Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

Isn't a "mechanism" inherently deterministic? Wouldn't a mechanism for a supernatural non-deterministic influence need to be deterministic and non-deterministic at the same time? Which is a contradiction, so asking for it makes no sense?

That's not how you dismiss the supernatural, lol.

Atla, this is some top-shelf gobbledygook dressed up as a mic drop.

Let’s unpack your logic pretzel: You're saying that a “mechanism” is inherently deterministic—sure, fine, we’ll grant that in the scientific sense. But then you go on to say that for something non-deterministic (like your supernatural pet) to interact with the physical world, it would need a mechanism that is both deterministic and non-deterministic… and since that’s a contradiction, we just shouldn’t even ask for it?

That’s your argument?

So let me get this straight: you're trying to rescue the supernatural from scrutiny by claiming it’s so special it breaks logic itself—and therefore asking for clarity is the real problem? That’s not philosophy, that’s the rhetorical equivalent of saying, “My invisible friend is real because he disappears when you look too hard.”

Here’s the thing: if the supernatural can affect the physical world—produce thoughts, visions, voices, miracles, prophecy, whatever—then it has an effect. And any effect, by definition, has a cause. If you claim otherwise, you're not describing mystery—you’re describing magic. And if it’s totally untraceable, unverifiable, and logically incoherent, then why are you even bringing it up like it’s worth discussing?

You don’t get to hide a contradiction behind the word “supernatural” and then act smug when people ask you to explain it.

And your “That’s not how you dismiss the supernatural, lol” is the icing on the cake. Oh? Is there a proper etiquette for debunking nonsense now? Should I have worn gloves while dissecting a fantasy?

Face it—your defense here isn’t clever. It’s a transparent attempt to shield nonsense from analysis by claiming the very rules of analysis don’t apply.

Sorry, Atla, but if your idea can’t stand up to a request for basic coherence, it deserves to be dismissed. Lol.

[Atla]

Isn't a "mechanism" inherently deterministic? Wouldn't a mechanism for a supernatural non-deterministic influence need to be deterministic and non-deterministic at the same time? Which is a contradiction, so asking for it makes no sense?

That's not how you dismiss the supernatural, lol.

Atla, this is some top-shelf gobbledygook dressed up as a mic drop.

Let’s unpack your logic pretzel: You're saying that a “mechanism” is inherently deterministic—sure, fine, we’ll grant that in the scientific sense. But then you go on to say that for something non-deterministic (like your supernatural pet) to interact with the physical world, it would need a mechanism that is both deterministic and non-deterministic… and since that’s a contradiction, we just shouldn’t even ask for it?

That’s your argument?

So let me get this straight: you're trying to rescue the supernatural from scrutiny by claiming it’s so special it breaks logic itself—and therefore asking for clarity is the real problem? That’s not philosophy, that’s the rhetorical equivalent of saying, “My invisible friend is real because he disappears when you look too hard.”

Here’s the thing: if the supernatural can affect the physical world—produce thoughts, visions, voices, miracles, prophecy, whatever—then it has an effect. And any effect, by definition, has a cause. If you claim otherwise, you're not describing mystery—you’re describing magic. And if it’s totally untraceable, unverifiable, and logically incoherent, then why are you even bringing it up like it’s worth discussing?

You don’t get to hide a contradiction behind the word “supernatural” and then act smug when people ask you to explain it.

And your “That’s not how you dismiss the supernatural, lol” is the icing on the cake. Oh? Is there a proper etiquette for debunking nonsense now? Should I have worn gloves while dissecting a fantasy?

Face it—your defense here isn’t clever. It’s a transparent attempt to shield nonsense from analysis by claiming the very rules of analysis don’t apply.

Sorry, Atla, but if your idea can’t stand up to a request for basic coherence, it deserves to be dismissed. Lol.

How can you be so dense and ignorant. OF COURSE the supernatural can be magic, in which case the supernatural itself escapes scrutiny, that's the whole point. That's why it's called supernatural. (super- = above, beyond)

We dismiss it not by asking for the supernatural's internal mechanism, but by pointing out that no determinism-breaking effect on our world has ever been demonstrably observed.

