Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexis Jacobi]

So here’s one more thing Plato said, since you like him so much:

“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”

What are you talking about?! I hate Plato! With pre-determined passion.

What did that asshole mean?!

[Fletcher Radcliffe]

It's a question that never fails to fascinate and frustrate in equal measure. Why is it that religious adherents, who often champion their beliefs as rooted in truth, so vehemently reject scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview? Take determinism, for instance. Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws. There’s no room for free will in this framework. Every thought, every action, every choice we believe we make is a product of these deterministic processes.

And yet, so many religious doctrines cling to the idea of free will as if it’s a gift from their deity, a cornerstone of moral responsibility. But let’s face it: free will, as traditionally understood, is about as plausible as a flat Earth. It defies the very laws of physics and neuroscience.

Why, then, does this cognitive dissonance persist? Could it be that religious institutions thrive on the illusion of free will because it allows them to enforce moral codes, assign blame, and justify eternal rewards or punishments? After all, a deterministic universe leaves no room for sin, no room for divine judgment, and no room for the comforting, if delusional, notion that we control our destiny.

Let’s unpack this. How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws? Why do they resist scientific findings, like the absence of free will, that challenge these beliefs? And what does it say about the human condition that so many prefer comforting illusions to uncomfortable truths?

I’d love to hear your thoughts—especially if you think there’s a way to bridge this gap between religious belief and scientific reality.

Many religious people don't reject science but interpret findings through their beliefs. The tension often arises when science challenges ideas like free will, which is central to moral responsibility and divine judgment in many religions. For many, free will provides comfort and meaning, offering a sense of control and purpose. Some religious thinkers reconcile this with science by embracing compatibilism, which suggests free will and determinism can coexist. Ultimately, the gap between religion and science is often about emotional comfort and control, and bridging it may require understanding both perspectives.

[seeds]

Mebbe you'll catch your own glimpse one day. For your own sake I hope you do cuz where you are now is empty. It's the Void, and you can't fill it.

Henry, let’s get something straight: you’re not “opposing me.” You’re opposing reality—cause, effect, physics, neuroscience, and everything else that makes sense of the world without invoking ghosts or cosmic whispers....

...your whole post reeks of projection. You accuse me of being in “the void,” but you're the one terrified of a world that doesn’t bend to human fantasy. You're so afraid of determinism that you’d rather invent metaphysical fluff than deal with the simple, humbling truth: we are caused, through and through. That doesn’t make us meaningless. It makes us real.

So no—I’m not in a pit. I’m standing on solid ground....

And right there, BigMike (in that enlarged and bolded last sentence), is where you demonstrate that you just haven't gone deep enough into the study and exploration of the workings of the universe.

For it is obvious that your entire focus is on the thin (and outer) "veneer" of reality...

(of which physicist David Bohm calls the "Explicate Order")

...while completely ignoring what Bohm calls the "Implicate Order."

And the point is that by ignoring the "Implicate Order" of reality,...

(or at least by not recognizing and emphasizing the importance of its "noumenal-like" relationship to the "Explicate Order")

...you present yourself as seeming to be completely oblivious to the fact that the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on...

(at least according to certain interpretations of quantum physics)

...is nothing more than a "holographic-like" projection from a deeper level of reality that Bohm not only calls the "Implicate Order," but he also calls it the "Holomovement."

Bohm calls it the "Holomovement" because it is theorized...

(via experiment, and by reason of the implications of Schrödinger's equation)

...to consist of moving and roiling...

(holographic-like, as in interpenetrating/entangled/superpositioned, yet highly correlated)

...patterns of energy and information that underpin and delineate the very structure and phenomenal appearance of the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on that, again, according to certain interpretations of quantum physics,...

...might not even exist as "...solid ground..." were it not for the presence of consciousness "explicating" its phenomenal features into 3-D reality from the patterns of information.

And the fact that you place so little importance on the role that minds and their conscious "agents" play in your deterministic theory, indeed, implying that such "agents" don't even exist,...

