytelling devices, reinforcing the idea that supernatural forces dictate human outcomes. That’s not determinism—it’s just another flavor of magical thinking.

As for justice, the question isn’t how we developed concepts of fairness—it’s whether those concepts should be based on truth or comforting fictions. You sneer at the idea that science can inform justice, yet every functional system of rehabilitation, social policy, and criminal reform is built on understanding cause and effect. When we recognize that human behavior arises from prior conditions, we can actually address those conditions instead of clinging to archaic notions of moral blame.

And no, I’m not against entertainment. People can enjoy fantasy all they want—so long as they recognize it as fiction. The problem isn’t the stories themselves; it’s the way they shape cultural expectations, smuggling in falsehoods that people internalize as reality. You laugh at the idea that fiction influences thought, but then you accuse me of being dangerous for challenging its impact. Which is it? Either stories matter, or they don’t.

Your argument is nothing more than emotional theatrics—a panicked defense of fiction, not because you’ve refuted my point, but because you’re unwilling to consider how deeply these illusions run.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Theists come in many types from pure faith to the highest ideological rationalism [btw, not rationality].
Theists do view their theism as epistemological [divine knowledge]. So, we can press them on the need to a standard of epistemology.
Whilst most theists refuse at present, in time, rationality and critical thinking will creep up and prevail.

While the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity, it actually supported on very flimsy grounds of induction [note Hume]. According to Popper, scientific truths at best are merely polished conjectures [hypothesis].
In addition, science is theory and value laden, i.e. grounded to choice of instruments, units of measurements, choice of theories, peer consensus, etc.
As such, while theism is faith on one extreme [high], science is also base on faith/value in the other extreme [low].
But this sliver or chink of faith/value do not weaken science at all, so putting theism on a continuum of knowledge and objectivity at the other extreme end would not allow it the passport to the level of scientific truths.
One of the effective element of problem solving is to put things within a common quantified platform.
Therefore it is wise to push for this Framework and System credibility and objectivity on a continuum approach.

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.

There are no absolute [apodictic 100%-certain] truths, thus there are only degrees of truths or falsehoods on a continuum.
So, it is reasonable to accept theistic claims on the basis of epistemology and knowledge subject to a framework and system of truths, reality and knowledge.
There is nothing to worry, whatever is claimed to be true must meet the stringent standard of truth [heavy empirically weighed]; from what we know, theism would be rated low.

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.

The 'hope' of the Highest Good [perpetual peace, well being, flourishing] is conditioned upon epistemology and morality. Because the epistemological rating within theism is extremely low, it is not likely to meet the expected to move toward the expected ideal hope effectively.
In terms of morality, depending on a supernatural sources does not preclude theism from promoting effective morality in some degrees.
There is what is called "Moral Luck' [?] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck
For example, it is undeniable, as separate elements, Christianity's "love all-even enemies" and other good elements [Mathew 5-7], are morally good.

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.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"
There is a trend of theism waning since 500 years ago to the present.
So, humanity need to understand the mechanisms [psychological and neural] of this trend and expedite it; that is possible because of the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge, AI, IT and technology.

The above is the possible approach [necessary for humanity] to reconcile Science with theism. QED?

(note, there are theistic and non-theistic religions, where Buddhism as a religion is very compatible with Science).

[Alexiev]

,
You sneer at the idea that science can inform justice yet every functional system of rehabilitation, social policy, and criminal reform is built on understanding cause and effect. When we recognize that human behavior arises from prior conditions, we can actually address those conditions instead of clinging to archaic notions of moral blame.

And no, I’m not against entertainment. People can enjoy fantasy all they want—so long as they recognize it as fiction. The problem isn’t the stories themselves; it’s the way they shape cultural expectations, smuggling in falsehoods that people internalize as reality. You laugh at the idea that fiction influences thought, but then you accuse me of being dangerous for challenging its impact. Which is it? Either stories matter, or they don’t.

Your argument is nothing more than emotional theatrics—a panicked defense of fiction, not because you’ve refuted my point, but because you’re unwilling to consider how deeply these illusions run.

As usual, MIke, you don't read what I've written. Of course "science can inform justice." Who could deny it? OK... fingerprints are no longer considered infallible, and lie detectors don't work -- but I'll grant that science can inform justice. What science cannot do is inform us what constitutes justice. Such moral question are unscientific. Can fiction help us decide? Well, that's arguable. It does for me. I think (to the consternation of many philosophers) that morality is more analogical than logical We see people and behaviors who, for whatever intricate and doubtless predetermined 'causes', we admire, and emulate them. "What would Jesus do," say the Christians, although many of us might pick a different exemplar. Literature is one of the infinite "causes" of our moral decisions.