[phyllo]

Isn't a "mechanism" inherently deterministic? Wouldn't a mechanism for a supernatural non-deterministic influence need to be deterministic and non-deterministic at the same time? Which is a contradiction, so asking for it makes no sense?

That's not how you dismiss the supernatural, lol.

Atla, this is some top-shelf gobbledygook dressed up as a mic drop.

Let’s unpack your logic pretzel: You're saying that a “mechanism” is inherently deterministic—sure, fine, we’ll grant that in the scientific sense. But then you go on to say that for something non-deterministic (like your supernatural pet) to interact with the physical world, it would need a mechanism that is both deterministic and non-deterministic… and since that’s a contradiction, we just shouldn’t even ask for it?

That’s your argument?

So let me get this straight: you're trying to rescue the supernatural from scrutiny by claiming it’s so special it breaks logic itself—and therefore asking for clarity is the real problem? That’s not philosophy, that’s the rhetorical equivalent of saying, “My invisible friend is real because he disappears when you look too hard.”

Here’s the thing: if the supernatural can affect the physical world—produce thoughts, visions, voices, miracles, prophecy, whatever—then it has an effect. And any effect, by definition, has a cause. If you claim otherwise, you're not describing mystery—you’re describing magic. And if it’s totally untraceable, unverifiable, and logically incoherent, then why are you even bringing it up like it’s worth discussing?

You don’t get to hide a contradiction behind the word “supernatural” and then act smug when people ask you to explain it.

And your “That’s not how you dismiss the supernatural, lol” is the icing on the cake. Oh? Is there a proper etiquette for debunking nonsense now? Should I have worn gloves while dissecting a fantasy?

Face it—your defense here isn’t clever. It’s a transparent attempt to shield nonsense from analysis by claiming the very rules of analysis don’t apply.

Sorry, Atla, but if your idea can’t stand up to a request for basic coherence, it deserves to be dismissed. Lol.

I think Atla is correct.

There is no reasonable explanation for the supernatural and the non-deterministic ... more or less by definition.

And yes, it's "totally untraceable, unverifiable, and logically incoherent" and "the very rules of analysis don’t apply".

That's what it is.

Your attempts to force a rational structure into it are doomed to fail.

The people you are talking to cannot provide what you ask.

[Belinda]

"The religious" reject science while embracing the impossible because people are usually not theologically very well educated.

Theology per se is not part of school curriculums .

In the UK, theology and religious studies are taught in universities as diverse and interdisciplinary fields, encompassing various religions and perspectives, and have become integrated with other humanities and social science disciplines.

[Atla]

We dismiss it not by asking for the supernatural's internal mechanism, but by pointing out that no determinism-breaking effect on our world has ever been demonstrably observed.

Why is it that now that we have cameras and peer-reviewed studies and so on, no one ever wants to walk on water and heal the sick by touch.

That would either mean the supernatural, or a natural being so far above us that it's basically a god to us.

[BigMike]

Isn't a "mechanism" inherently deterministic? Wouldn't a mechanism for a supernatural non-deterministic influence need to be deterministic and non-deterministic at the same time? Which is a contradiction, so asking for it makes no sense?

That's not how you dismiss the supernatural, lol.

Atla, this is some top-shelf gobbledygook dressed up as a mic drop.

Let’s unpack your logic pretzel: You're saying that a “mechanism” is inherently deterministic—sure, fine, we’ll grant that in the scientific sense. But then you go on to say that for something non-deterministic (like your supernatural pet) to interact with the physical world, it would need a mechanism that is both deterministic and non-deterministic… and since that’s a contradiction, we just shouldn’t even ask for it?

That’s your argument?

So let me get this straight: you're trying to rescue the supernatural from scrutiny by claiming it’s so special it breaks logic itself—and therefore asking for clarity is the real problem? That’s not philosophy, that’s the rhetorical equivalent of saying, “My invisible friend is real because he disappears when you look too hard.”