...clearly shows me that, again, you simply haven't moved past the "veneer" of what we call "reality" and gone deep enough into the workings of this universe in order to realize that were it not for mind and matter -- working together in tandem -- then this "Great Machine" wouldn't (couldn't) even exist.
_______

[Dubious]

Nobody knows whether or not human nature exists as a thing, or if humans are so adaptable that we can transcend what has gone before. In other words, are we defined by our histories or are we a work in progress? I sincerely hope that we, as species, nations, and individuals are works in progress!

Good question. My own view is both.

We are defined by our histories at each moment in time. Collectively or individually, if we cease at any stage of existence, what has gone before will denote us truly for all time if such records elsewhere were kept. But time and history have and always been dynamic and will remain so until time itself becomes invalid, if it ever does.

Everything moves, even if it seems nothing is moving. Whether we're a work in progress is a question which is central to our future, not least on how we define progress. At this juncture, it appears we can only simulate optimism and hope not to cross any non-retroactive red lines. The universe has zero mercy for failures.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Like rough n tumble street fighters, or like German students with dueling scars on their cheeks, the back-alley gangs come together.

BigMike, Dubious, and Ben JS, heels clicking, appear out of a doorway …

Seeds, Alexis and Henry Quirk descend on ropes from second and third story garrets onto the oily, garbage strewn battlefield. There is a pool of black blood from last week. Oh and look: the top half of an ear.

Caterwauling is heard. Thunder far off. A streetlight flickers.

The stage is set.

[Dubious]

Displacing Earth’s confabulating priesthoods you emboldened men lay out the truths that move mice, men & nebulae!

Very well put and so poetic! But in all sincerity there are always some available to do just that!

[Dubious]

Caterwauling is heard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNyR6rsGDyg

[BigMike]

It's a question that never fails to fascinate and frustrate in equal measure. Why is it that religious adherents, who often champion their beliefs as rooted in truth, so vehemently reject scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview? Take determinism, for instance. Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws. There’s no room for free will in this framework. Every thought, every action, every choice we believe we make is a product of these deterministic processes.

And yet, so many religious doctrines cling to the idea of free will as if it’s a gift from their deity, a cornerstone of moral responsibility. But let’s face it: free will, as traditionally understood, is about as plausible as a flat Earth. It defies the very laws of physics and neuroscience.

Why, then, does this cognitive dissonance persist? Could it be that religious institutions thrive on the illusion of free will because it allows them to enforce moral codes, assign blame, and justify eternal rewards or punishments? After all, a deterministic universe leaves no room for sin, no room for divine judgment, and no room for the comforting, if delusional, notion that we control our destiny.

Let’s unpack this. How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws? Why do they resist scientific findings, like the absence of free will, that challenge these beliefs? And what does it say about the human condition that so many prefer comforting illusions to uncomfortable truths?

I’d love to hear your thoughts—especially if you think there’s a way to bridge this gap between religious belief and scientific reality.

Many religious people don't reject science but interpret findings through their beliefs. The tension often arises when science challenges ideas like free will, which is central to moral responsibility and divine judgment in many religions. For many, free will provides comfort and meaning, offering a sense of control and purpose. Some religious thinkers reconcile this with science by embracing compatibilism, which suggests free will and determinism can coexist. Ultimately, the gap between religion and science is often about emotional comfort and control, and bridging it may require understanding both perspectives.

Fletcher, I appreciate the thoughtful tone you’ve brought to the conversation.

You're absolutely right that many religious people don’t reject all science—they accept medicine, technology, even cosmology to a point. But when science begins to challenge moral foundations like free will, eternal judgment, or the soul, that's often where the line gets drawn. And understandably so—because if you remove free will, the entire structure of divine reward and punishment begins to collapse.

You mention compatibilism—the idea that determinism and free will can coexist. It’s a comforting position, but it’s ultimately incoherent unless “free will” is watered down to mean nothing more than “acting in accordance with our desires,” even when those desires are themselves caused. That’s not freedom in any meaningful metaphysical sense. That’s just determinism wearing a nice suit.

As for the emotional comfort that free will provides—I hear that. I get why people resist determinism. It feels cold. It feels like surrender. But here's the twist: when you follow determinism honestly, what emerges is not nihilism, but compassion.

Because if people aren't free in the traditional sense—if their actions are caused—then blame becomes misguided. Punishment becomes cruel. And morality evolves into a system of understanding, prevention, and collective responsibility. That’s not just scientifically honest—it’s deeply humane.