True: some works of fiction commit that most heinous sin -- writing imaginatively as if people have free will and can actually decide things. That's horrible, I know, but a spoonful of sugar will help the bitter medicine go down. If these imaginary and fictional readers whom you envision fail to recognize novels or movies as fiction (who are these ignoramuses?! Do they even exist? Are they literate?) they may be led to the evil, unscientific abyss. We can only hope that lakes of fire will await them, although we cannot predict that with any scientific certainty.

YOu say we humans are not responsible for our actions. I say we are, whether or not our actions are "determined". The argument about what constitutes "responsible" cannot be solved by physics. It is not a question about the physical universe. It can be addressed legally, philosophically artistically, and linguistically -- each of which fields will be insufficient. Once (and if) we answer that question we might be able to use physics to figure out how to get people to be responsible.

[Alexiev]

Also, why aren't fictions "realities"? Isn't everything that exists part of reality, including imagination, dreams, novels, poems, etc.?

You might agree that so-called “fiction” (fictional novel for example) is not, in truth, fiction or fictional, but rather a sort of extraction from the world of human reality or a condensation — or perhaps amplification.

Both unreal and more-real.

BikeMike is ultimately concerned that Christianity appears solely as an enormous “fiction” — a myth, an invention, and in Mike’s understanding an errant configuration of misdirected neurons (which require sorting out).

Yet generations of men have lived not only relationally to the so-called Stories, and lived through them, but have also understood themselves to be in a relationship with metaphysical, supernatural or psychological entity.

This is not unrealness. It requires a special category.

Now, all of this — both Mike’s absolute concrete “reality” (physics facts) and everything I just mentioned — exist. It is here.

What has come into our world through the psyche provides man with all that is actually human, far more that there mere physiological instrument.

Personally, I am at a loss to decide ultimately to what I must assign genuine realness.

Yes, Mike’s “rolling rock” is tangibly more real than a molding thought. But in an ultimate and a human sense the thought is actually far more real if effect is the criterion.

I happen to love myths, and object if anyone claims they are "lies" (or even "fictions" which naively conflates two literary genres). Myths are real -- some are historically accurate (in part), just as some "histories" are historically inaccurate (in part). But they are real even when they are inaccurate. They may even be "true" if they are inaccurate -- but that's a more difficult discussion. Are scholars who study mythology studying something that doesn't exist?

[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.


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.


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.

Theists come in many types from pure faith to the highest ideological rationalism [btw, not rationality].
Theists do view their theism as epistemological [divine knowledge]. So, we can press them on the need to a standard of epistemology.
Whilst most theists refuse at present, in time, rationality and critical thinking will creep up and prevail.

While the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity, it actually supported on very flimsy grounds of induction [note Hume]. According to Popper, scientific truths at best are merely polished conjectures [hypothesis].
In addition, science is theory and value laden, i.e. grounded to choice of instruments, units of measurements, choice of theories, peer consensus, etc.
As such, while theism is faith on one extreme [high], science is also base on faith/value in the other extreme [low].
But this sliver or chink of faith/value do not weaken science at all, so putting theism on a continuum of knowledge and objectivity at the other extreme end would not allow it the passport to the level of scientific truths.
One of the effective element of problem solving is to put things within a common quantified platform.
Therefore it is wise to push for this Framework and System credibility and objectivity on a continuum approach.

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.

There are no absolute [apodictic 100%-certain] truths, thus there are only degrees of truths or falsehoods on a continuum.
So, it is reasonable to accept theistic claims on the basis of epistemology and knowledge subject to a framework and system of truths, reality and knowledge.
There is nothing to worry, whatever is claimed to be true must meet the stringent standard of truth [heavy empirically weighed]; from what we know, theism would be rated low.

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.

The 'hope' of the Highest Good [perpetual peace, well being, flourishing] is conditioned upon epistemology and morality. Because the epistemological rating within theism is extremely low, it is not likely to meet the expected to move toward the expected ideal hope effectively.
In terms of morality, depending on a supernatural sources does not preclude theism from promoting effective morality in some degrees.
There is what is called "Moral Luck' [?] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck
For example, it is undeniable, as separate elements, Christianity's "love all-even enemies" and other good elements [Mathew 5-7], are morally good.

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.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"
There is a trend of theism waning since 500 years ago to the present.
So, humanity need to understand the mechanisms [psychological and neural] of this trend and expedite it; that is possible because of the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge, AI, IT and technology.