Here’s the thing: if the supernatural can affect the physical world—produce thoughts, visions, voices, miracles, prophecy, whatever—then it has an effect. And any effect, by definition, has a cause. If you claim otherwise, you're not describing mystery—you’re describing magic. And if it’s totally untraceable, unverifiable, and logically incoherent, then why are you even bringing it up like it’s worth discussing?

You don’t get to hide a contradiction behind the word “supernatural” and then act smug when people ask you to explain it.

And your “That’s not how you dismiss the supernatural, lol” is the icing on the cake. Oh? Is there a proper etiquette for debunking nonsense now? Should I have worn gloves while dissecting a fantasy?

Face it—your defense here isn’t clever. It’s a transparent attempt to shield nonsense from analysis by claiming the very rules of analysis don’t apply.

Sorry, Atla, but if your idea can’t stand up to a request for basic coherence, it deserves to be dismissed. Lol.

I think Atla is correct.

There is no reasonable explanation for the supernatural and the non-deterministic ... more or less by definition.

And yes, it's "totally untraceable, unverifiable, and logically incoherent" and "the very rules of analysis don’t apply".

That's what it is.

Your attempts to force a rational structure into it are doomed to fail.

The people you are talking to cannot provide what you ask.

Phyllo, thank you for confirming exactly what I’ve been saying all along—just with less self-awareness.

You’re essentially saying: Yes, the supernatural is untraceable, unverifiable, logically incoherent, and immune to analysis—and that’s exactly what makes it special!

No. That’s exactly what makes it worthless in a discussion about reality.

You’re not describing a hidden truth—you’re admitting that what you're defending is by its very nature beyond evidence, reason, or understanding. Which means it’s not just irrational, it’s anti-rational. You're admitting that it's immune to scrutiny because it doesn't play by any rules at all.

Fine. But then let’s stop pretending it’s something we should talk about like it’s meaningful or true. If you can’t describe it, test it, define it, or even hold it to the most basic standard of internal consistency, then you’re not engaging in philosophy—you’re defending a black hole of nonsense and calling it profound.

And no, I’m not “forcing a rational structure” onto it. I’m asking a basic question: If something is said to affect the world, what’s the process by which it does so? That’s not an unfair demand—it’s the minimum requirement for calling something real.

If someone claims a thing exists and interacts with reality but then insists it’s beyond logic, beyond explanation, and beyond evidence, then the only honest conclusion is this:

You’re talking about something that doesn’t exist.

And if the people I’m talking to “cannot provide what I ask,” that’s not my problem. That’s the final nail in the coffin of their claim. You're not defending the supernatural—you’re confessing that it's nothing but a story protected by a force field of vagueness.

Glad we’re clear on that.

[Belinda]

We dismiss it not by asking for the supernatural's internal mechanism, but by pointing out that no determinism-breaking effect on our world has ever been demonstrably observed.

Why is it that now that we have cameras and peer-reviewed studies and so on, no one ever wants to walk on water and heal the sick by touch.

That would either mean the supernatural, or a natural being so far above us that it's basically a god to us.

The Age of Enlightenment, a period of intellectual and philosophical transformation, primarily took place in Europe, with a strong emphasis on France, during the late 17th and 18th centuries (roughly 1680-1820).

Atla, would you not do what just did, and ask historians to answer your question?

[Belinda]

Atla, this is some top-shelf gobbledygook dressed up as a mic drop.

Let’s unpack your logic pretzel: You're saying that a “mechanism” is inherently deterministic—sure, fine, we’ll grant that in the scientific sense. But then you go on to say that for something non-deterministic (like your supernatural pet) to interact with the physical world, it would need a mechanism that is both deterministic and non-deterministic… and since that’s a contradiction, we just shouldn’t even ask for it?

That’s your argument?

So let me get this straight: you're trying to rescue the supernatural from scrutiny by claiming it’s so special it breaks logic itself—and therefore asking for clarity is the real problem? That’s not philosophy, that’s the rhetorical equivalent of saying, “My invisible friend is real because he disappears when you look too hard.”

Here’s the thing: if the supernatural can affect the physical world—produce thoughts, visions, voices, miracles, prophecy, whatever—then it has an effect. And any effect, by definition, has a cause. If you claim otherwise, you're not describing mystery—you’re describing magic. And if it’s totally untraceable, unverifiable, and logically incoherent, then why are you even bringing it up like it’s worth discussing?