So yes, the gap between religion and science is about emotional needs. But facing the truth doesn't have to mean losing meaning. It means building it on a more honest foundation. And sometimes, when the comforting illusion fades, what replaces it can be something far more beautiful: a morality rooted not in judgment, but in understanding.

Thanks for engaging in good faith. I’d be curious where you stand personally—do you lean more toward compatibilism, or are you still wrestling with what determinism implies for moral agency?

[henry quirk]

if you remove free will, the entire structure of divine reward and punishment begins to collapse.

No, guy. That's not it at all. I'm a deist: there is no divine reward or punishment as I see it. There's just here & now.

when you follow determinism honestly, what emerges is not nihilism, but compassion...it’s deeply humane.

There an't nuthin' compassionate or humane in this, Mike...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

It's empty, meaningless, amoral. If true we are nuthin' but machines made of meat. A very ugly proposition: no wonder you work hard to dress up that pig in Sunday-go-to-meetin' duds.

If you were, as you say, intellectually honest, you'd drop the song & dance and own it.

[BigMike]

Mebbe you'll catch your own glimpse one day. For your own sake I hope you do cuz where you are now is empty. It's the Void, and you can't fill it.

Henry, let’s get something straight: you’re not “opposing me.” You’re opposing reality—cause, effect, physics, neuroscience, and everything else that makes sense of the world without invoking ghosts or cosmic whispers....

...your whole post reeks of projection. You accuse me of being in “the void,” but you're the one terrified of a world that doesn’t bend to human fantasy. You're so afraid of determinism that you’d rather invent metaphysical fluff than deal with the simple, humbling truth: we are caused, through and through. That doesn’t make us meaningless. It makes us real.

So no—I’m not in a pit. I’m standing on solid ground....

And right there, BigMike (in that enlarged and bolded last sentence), is where you demonstrate that you just haven't gone deep enough into the study and exploration of the workings of the universe.

For it is obvious that your entire focus is on the thin (and outer) "veneer" of reality...

(of which physicist David Bohm calls the "Explicate Order")

...while completely ignoring what Bohm calls the "Implicate Order."

And the point is that by ignoring the "Implicate Order" of reality,...

(or at least by not recognizing and emphasizing the importance of its "noumenal-like" relationship to the "Explicate Order")

...you present yourself as seeming to be completely oblivious to the fact that the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on...

(at least according to certain interpretations of quantum physics)

...is nothing more than a "holographic-like" projection from a deeper level of reality that Bohm not only calls the "Implicate Order," but he also calls it the "Holomovement."

Bohm calls it the "Holomovement" because it is theorized...

(via experiment, and by reason of the implications of Schrödinger's equation)

...to consist of moving and roiling...

(holographic-like, as in interpenetrating/entangled/superpositioned, yet highly correlated)

...patterns of energy and information that underpin and delineate the very structure and phenomenal appearance of the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on that, again, according to certain interpretations of quantum physics,...

...might not even exist as "...solid ground..." were it not for the presence of consciousness "explicating" its phenomenal features into 3-D reality from the patterns of information.

And the fact that you place so little importance on the role that minds and their conscious "agents" play in your deterministic theory, indeed, implying that such "agents" don't even exist,...

...clearly shows me that, again, you simply haven't moved past the "veneer" of what we call "reality" and gone deep enough into the workings of this universe in order to realize that were it not for mind and matter -- working together in tandem -- then this "Great Machine" wouldn't (couldn't) even exist.
_______

Seeds, I appreciate that you’re at least trying to engage with scientific ideas rather than clinging to Bronze Age theology—but we need to talk about what you’re doing with those ideas.

You invoke David Bohm’s “Implicate Order” and the concept of a “holomovement” as if they overturn the basic, well-evidenced conclusion of determinism. But let’s be very clear: Bohm’s work was speculative—a philosophical extension of quantum theory, not a demonstrable rejection of physical causality. You’ve taken Bohm’s rich metaphors and turned them into a mystical smokescreen, dressing them up with words like “noumenal,” “holographic,” “interpenetrating,” and “explicating,” without ever confronting what the rest of the scientific community has made quite plain:

The world still works on cause and effect.
The brain still runs on physical processes.
Nothing about Bohm’s ideas breaks the laws of thermodynamics, conservation, or the principle that all interactions occur through the four fundamental forces.

