Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Immanuel Can]

...deterministic attitude...

Oh. So you don't even know what Determinism is, and yet you want to get your oar in the water?

Happy paddling. Nobody's interested.

So the one who champions 'free will' claims to speak for others I find Dubious very interesting actually, unlike bores like you who only have one opinion: god did it.

Sorry...not interested in you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Mike, for God’s sake, try to understand that you appear here as the emissary of the most extreme embodiment of a sheer & absolute physicalist materialism. You therefore represent the culmination of that Age of (Occidental) man’s turn away from those over-regions to a full descent into matter.

This is epochal material, Laddy!

Don’t give up on us, nor on yourself.

[Dubious]

...deterministic attitude...

Oh. So you don't even know what Determinism is

Don't be silly! I have a very good idea based on inquiry and not some idiot's perverse opinion based on nothing more than one's preferred presuppositions What you have in common with determinism are its fixed rules which a frozen brain like yours is thoroughly subject to. Almost everyone here knows it. Based on all the endless lies and hypocrisy you've blessed us with throughout the years, I rechristen thee Immanuel Trump, a hero to some; a living anathema to most others...a throwback neither desired nor required.

[Gary Childress]

Now, onto important business! I am beginning to market my own line of pharmaceuticals and one in particular called Resolution®.

(Gary please take note!)

Take just one and all doubt, all internal conflict, disperses! (The price-point is steep: $6,999.00 but the results are guaranteed!

“My ways are not your ways” but as surely as the rains fall, and the bludgeons of forced conviction strike you, you will come around!

As far as I'm aware, there is no drug that cures schizophrenia or bipolar disorder only drugs that mitigate those conditions. And mental illness is a biological condition, not something that we can just snap out of by becoming more "resolute" in our thoughts.

[Immanuel Can]

...deterministic attitude...

Oh. So you don't even know what Determinism is

I have a very good idea...

[Alexis Jacobi]

Right, so just recently BigMike brought up the rather meaty question of “salvation”. I don’t want to let it slip by.

Presently, I can conceive of it and think about it from a somewhat mythological or psychological point of view.

I say (perhaps along with CG Jung) that as a “myth”, as an idea charged with archetypal potency, that in one way or another we are involved with the idea. I mean that in the sense that, psychically, the notion really does exist.

It is so much a part of an internalized symbolical heritage (?) that it lurks there, even if we do not believe in it (nor in supernatural potency).

See, I do not see your (Mike’s) semi-religious or religious-like idealism as standing outside of that archetypal pattern. You seem to carry it with you but to empty of former content and connotation.

[Dubious]

Oh. So you don't even know what Determinism is

I have a very good idea...

It makes me that you're !

[promethean75]

: why doesn't anyone use me anymore?

: oh god here we go.

: holy shit did you see that?

: see what?

he didn't see anything dude, he's high.

[Gary Childress]

Right, so just recently BigMike brought up the rather meaty question of “salvation”. I don’t want to let it slip by.

Presently, I can conceive of it and think about it from a somewhat mythological or psychological point of view.

I say (perhaps along with CG Jung) that as a “myth”, as an idea charged with archetypal potency, that in one way or another we are involved with the idea. I mean that in the sense that, psychically, the notion really does exist.

It is so much a part of an internalized symbolical heritage (?) that it lurks there, even if we do not believe in it (nor in supernatural potency).

See, I do not see your (Mike’s) semi-religious or religious-like idealism as standing outside of that archetypal pattern. You seem to carry it with you but to empty of former content and connotation.

It may be a bit like trying to treat dementia or Alzheimer's though psychoanalysis. Most psychologists and psychiatrists take a clinical approach these days.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Worthy of being highlighted:

And if we’re talking about Isaac Newton as an example of a scientist who was also a theist, let’s not conveniently ignore the man beyond his equations. Newton was not some enlightened fusion of science and faith—he was, in many ways, a deeply disturbed fanatic whose religious convictions fueled some of his more sadistic tendencies.

Take, for example, his time as Warden of the Royal Mint. Newton wasn’t just an administrator overseeing the currency; he personally took to hunting down counterfeiters with an almost unhinged zeal. He would disguise himself, infiltrate criminal circles, and gather evidence through coercion and manipulation. Once he had enough, he ensured that these men were executed in the most brutal ways possible—hanging, drawing, and quartering. And he didn’t just oversee their executions; he attended them, standing close enough to watch their agony, reportedly without a flicker of remorse. This wasn’t merely about enforcing the law—it was about a sense of divine justice, a belief that he was the instrument of God's wrath against the wicked.