You don’t get to hide a contradiction behind the word “supernatural” and then act smug when people ask you to explain it.

And your “That’s not how you dismiss the supernatural, lol” is the icing on the cake. Oh? Is there a proper etiquette for debunking nonsense now? Should I have worn gloves while dissecting a fantasy?

Face it—your defense here isn’t clever. It’s a transparent attempt to shield nonsense from analysis by claiming the very rules of analysis don’t apply.

Sorry, Atla, but if your idea can’t stand up to a request for basic coherence, it deserves to be dismissed. Lol.

I think Atla is correct.

There is no reasonable explanation for the supernatural and the non-deterministic ... more or less by definition.

And yes, it's "totally untraceable, unverifiable, and logically incoherent" and "the very rules of analysis don’t apply".

That's what it is.

Your attempts to force a rational structure into it are doomed to fail.

The people you are talking to cannot provide what you ask.

Phyllo, thank you for confirming exactly what I’ve been saying all along—just with less self-awareness.

You’re essentially saying: Yes, the supernatural is untraceable, unverifiable, logically incoherent, and immune to analysis—and that’s exactly what makes it special!

No. That’s exactly what makes it worthless in a discussion about reality.

You’re not describing a hidden truth—you’re admitting that what you're defending is by its very nature beyond evidence, reason, or understanding. Which means it’s not just irrational, it’s anti-rational. You're admitting that it's immune to scrutiny because it doesn't play by any rules at all.

Fine. But then let’s stop pretending it’s something we should talk about like it’s meaningful or true. If you can’t describe it, test it, define it, or even hold it to the most basic standard of internal consistency, then you’re not engaging in philosophy—you’re defending a black hole of nonsense and calling it profound.

And no, I’m not “forcing a rational structure” onto it. I’m asking a basic question: If something is said to affect the world, what’s the process by which it does so? That’s not an unfair demand—it’s the minimum requirement for calling something real.

If someone claims a thing exists and interacts with reality but then insists it’s beyond logic, beyond explanation, and beyond evidence, then the only honest conclusion is this:

You’re talking about something that doesn’t exist.

And if the people I’m talking to “cannot provide what I ask,” that’s not my problem. That’s the final nail in the coffin of their claim. You're not defending the supernatural—you’re confessing that it's nothing but a story protected by a force field of vagueness.

Glad we’re clear on that.

Determinism interests me very much. I recommend the book "How Free Are You?" by Ted Honderich who is well known philosopher.

[BigMike]

I think Atla is correct.

There is no reasonable explanation for the supernatural and the non-deterministic ... more or less by definition.

And yes, it's "totally untraceable, unverifiable, and logically incoherent" and "the very rules of analysis don’t apply".

That's what it is.

Your attempts to force a rational structure into it are doomed to fail.

The people you are talking to cannot provide what you ask.

Phyllo, thank you for confirming exactly what I’ve been saying all along—just with less self-awareness.

You’re essentially saying: Yes, the supernatural is untraceable, unverifiable, logically incoherent, and immune to analysis—and that’s exactly what makes it special!

No. That’s exactly what makes it worthless in a discussion about reality.

You’re not describing a hidden truth—you’re admitting that what you're defending is by its very nature beyond evidence, reason, or understanding. Which means it’s not just irrational, it’s anti-rational. You're admitting that it's immune to scrutiny because it doesn't play by any rules at all.

Fine. But then let’s stop pretending it’s something we should talk about like it’s meaningful or true. If you can’t describe it, test it, define it, or even hold it to the most basic standard of internal consistency, then you’re not engaging in philosophy—you’re defending a black hole of nonsense and calling it profound.

And no, I’m not “forcing a rational structure” onto it. I’m asking a basic question: If something is said to affect the world, what’s the process by which it does so? That’s not an unfair demand—it’s the minimum requirement for calling something real.

If someone claims a thing exists and interacts with reality but then insists it’s beyond logic, beyond explanation, and beyond evidence, then the only honest conclusion is this:

You’re talking about something that doesn’t exist.