You say I haven’t gone deep enough, but all I hear from you is a poetic layer atop a reality you don’t seem comfortable looking at directly. That’s not “deep.” That’s evasion dressed as insight.

Now, let me address your claim that “conscious agents” are required for reality to exist. This is the same tired misreading of quantum mechanics that’s been parroted since the 1970s—typically by those who want physics to sound more like spirituality. But quantum decoherence, entanglement, and observer effects don’t require consciousness to “collapse” anything. They require interactions—physical ones. Measurement doesn’t need a soul. It just needs a system capable of absorbing information.

You say I'm missing what lies “beneath” the solid ground. But here's the irony: I see what's beneath it. I just don’t pretend it’s magic. I don’t call it “deep” when it’s really just vague. And I don’t mistake mystery for license to invent.

So if you want to explore the implications of quantum theory and complexity—great. But don’t use that curiosity as an excuse to reject everything we already know about causality, physics, and the complete absence of anything like metaphysical free will.

The universe is not waiting for us to “explicate” it.
It’s moving, interacting, unfolding—regardless of whether anyone notices. And yes, we’re part of that movement. We matter. But not because we float above causality. We matter because we are embedded in it.

You want reality to be participatory. That’s fine. But the real participation isn’t in conjuring up the world from some psychic interface. It’s in recognizing the truth, and living in a way that honors it.

And that, my friend, doesn’t require a holomovement. Just courage.

[henry quirk]

if people aren't free in the traditional sense—if their actions are caused—then blame becomes misguided. Punishment becomes cruel. And morality evolves into a system of understanding, prevention, and collective responsibility.

If this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is true then you can't blame the one who blames. His blaming is as caused as anything else. And if this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is true there is no morality to evolve, no understanding, no prevention, and no responsibility.

Roombas made of meat are still Roombas.

[BigMike]

if you remove free will, the entire structure of divine reward and punishment begins to collapse.

No, guy. That's not it at all. I'm a deist: there is no divine reward or punishment as I see it. There's just here & now.

when you follow determinism honestly, what emerges is not nihilism, but compassion...it’s deeply humane.

There an't nuthin' compassionate or humane in this, Mike...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

It's empty, meaningless, amoral. If true we are nuthin' but machines made of meat. A very ugly proposition: no wonder you work hard to dress up that pig in Sunday-go-to-meetin' duds.

If you were, as you say, intellectually honest, you'd drop the song & dance and own it.

Henry, you keep mistaking emotional discomfort for intellectual dishonesty—but they’re not the same.

You quote me describing the deterministic mechanics of the brain, and then cry foul because it sounds "ugly." But here’s the problem: reality doesn’t care about your aesthetic preferences. The universe isn’t a Hallmark card. It doesn’t need to coddle us or flatter our sense of specialness to be true.

You say, "It's empty, meaningless, amoral." But those aren’t objective observations—you’re just projecting your disappointment that reality doesn’t come pre-loaded with divine purpose, cosmic justice, or a gold star for effort.

Let me remind you of something: compassion isn’t erased by determinism. It’s grounded by it.

If we’re all caused—if every action is the result of forces we didn’t choose—then what’s the rational, humane response to suffering, failure, even wrongdoing? Not blame. Not vengeance. Understanding. Prevention. Repair. That’s not moral relativism. That’s moral maturity.

And you know what’s actually ugly? A worldview that clings to moral judgment and personal responsibility as if people are little gods spinning their own fates. That justifies hate, cruelty, and punishment on the lie that someone “could’ve done otherwise.” That’s the real pig in Sunday clothes.

So yeah, I describe the brain as a machine. But you’re more than a brain. You’re the sum total of what caused you—and you are still capable of love, grief, sacrifice, joy, and insight. None of that disappears in a deterministic world. It just becomes understandable instead of mystical.

You don’t have to like it. But if you want to be intellectually honest? You’ve got to deal with it.

[Ben JS]

Mike,

I think you're interested in truth & wisdom.
Sadly, that sets you apart -
even on a philosophy forum.

Many are not interested in truth,
they're interested in security.

