Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[attofishpi]

In the same way that any loving man enjoys a nice bacon sandwich.

With mayonnaise?

Or?

Are you MAD!!! That would not be a nice bacon sandwich!

Slightly toasted bread, lots of butter and a sprinkle of black pepper...yum. In fact, I might have one shortly - even with a fried egg within

[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.

Looks like a bot

What do you mean by that? what bot?

[Dubious]

What a conventional load of pure hogwash!

The word truth is as much subjective as objective, equally proficient in ennobling a lie as it is in declaring something to be true. In that sense it's different from a fact, an objective entity establishing its credentials being nothing more or less than what its existence affirms it to be. It requires no other affirmation for the simple reason that it can't be falsified. Truth, on the other hand, has always been subjectively modified. In most civilizations the word truth is given as much credence as the word god in being the ultimate pledge of authority by a deciding human agent with the overt intent of making its beliefs and decisions impervious to negation.

Humans have never ceased lying about truth from the first generation on.

Dubious, you're confusing two very different things—epistemic humility and epistemic surrender. Of course humans have lied about truth. Of course language has been used to mask, manipulate, and mystify. That’s precisely why facts matter. That’s why determinism matters. That’s why we insist on a rigorous definition of cause, effect, and inference. Because the human impulse to bend truth for comfort or power is not a reason to abandon truth—it’s a reason to sharpen our tools for finding it.

You say, “Truth is subjective.” No—it’s not. Our perceptions of truth are subjective. Truth itself is not. The existence of objective reality is what makes disagreement possible in the first place. If truth were purely subjective, there would be no contradiction, no debate—just endless, solipsistic monologues.

You want to call Ben’s defense of truth “hogwash”? Fine. But facts don’t become negotiable because you’re jaded. If a stone falls, it falls whether a priest blesses it, a poet sings it, or a cynic shrugs at it. The fact stands. The law of gravity doesn’t care about your philosophical exhaustion.

Ben isn’t offering blind certainty. He’s offering alignment with the physical, the causal, the testable. That’s not dogma—it’s discipline.

The only real “hogwash” here is the implication that because truth has been abused by history, we should stop chasing it. That logic is poison. And worse—it gives cover to the very manipulations you claim to despise.

Within the context of human usage, truth is as much subjective as objective. I never said it was only subjective. Truth and how it may manifest is constantly argued in philosophy and especially philosophy forums. Consider it in any epistemic mode you like, but a fact is no-longer a fact if or when it becomes disputable or falsifiable; its truth probability will then demerit itself into the questionable.

This may seem somewhat simplistic to you but overall I think it's a fairly accurate assessment of the difference between an asserted truth and an actual fact in spite of being related to a greater or lessor degree within the context of accuracy or, better still, Bayesian reasoning. For example, the inescapable rule by Divine Right was regarded as absolute for millennia since god himself endorsed it, its Truth made sacred; but was it ever a fact since we only claimed that god endorsed it during the long periods when god was invoked to endorse any truth regarded as favorable to authority?

Truth, most often, is based purely on the authority of its claimant, more often created than existing.

As for Ben, I find his one-liners trite and conventional showing very little insight which requires more than single-line statements as if it were meant to be poetry...which it surely isn't! Not least, I find his idiotic way of replying to posts as more deformed by ego than any intellectual manifestation of superiority he may assume himself to have.

I'm Sorry if that offends you!

[seeds]

So, it's just more of the same mystical mishmashing by metaphysically mendacious mongrels of monotheism, Mike?

Exactly. It's like a séance with thesauruses—chanting incantations of “Implicate Order,” “metaphysical insight,” and “moral depth” while carefully avoiding any measurable, falsifiable, or even clearly stated claim.

That ^^^ coming from a ̶p̶e̶r̶s̶o̶n̶ "agentless brain" that earlier used a body to type the following to Alexis...

You say ethics, morality, justice, and compassion “all have mystical foundations.” No—they had mythical narratives, sure. But their actual utility, their evolutionary role, and their social function are grounded in the biology of cooperation, the psychology of empathy, and the structure of human relationships. These are not gifts from some metaphysical ether—they are adaptive, causal, and explainable features of our species.

You argue they “cannot stand as values” because they are “no part of nature.” That’s absurd. They’re not floating in the clouds—they’re human phenomena, produced by brains,...