And if the people I’m talking to “cannot provide what I ask,” that’s not my problem. That’s the final nail in the coffin of their claim. You're not defending the supernatural—you’re confessing that it's nothing but a story protected by a force field of vagueness.

Glad we’re clear on that.

Determinism interests me very much. I recommend the book "How Free Are You?" by Ted Honderich who is well known philosopher.

Thanks, Belinda. I appreciate that you’re engaging seriously—finally, a moment of clarity in this fog of incense and metaphysical tap dancing.

Yes, determinism is fascinating—because unlike vague claims about the supernatural, determinism is grounded in observation, evidence, and logic. It’s not a belief—it’s a recognition of how the universe operates: everything that happens is the result of prior causes. No magic, no mystical interference, no divine whispers—just physics, chemistry, biology, and a long chain of causes stretching back to the Big Bang.

And Ted Honderich’s work is definitely worth reading. His idea of “determinism without fatalism” is an important distinction—because many people wrongly assume that if determinism is true, then we’re just passive lumps with no agency. But that’s not the case. Under determinism, agency still exists—it’s just understood as causally determined agency. Your thoughts, beliefs, and decisions don’t float free in a vacuum—they arise from your brain’s structure, your past experiences, your biology, your environment. You still act—you just don’t act uncaused.

What I’m pushing back against in this thread isn’t someone having a personal experience or feeling awe or wonder. It’s the attempt to elevate unprovable nonsense to the level of serious thought—and to hide behind poetic language when pressed for definitions or mechanisms.

Determinism doesn’t require faith. It doesn’t demand metaphors or parables or belief in untestable realms. It’s what we see in every functioning domain of science—from the behavior of atoms to the functioning of your brain to the social forces that shape behavior.

So yeah, if you’re interested in what’s actually real, determinism is the path. Everything else is just mythology with better branding.

[phyllo]

You’re not describing a hidden truth—you’re admitting that what you're defending is by its very nature beyond evidence, reason, or understanding. Which means it’s not just irrational, it’s anti-rational. You're admitting that it's immune to scrutiny because it doesn't play by any rules at all.

Fine. But then let’s stop pretending it’s something we should talk about like it’s meaningful or true. If you can’t describe it, test it, define it, or even hold it to the most basic standard of internal consistency, then you’re not engaging in philosophy—you’re defending a black hole of nonsense and calling it profound.

You're the one who is talking about it or trying to.

If someone claims a thing exists and interacts with reality but then insists it’s beyond logic, beyond explanation, and beyond evidence, then the only honest conclusion is this:

You’re talking about something that doesn’t exist.

"If something affects reality then it exists." (That's from another site. And I think it's true.)

Of course, it's possible to be mistaken about what is really happening ... the "something" may be misidentified and "affecting" could be coming for elsewhere.

And if the people I’m talking to “cannot provide what I ask,” that’s not my problem.

Well, you're going to keep asking and not getting an answer. Isn't that 'your' problem?

It's your time to waste but isn't it a waste of time? Isn't there some better way to pursue your interests? A better way of persuading people about determinism, if that is your goal?

[BigMike]

You’re not describing a hidden truth—you’re admitting that what you're defending is by its very nature beyond evidence, reason, or understanding. Which means it’s not just irrational, it’s anti-rational. You're admitting that it's immune to scrutiny because it doesn't play by any rules at all.

Fine. But then let’s stop pretending it’s something we should talk about like it’s meaningful or true. If you can’t describe it, test it, define it, or even hold it to the most basic standard of internal consistency, then you’re not engaging in philosophy—you’re defending a black hole of nonsense and calling it profound.

You're the one who is talking about it or trying to.

If someone claims a thing exists and interacts with reality but then insists it’s beyond logic, beyond explanation, and beyond evidence, then the only honest conclusion is this:

You’re talking about something that doesn’t exist.

"If something affects reality then it exists." (That's from another site. And I think it's true.)

Of course, it's possible to be mistaken about what is really happening ... the "something" may be misidentified and "affecting" could be coming for elsewhere.

And if the people I’m talking to “cannot provide what I ask,” that’s not my problem.