Your capacity to present truth threatens them,
as their security does not rest upon truth.

Truth reveals their volatility.

Alone, they'll likely squirm -
but together, like hyenas,
they'll try to circle you,
try to smother you with falsehood -
and if you become exhausted,
that's when they'll go for the throat.

To eliminate you,
by any tactic,
allows them to declare falsehood truth.
Allows them to declare the strength of their falsehood,
when all they established was the weakness of flesh.

Truth does not die.
Regardless of if not one speaks it.

They're not obeying the principles you are,
they're on a different path -
as you recognize, the path of truth scares them.

They do not know what they're doing -
they ignorantly lash out,
because they're frightened animals.

Not realizing their thrashing,
is carving out the pit,
that they'll starve in.

-

Fortunately, you're not obligated to play their 'game'.
If they were genuinely interested in truth,
they could research the insincere questions they pose -
but they wont do that, they're not interested in the response.
They demand YOU, respond to every intellectual dishonesty they can muster.
Why? To overwhelm you.
Again, they believe overwhelming you is equivalent to establishing the contents of their beliefs.
And again, all it would establish is the capacity for a majority to overwhelm a minority.

To listen, evaluate and explain takes energy/effort.
These are finite resources.
If you deplete these resources on their falsehoods,
you've gained nothing, and they've ensured their security.

I suggest focusing your energy on discovering, defining & living by truth.
It builds upon itself and empowers those who align with it.
That is not wasted energy.

The greater that monument of truth,
the more falsehood that will be revealed by it's light.

I encourage you to exercise prudence in your allocation of energy.
It's not a race.

-

You have demonstrated a strong capacity to speak for yourself,
and you can exercise your own judgement as to how to proceed.
Don't let me stop you from pursuing your vision.

It may very well be easy for you to maintain producing responses,
and if the length of this thread is anything to go by,
you've again demonstrated your aptitude in this area.

[Ben JS]

The stage is set.

Firstly
Dubious beliefs clearly aren't in accord with mine,
as they spout about mysticism -
the foundation from which their own sense of exceptionalism resides,
that they've projected that onto others.
[living up to their name]

They say, "most here who do so by theorizing frothy, rootless scenarios incubated by their own sense of exceptionalism" -
as they engage in the mental masturbation of mysticism.

"In psychology, projection is a defense mechanism where individuals unconsciously attribute their own unacceptable thoughts, feelings, or impulses to someone else."

Secondly
I will engage on my own terms -
where, when and how I see fit.
I have the 'mystical' capacity to not jump on your command.
You're transparent to me - another 'mystic' ability I have.
And yes, I'm using that term sarcastically -
wouldn't want that to vanish beyond your vision.

Thirdly
Belinda appears to be the only one who's formed any sort of reconciliation with Mike, [from the little I've been looking]
So this 'even' stage you seem to describe, is likely nothing of the sort.
I anticipate it's Mike speaking against anyone else that wants to throw a punch.
Sounds more like trap, than a stage.
Which is very fitting for what I expect of you.
'Wont engage upon my trap? That's evidence for my claims.'
Though you wont research if there are already academic responses to your arguments.
What are those worth, right?
Don't appear of any interest to you.

-

Don't expect a response from me.

[henry quirk]

reality doesn’t care about your aesthetic preferences.

Agreed, so you'll stop dressin' up the pig and own your meat machine philosophy as it is: empty, meaningless, and amoral, yes?

compassion isn’t erased by determinism. It’s grounded by it.

Impossible if this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is true. There's simply no place in it for compassion.

what’s the rational, humane response to suffering, failure, even wrongdoing?

If this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is true none of us respond, we only react. If this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is true none of us have any say-so.

So yeah, I describe the brain as a machine. But you’re more than a brain. You’re the sum total of what caused you—and you are still capable of love, grief, sacrifice, joy, and insight. None of that disappears in a deterministic world. It just becomes understandable instead of mystical.

There's you dressin' the up the sow again. If this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is true, then I'm nuthin' but meat, goin' thru motions caused by blind, empty, meaningless, amoral forces. Love, grief, sacrifice, joy, insight: there are none. There can't be.

You’ve got to deal with it.

Yes, you should. This...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is yours. Own it, as it is.