The above is the possible approach [necessary for humanity] to reconcile Science with theism. QED?

(note, there are theistic and non-theistic religions, where Buddhism as a religion is very compatible with Science).

Your analysis is sharp, and your continuum approach remains a useful tool for placing different knowledge systems in a clear epistemic hierarchy. Theists, when pressed, should indeed be compelled to justify their beliefs against the scientific standard, which exposes the glaring deficiencies in their epistemic claims. However, your suggestion that science is also based on some level of faith deserves a closer look.

Science, unlike theistic belief, does not demand faith in the same sense. It begins with hypotheses—tentative explanations that are then rigorously tested. The strength of science is that it doesn’t claim certainty; it refines its models as new evidence emerges. You bring up Hume and Popper, both of whom highlighted the limits of induction and the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. This is true—science does not claim absolute certainty. But does that mean it requires faith? Not in the way religion does.

Consider modus ponens:

1) If P, then Q.
2) P is true.
3) Therefore, Q is true.

Science operates under this structure. It does not claim “Q is true” outright. Instead, it says, “Q is true if P (our observations, repeatable experiments, and theories) are true—and so far, they seem to be.” Science is not a blind faith in its premises; it is an ongoing process that works within those premises, always open to refinement. Unlike religion, science does not require belief in something beyond empirical validation.

Your continuum approach forces a reckoning, making it impossible for theists to claim equal epistemic footing. The challenge, as you rightly acknowledge, is getting them to accept that such a ranking even matters. Faith thrives precisely because it evades the need for justification, whereas science demands it. Bridging the two does not elevate religion—it undermines epistemic integrity. Once exceptions to rationality are entertained, they metastasize.

Living by truth, even when uncomfortable, is more valuable than clinging to comforting illusions. The more humanity embraces rationality, the more it sheds the psychological crutch of theism. The trend is clear: knowledge expands, and as it does, the space for religious belief contracts. The task is to accelerate that process—not by conceding epistemic ground, but by demonstrating that truth-seeking itself is the highest pursuit.

[FlashDangerpants]

Has VA finally found a human being that is stupid enough to buy into this FSK theory it makes actual sense to say that science is 90% credible and history is 12% credible, so science is better than history?

Or is Mike just so weak that he will butter up the worst idiots the internet throws at him for the sake of an alliance?

[BigMike]

,
You sneer at the idea that science can inform justice yet every functional system of rehabilitation, social policy, and criminal reform is built on understanding cause and effect. When we recognize that human behavior arises from prior conditions, we can actually address those conditions instead of clinging to archaic notions of moral blame.

And no, I’m not against entertainment. People can enjoy fantasy all they want—so long as they recognize it as fiction. The problem isn’t the stories themselves; it’s the way they shape cultural expectations, smuggling in falsehoods that people internalize as reality. You laugh at the idea that fiction influences thought, but then you accuse me of being dangerous for challenging its impact. Which is it? Either stories matter, or they don’t.

Your argument is nothing more than emotional theatrics—a panicked defense of fiction, not because you’ve refuted my point, but because you’re unwilling to consider how deeply these illusions run.

As usual, MIke, you don't read what I've written. Of course "science can inform justice." Who could deny it? OK... fingerprints are no longer considered infallible, and lie detectors don't work -- but I'll grant that science can inform justice. What science cannot do is inform us what constitutes justice. Such moral question are unscientific. Can fiction help us decide? Well, that's arguable. It does for me. I think (to the consternation of many philosophers) that morality is more analogical than logical We see people and behaviors who, for whatever intricate and doubtless predetermined 'causes', we admire, and emulate them. "What would Jesus do," say the Christians, although many of us might pick a different exemplar. Literature is one of the infinite "causes" of our moral decisions.

True: some works of fiction commit that most heinous sin -- writing imaginatively as if people have free will and can actually decide things. That's horrible, I know, but a spoonful of sugar will help the bitter medicine go down. If these imaginary and fictional readers whom you envision fail to recognize novels or movies as fiction (who are these ignoramuses?! Do they even exist? Are they literate?) they may be led to the evil, unscientific abyss. We can only hope that lakes of fire will await them, although we cannot predict that with any scientific certainty.

YOu say we humans are not responsible for our actions. I say we are, whether or not our actions are "determined". The argument about what constitutes "responsible" cannot be solved by physics. It is not a question about the physical universe. It can be addressed legally, philosophically artistically, and linguistically -- each of which fields will be insufficient. Once (and if) we answer that question we might be able to use physics to figure out how to get people to be responsible.