Well, you're going to keep asking and not getting an answer. Isn't that 'your' problem?

It's your time to waste but isn't it a waste of time? Isn't there some better way to pursue your interests? A better way of persuading people about determinism, if that is your goal?

Phyllo, you’re misunderstanding something basic—so let me make it clear.

I'm not "trying to talk about the supernatural" as if it has something legitimate to say. I'm dismantling it. I'm not attempting to understand it—I'm pointing out that it's incoherent, unverifiable, and logically self-defeating, and that pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

You said: “If something affects reality then it exists.”

Exactly. That’s the point. So when people claim a supernatural entity does affect reality—whether it’s through visions, voices, miracles, or mystical downloads of truth—then the burden of proof is on them to show how. What mechanism? What evidence? What causal process?

If they say, “Well, there is no mechanism, it can’t be observed, and logic doesn’t apply,” then sorry—that's a big red flag that what they’re talking about doesn’t exist. You don’t get to claim “it affects the world” and then run away from every follow-up question about what that actually means. That’s not deep, it’s just lazy.

As for your question—“Isn’t it a waste of time to keep asking when no answer comes?”

No. It’s not. Because every time I ask, and no answer comes, it proves the point again: this entire category of belief is empty. Hollow. Unfalsifiable nonsense dressed up as insight. And sometimes the most effective way to reveal that isn’t by ignoring it, but by dragging it out into the light and showing everyone that there's nothing there.

So yeah, I’ll keep asking—not because I expect a good answer, but because the silence or the nonsense that follows is the answer. And it’s the most honest way to persuade anyone watching with an open mind.

You want to believe in mysteries beyond logic? Go for it. But don’t expect them to hold up under scrutiny, and don’t be surprised when someone points out that they collapse the moment you try to define them.

That’s not my problem. That’s the cost of trying to pass off fiction as philosophy.

[Atla]

What mechanism? What evidence? What causal process?

It's just "What evidence?". Forget the rest. Quite hysterical.

[Alexis Jacobi]

BigMike: That’s not my problem. That’s the cost of trying to pass off fiction as philosophy.

Philosophy is an intellectual tool and a method of analysis. It is uniquely relevant and even powerful within its domain, however it is not determinant in all domains of being — of interacting to Existence, to our own being, to Life.

So, I would refer to a simplistic hemispherical model for the sake of the elucidation I want to make: we have a “left brain” and we have a “right brain”. The left brain when it dominates perception in the widest sense gives a picture, a sort of intensity, like that of BigMike. But the tight brain — so they say — combines pictures in a holistic and simply put a wider way.

I do not think that this “answers” the question about what so-called divinity is (it is a word I use of course) and the entire problem of the collapse of metaphysics is completely real and very present. We are living in that death-process.

And therefore all that I say is each person finds their own means of relationship with what that word — divinity — connotes. Call it false, an illusion, a trick played against the realness of mathematically perceived and understood reality — in my case it has no effect. I understand however the left-brain impasse!

There is nothing I can do or say, no verbal proof that I can provide. I have no problem with the fact that that is so!

It resolves down into a question of experience and also hard-won knowledge.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

[phyllo]

I'm not "trying to talk about the supernatural" as if it has something legitimate to say. I'm dismantling it. I'm not attempting to understand it—I'm pointing out that it's incoherent, unverifiable, and logically self-defeating, and that pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

It's like bringing a screwdriver to dismantle something, but it's not put together with screws.

Better to show that your structure, which does use screws, is an improvement.

You said: “If something affects reality then it exists.”

Exactly. That’s the point. So when people claim a supernatural entity does affect reality—whether it’s through visions, voices, miracles, or mystical downloads of truth—then the burden of proof is on them to show how. What mechanism? What evidence? What causal process?

If they say, “Well, there is no mechanism, it can’t be observed, and logic doesn’t apply,” then sorry—that's a big red flag that what they’re talking about doesn’t exist. You don’t get to claim “it affects the world” and then run away from every follow-up question about what that actually means. That’s not deep, it’s just lazy.

Lots of things exist which don't have an explanation or mechanism. The universe is an example.