Then there’s the way he treated his intellectual rivals, particularly Robert Hooke. Newton had an obsessive hatred for Hooke, whose work on optics and gravitation posed a challenge to his own claims. When Hooke died, Newton ensured that his portrait and much of his legacy were erased from the Royal Society’s records. This wasn’t just academic rivalry—it was vengeance, driven by Newton’s belief that he was divinely chosen to reveal the truths of nature. Anyone who challenged him was not just an opponent, but an offense against God's ordained order.

And then there’s his theological writings, where his sadism emerges in an entirely different form. Newton spent vast amounts of time deciphering Biblical prophecy, convinced that he alone had unlocked God's hidden messages. But his interpretations were not just scholarly exercises—they were filled with visions of divine punishment, apocalyptic wrath, and the ultimate destruction of those he considered heretics. He fervently believed that those who deviated from his vision of Christianity—particularly Catholics—were destined for brutal divine retribution. The same mind that so elegantly described gravity was also consumed with an almost gleeful obsession with the suffering of those he deemed unworthy.

So no, citing Newton as an example of a religious scientist does nothing to support the idea that faith and reason can coexist productively. If anything, his story is a warning: even the greatest minds are not immune to the poison of religious dogma, and when that dogma festers in a mind as relentless as Newton’s, it can manifest in cruelty, fanaticism, and a thirst for domination disguised as righteousness. His faith didn’t enhance his science—it corrupted his humanity.

[Skepdick]

Is this dictatorial cunt still trying to get you to surrender your freedom of thought to him under the guise of determinism?

He can't even sugarcoat the shit-sandwich it in charm, charisma or eloquence.

Oh, Skepdick, such passion, such fire—so much rage, and yet, not even a whisper of an argument. What could possibly be the reason for all that bluster? Is it frustration at not being able to refute a single point? A knee-jerk reaction to the mere suggestion that your precious "freedom of thought" might be an illusion? Or is it just projection, lashing out at the uncomfortable realization that your own beliefs rest on nothing more than unexamined assumptions?

And dictatorial? Please. I'm not the one demanding blind submission to comforting fictions—I’m the one asking for evidence, for consistency, for rational coherence. If that feels like tyranny to you, maybe the real problem isn’t determinism—it’s that you can’t stomach the weight of reason.

Nothing like a moron trapped in a vicious circularity attempting to climb on the moral high horse of "reason".

It's not possible to determine whether determinism or non-determinism is true in an ontological sense.
The fact that you can choose to believe either one tells you everything you need to know about free will.

[Belinda]

Is this dictatorial cunt still trying to get you to surrender your freedom of thought to him under the guise of determinism?

He can't even sugarcoat the shit-sandwich it in charm, charisma or eloquence.

Oh, Skepdick, such passion, such fire—so much rage, and yet, not even a whisper of an argument. What could possibly be the reason for all that bluster? Is it frustration at not being able to refute a single point? A knee-jerk reaction to the mere suggestion that your precious "freedom of thought" might be an illusion? Or is it just projection, lashing out at the uncomfortable realization that your own beliefs rest on nothing more than unexamined assumptions?

And dictatorial? Please. I'm not the one demanding blind submission to comforting fictions—I’m the one asking for evidence, for consistency, for rational coherence. If that feels like tyranny to you, maybe the real problem isn’t determinism—it’s that you can’t stomach the weight of reason.

Nothing like a moron trapped in a vicious circularity attempting to climb on the moral high horse of "reason".

It's not possible to determine whether determinism or non-determinism is true in an ontological sense.
The fact that you can choose to believe either one tells you everything you need to know about free will.

How do you navigate your personal life without trusting to causes and their effects?

[Skepdick]

How do you navigate your personal life without trusting to causes and their effects?

With great caution and good enough predictions that sometimes fail me.

[Belinda]

How do you navigate your personal life without trusting to causes and their effects?

With great caution and good enough predictions that sometimes fail me.

Yes but you have not answered my question. Are you trying to be flippant?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Mike, please don’t fall into distress: the sheep may muddy the water where the wolf drinks, but effectively this can do nothing much to the wolf.