To which I responded with...

Yes indeedy, "brains" that were shaped by the deterministic processes of "evolution" which had to have had the most unfathomably ordered and stable setting firmly in place before it (evolution) could even begin to carry out the incremental steps that led to the manifestation of brains.

Just like all hardcore materialists, BigMike offers absolutely nothing in the way of explaining how such a prerequisite level of order could have come about.

So, how about it, BigMike?

What is your "measurable" and "falsifiable" explanation for the existence of the "...unfathomably ordered and stable setting..." that, again, had to be in place before evolution "...could even begin to carry out the incremental steps that led to the manifestation of brains..."?

Come on now, BigMike, the fact that you wrongly brushed mind and consciousness off the table of "possibilities" that might be responsible for the collapse of the quantum wavefunction, simply because you weren't up to speed regarding the fact that decoherence does not resolve the measurement problem,...

...shouldn't call into question of what else you may be wrong about, should it?

Heck yeah it should!

I suggest that you adopt the reasonable and laudable attitude you displayed when you made the following statement,...

So yes, you’re right: the ground beneath our feet may be more complex than Newton ever dreamed.

...and stop being so cocksure that something such as a self-aware "agent" of mind...

(a living agent who is in possession of "free will control" over its own inner reality)

...does not exist simply because it cannot be measured by the clunky machines created by humans here in this outer reality.

But until someone shows a reliable, testable, falsifiable way to turn “holomovement” into a model that predicts results better than the current standard models, it remains speculative—inspiring, maybe, but still on the periphery of science, not at its core.

Bohm's "Holomovement" is not offered up as a replacement for current standard models. No, it's just meant to be a metaphor for helping us to visualize quantum entanglement, superposition, and other such mysterious things, that's all.

Furthermore, are you implying that it's not okay for meta-physicists to come up with philosophical speculations regarding the ontological status of reality based on the implications of quantum mechanics,...

...but it is okay for regular physicists to offer up (and promote) speculative garbage such as the "Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics"?

Good grief, man, the MWI, which is promoted by such hardcore physicists as Sean Carroll and Max Tegmark, proposes that billions of copies of you, me, and the rest of the entire universe, just now "sprang into existence" via a "branching" process,...

...all because of the interplay that took place between your eyes and that of the photons of light emitted from your computer screen during the few seconds it took you to read this short paragraph.

And you think that those of us who believe in the simple notion that humans are in possession of "free will," or that there may be a higher intelligence responsible for the creation of the universe,...

...are, in fact, worse offenders of reason and logic than the physicists who promote that MWI horse crap?

Really, BigMike? Really?

Give me a break.
_______

[attofishpi]

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.

Looks like a bot

What do you mean by that? what bot?

Don't worry Fletcher, many people upon this forum are obsessed with 'bots' - AI - they seem to think so many new to the forum are some auto AI bot. They tend to be the people that cannot discern the difference as to when a a human is using AI for research and making valid points, in comparison to some AI bot that has self joined the forum and started posting! They don't understand the technology - that AI has NO ability to self reason.

[popeye1945]

Poppy, which of these two men are the WISER? Which has the opportunity for greater KNOWLEDGE?

Man A: Atheist
Man B: Theist

Both these men are of equal intelligence, both have access to all the scientific comprehension and theories known to man.

ANSWER: Man B: Theist

Y?

..because the theist simply accepted that IF GOD exists, then it would be advantageous to have faith in ITS existence, since this GOD entity stated faith in ITS existence was a prerequisite to knowing of ITS (GODs) existence. Ergo, the theist has the ability to become more knowledge-able of the true nature of reality.

Do you disagree?

Alright, you are a believer.

No, I am a knower. I have KNOWN GOD to exist since 1997.

How do you explain a loving god creating a world where life lives upon life?

In the same way that any loving man enjoys a nice bacon sandwich.

Tell me, were you born into the religion you now practice, or did you make the decision when you were old enough to reason?

Duh! Poppy, GOD had me born into a Catholic school upringing. I KNOW there was a reason this entity did that - the reason, my sage explained to me.

I am sorry it must be painful to have something you have built upon to be challenged, but this is a philosophy forum.