Alexiev, you make an important distinction between science informing justice and science determining what justice is. And I agree—science alone doesn’t prescribe moral values. But it does tell us what works. It tells us which social structures reduce harm, which policies lower recidivism, which interventions improve well-being. And that makes morality not just a matter of abstract philosophy or personal feeling—it makes it testable.

Your argument that morality is more analogical than logical is interesting. We do, as you say, model our behavior on exemplars, whether historical figures, fictional characters, or real-life mentors. But that’s exactly where the problem with free-will-driven fiction arises. When every narrative is structured around the illusion that people "choose" their destinies, it subtly reinforces the falsehood that moral success or failure is a matter of willpower alone, disconnected from the deterministic web of cause and effect.

You mock the idea that fiction influences thought, but it absolutely does. We know that repeated exposure to certain narratives shapes perception—this is why propaganda works, why advertising influences behavior, and why political messaging is so carefully crafted. If people absorb the constant reinforcement of free-will narratives, it skews their understanding of reality, embedding false assumptions into their moral reasoning.

As for responsibility, the real question isn’t whether people are responsible in some metaphysical sense, but what responsibility actually means in a deterministic world. If we define responsibility in a way that ignores causality, it becomes a tool for arbitrary punishment rather than a means of addressing root causes. But if we ground it in science—understanding behavior as the product of conditions—we can actually make society more just, not less.

So yes, physics alone doesn’t define justice. But it does tell us what is possible, and ignoring that in favor of traditional moral intuition is exactly why so much injustice persists.

[BigMike]

Also, why aren't fictions "realities"? Isn't everything that exists part of reality, including imagination, dreams, novels, poems, etc.?

You might agree that so-called “fiction” (fictional novel for example) is not, in truth, fiction or fictional, but rather a sort of extraction from the world of human reality or a condensation — or perhaps amplification.

Both unreal and more-real.

BikeMike is ultimately concerned that Christianity appears solely as an enormous “fiction” — a myth, an invention, and in Mike’s understanding an errant configuration of misdirected neurons (which require sorting out).

Yet generations of men have lived not only relationally to the so-called Stories, and lived through them, but have also understood themselves to be in a relationship with metaphysical, supernatural or psychological entity.

This is not unrealness. It requires a special category.

Now, all of this — both Mike’s absolute concrete “reality” (physics facts) and everything I just mentioned — exist. It is here.

What has come into our world through the psyche provides man with all that is actually human, far more that there mere physiological instrument.

Personally, I am at a loss to decide ultimately to what I must assign genuine realness.

Yes, Mike’s “rolling rock” is tangibly more real than a molding thought. But in an ultimate and a human sense the thought is actually far more real if effect is the criterion.

I happen to love myths, and object if anyone claims they are "lies" (or even "fictions" which naively conflates two literary genres). Myths are real -- some are historically accurate (in part), just as some "histories" are historically inaccurate (in part). But they are real even when they are inaccurate. They may even be "true" if they are inaccurate -- but that's a more difficult discussion. Are scholars who study mythology studying something that doesn't exist?

Alexiev, I see what you’re getting at. Myths aren’t “lies” in the sense of deliberate falsehoods, nor are they entirely useless fabrications. They are psychological and cultural artifacts—narratives that shape human perception, encode social values, and provide meaning to those who accept them. And yes, myths exist, in the same way that a dream exists—it is real as an experience, even if it does not correspond to external reality.

The problem arises when people mistake myths for reality. That’s where fiction, when internalized uncritically, becomes dangerous. Myths have real effects, but that doesn’t make them true. A belief in divine judgment, for example, has undeniably shaped history—motivating behavior, justifying wars, influencing law—but that doesn’t make divine judgment real.

Scholars who study mythology aren’t studying something that “doesn’t exist”—they’re studying how human minds construct meaning, how stories shape civilizations, and how narrative structures persist across cultures. That’s valuable. But the distinction must always remain: influence is not the same as truth. Myths shape thought, but they should never be mistaken for the foundation of knowledge itself.

[BigMike]

Has VA finally found a human being that is stupid enough to buy into this FSK theory it makes actual sense to say that science is 90% credible and history is 12% credible, so science is better than history?

Or is Mike just so weak that he will butter up the worst idiots the internet throws at him for the sake of an alliance?

Flash, you’re reaching here. Engaging in a discussion about epistemic frameworks isn’t the same as blindly endorsing every detail of someone else’s system. VA’s continuum approach, while imperfect, at least attempts to quantify the relative credibility of different knowledge systems—something worth examining critically, not just dismissing out of hand.

And let’s be clear: challenging an argument doesn’t mean resorting to cheap insults. If you think VA’s framework is flawed, then argue against it with substance. Otherwise, you’re just throwing stones from the sidelines, hoping no one notices you’re not actually saying anything.

[Dubious]

Myths aren’t “lies” in the sense of deliberate falsehoods, nor are they entirely useless fabrications. They are psychological and cultural artifacts—narratives that shape human perception, encode social values, and provide meaning to those who accept them. And yes, myths exist, in the same way that a dream exists—it is real as an experience, even if it does not correspond to external reality.

The problem arises when people mistake myths for reality. That’s where fiction, when internalized uncritically, becomes dangerous. Myths have real effects, but that doesn’t make them true. A belief in divine judgment, for example, has undeniably shaped history—motivating behavior, justifying wars, influencing law—but that doesn’t make divine judgment real.

Scholars who study mythology aren’t studying something that “doesn’t exist”—they’re studying how human minds construct meaning, how stories shape civilizations, and how narrative structures persist across cultures. That’s valuable. But the distinction must always remain: influence is not the same as truth. Myths shape thought, but they should never be mistaken for the foundation of knowledge itself.

Well expressed and very true...all of it.

[Belinda]

I see what you’re getting at—framing a belief as "God" provides a sense of shared meaning, a rallying point for collective action. But while that may work as a psychological or social tool, it comes with a cost: the blurring of distinctions between metaphor and reality. If "God" can mean anything to anyone, it ultimately means nothing concrete. And when vague definitions mix with real-world decision-making, that’s where the trouble starts.

As for science, you’re absolutely right that its standing in society is fragile. Reverence for science is conditional—it thrives in periods of reason and progress but is always at risk when ignorance, superstition, or political convenience take over. The resurgence of anti-intellectualism under Trump (who just announced a new task force to 'eradicate anti-Christian bias') and others like him is a prime example. When power depends on manipulating people rather than informing them, truth becomes a liability, and science—the systematic pursuit of truth—becomes a target.

This is why clarity matters. When people start treating science as "just another belief system" rather than a methodology, it becomes easier to dismiss. And when scientific facts are seen as ideological opinions, they become subject to political whims. That’s how we end up with climate denial, vaccine skepticism, and a culture where expertise is derided rather than valued. It’s not just academic scientists who should be worried—it’s anyone who values reality over convenient fictions.

Also, why should we value reality over fiction

...because reality - often stranger than fiction - is what keeps you alive and orders your existence, while fiction keeps you entertained.

Dubious, when you wrote 'fiction' do you refer to or include 19th century novels and their legacy into the present day?
You do yourself an injustice if you claim that novels are nothing but entertainment; some are, some aren't.

There are all sorts of fictions. Let's define our terms. Let's also equip school children and adults with the critical ability to distinguish truth from falsehood----That's the question! Not fact or fiction ,but instead truth or falsehood.

True, science is a methodology as Mike says; a methodology for knowing stuff. How we may we know stuff includes the linguistic social register, the social gravitas of the particular language used, the popularity of the transmitter's use of language, the skill of the wordsmith, and more. The methodology of science includes what Basil Bernstein the sociolinguist called " the elaborated code".
It is silly however to dismiss the other Bernstein code i.e. what Bernstein calls the restricted code which is the code of everyday language and of poetic language.
Truth can be spoken in either code.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There are all sorts of fictions. Let's define our terms. Let's also equip school children and adults with the critical ability to distinguish truth from falsehood — That's the question! Not fact or fiction, but instead truth or falsehood.

Here is where BigMike will stumble mightily. I hope I am clear: I mean the perspective that BigMike assumes is true and provides “truth”.

To the degree that other “fanatical minds” in this conversation share BigMike’s selected predicates — his are the more or less current ones — is the degree that no one of yous can be trusted!

This is not meant as offense.

To the degree as well that yous are hardcore atheists is also the degree to which yous have no means whatever to understand mystical experience (which I define as personal experience). However, if yous were to gain control of the curricula of the education system of the modern state, is likely the point that rather than”evil” tendencies — those latent in BM’s delirious fever-dreams of social and ideological control — would produce ugly outcomes.

Still, the horrifying similarity between the fanaticism of (for example) Immanuel Can and BigMike must be thought about and cannot be swept away.

The central issue? How life, being and our existence here is defined.

It would be curious if Belinda, Dubious, BigMike, IC, Henry, Alexiev, VA, Flash and all others were to offer a paragraph with their Operative Description.

Then you’d be able to see how the ideas they spout (each of us) is really what determines the •existential theory• down into the details.