That's right Poppy, this is a PHILOSOPHY FORUM - so why have you avoided my extremely important question regarding potential WISDOM and KNOWLEDGE of that of an atheist man or that of a theist man? (I am neither)..



So, AGAIN (and remember what you just said, this is a philosophy forum...as if u could 'challenge' me...lmao:-

Which of these two men are the WISER? Which has the opportunity for greater KNOWLEDGE?

Man A: Atheist
Man B: Theist

Both these men are of equal intelligence, both have access to all the scientific comprehension and theories known to man.

ANSWER: Man B: Theist

Y?

..because the theist simply accepted that IF GOD exists, then it would be advantageous to have faith in ITS existence, since this GOD entity stated faith in ITS existence was a prerequisite to knowing of ITS (GODs) existence. Ergo, the theist has the ability to become more knowledge-able of the true nature of reality.

Do you disagree?

Let me ask you this: What is the source of all meanings, thus the source of all knowledge? I have a feeling you're going to say God, whatever that means, and which non-manifestation of whatever this is, are you talking about? To me, belief in such a thing is to close the door to wonder, you already know, there is no wonder, no mystery, this is not wisdom, this is a closed mind. I believe atheists are wiser and intellectually more honest.

[attofishpi]

Alright, you are a believer.

No, I am a knower. I have KNOWN GOD to exist since 1997.

How do you explain a loving god creating a world where life lives upon life?

In the same way that any loving man enjoys a nice bacon sandwich.

Tell me, were you born into the religion you now practice, or did you make the decision when you were old enough to reason?

Duh! Poppy, GOD had me born into a Catholic school upringing. I KNOW there was a reason this entity did that - the reason, my sage explained to me.

I am sorry it must be painful to have something you have built upon to be challenged, but this is a philosophy forum.

That's right Poppy, this is a PHILOSOPHY FORUM - so why have you avoided my extremely important question regarding potential WISDOM and KNOWLEDGE of that of an atheist man or that of a theist man? (I am neither)..



So, AGAIN (and remember what you just said, this is a philosophy forum...as if u could 'challenge' me...lmao:-

Which of these two men are the WISER? Which has the opportunity for greater KNOWLEDGE?

Man A: Atheist
Man B: Theist

Both these men are of equal intelligence, both have access to all the scientific comprehension and theories known to man.

ANSWER: Man B: Theist

Y?

..because the theist simply accepted that IF GOD exists, then it would be advantageous to have faith in ITS existence, since this GOD entity stated faith in ITS existence was a prerequisite to knowing of ITS (GODs) existence. Ergo, the theist has the ability to become more knowledge-able of the true nature of reality.

Do you disagree?

I believe atheists are wiser and intellectually more honest.

Generalisation - you're just proving what an idiot you are. The above was VERY simple LOGIC and you failed.

[popeye1945]

No, I am a knower. I have KNOWN GOD to exist since 1997.




In the same way that any loving man enjoys a nice bacon sandwich.




Duh! Poppy, GOD had me born into a Catholic school upringing. I KNOW there was a reason this entity did that - the reason, my sage explained to me.




That's right Poppy, this is a PHILOSOPHY FORUM - so why have you avoided my extremely important question regarding potential WISDOM and KNOWLEDGE of that of an atheist man or that of a theist man? (I am neither)..



So, AGAIN (and remember what you just said, this is a philosophy forum...as if u could 'challenge' me...lmao:-

Which of these two men are the WISER? Which has the opportunity for greater KNOWLEDGE?

Man A: Atheist
Man B: Theist

Both these men are of equal intelligence, both have access to all the scientific comprehension and theories known to man.

ANSWER: Man B: Theist

Y?

..because the theist simply accepted that IF GOD exists, then it would be advantageous to have faith in ITS existence, since this GOD entity stated faith in ITS existence was a prerequisite to knowing of ITS (GODs) existence. Ergo, the theist has the ability to become more knowledge-able of the true nature of reality.

Do you disagree?

I believe atheists are wiser and intellectually more honest.

Generalisation - you're just proving what an idiot you are. The above was VERY simple LOGIC and you failed.

Name-calling tells me you have nothing, have a nice fantasy life!

[attofishpi]

I believe atheists are wiser and intellectually more honest.

Generalisation - you're just proving what an idiot you are. The above was VERY simple LOGIC and you failed.

Name-calling tells me you have nothing, have a nice fantasy life!

Yes, well, simple people that think they comprehend what is required on a PHILOSOPHY forum (LOGIC) and can't answer a very simple binary logical proposition tend to get on my nerves..

Any INTELLIGENT atheists upon the forum want to attempt to actually answer the following:

Which of these two men are the WISER? Which has the opportunity for greater KNOWLEDGE?

Man A: Atheist
Man B: Theist

Both these men are of equal intelligence, both have access to all the scientific comprehension and theories known to man.

ANSWER: Man B: Theist

Y?

..because the theist simply accepted that IF GOD exists, then it would be advantageous to have faith in ITS existence, since this GOD entity stated faith in ITS existence was a prerequisite to knowing of ITS (GODs) existence. Ergo, the theist has the ability to become more knowledge-able of the true nature of reality.

Do you (ANY intelligent ATHEIST) disagree?

[Atla]

Well I didn't think this "philosophy forum" could get any lower but I was wrong.

[attofishpi]

Well I didn't think this "philosophy forum" could get any lower but I was wrong.

If you mean by making statements like that without justification, I'd tend to agree.

[Age]

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.

If absolutely any one in a philosophy forum that any "religious person" reject 'all' science, then then this is some thing very unbalanced with 'that one'.

But when science begins to challenge moral foundations like free will, eternal judgment, or the soul, that's often where the line gets drawn.

What do you even mean by 'moral foundations', exactly?

'Free will' and the 'soul' have nothing at all to do with morality, nor with judgments.

And, once and again, 'your own personal and individual definition' of the term and phrase 'free will' could never ever exist under any terms, theological nor scientific. So, 'this point' still exists.

And understandably so—because if you remove free will, the entire structure of divine reward and punishment begins to collapse.

you adult human beings in the days when this is being written, still, have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what some might call, 'divine reward and punishment' is even in relation to, exactly. So, until you people do come to understand and know what 'divine reward and punishment' is in relation to, exactly, all of 'your talk', here, is 'wasting time' and 'falling on deaf ears', as some would say.

When the word 'religion' is being defined as, a particular system of faith and/or worship, and/or a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion, then you people who are being 'religious', here, can be equal in either the 'theologies' or the 'sciences'. For the most simplest example, the 'religious', of the 'sciences', believe, absolutely, that the Universe began with or by a 'big bang', with the 'religious', of a 'theology', believe, absolutely, that the Universe began with or by a 'God'.

Both sets of you "believers" believe, absolutely, that the Universe began. And, both sets only believe what they do because 'it is written', in a book.

Both sets of "believers" are as closed as each other is. The 'religious' of 'sciences' are not necessarily any more nor any less 'religious' of 'theologies'. you are ALL as narrowed or closed as each other.

Now, I will repeat this, again:

When the words 'free will' are being defined as, Having the ability to choose, then there is not a human being that could refute nor validly and soundly argue against the Fact that you human beings 'have the ability to choose'. Therefore, 'free will' exists.

If absolutely any one would like to define the words 'free will', then you are absolutely free 'to choose' to do so.

Obviously 'free will', as defined above, here, exists, but, just as obvious, what one is able to 'choose from' is limited, and limited to 'that one's' own 'past experiences'. Which obviously then has and plays a 'deterministic' role in what can and will happen and occur in the future.

Once you human beings can comprehend and understand these irrefutable Fact, then, and only then, can and will this ridiculous 'free will' OR 'determinism' discussion 'finally end', and 'we' can move along and progress, here, towards things like, 'divine reward and punishment have absolutely nothing at all to do with the 'current and popular belief' that 'they' are about you 'individual human beings'.

The whole entire structure of 'divine reward and punishment' completely collapses any time any one of you human beings thinks or believes that 'that' is about 'you', personally. you adult human beings, here, have become so absolutely greedy and selfish that you think or believe that 'that', and literally many other things, including the 'whole world' to some of you, revolves 'around you'.

There is not a single word nor teaching in regards to the 'after life', which is about any individual human being. Even the words 'after life' have never ever had absolutely any thing to do with a single human being. And, if you all were not so selfish nor self-centric, then you would have already realized and known this.

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.

your absolutely 'religious belief' that 'free will' could not and never could exist is letting you down, absolutely, here, "bigmike".

But, 'this' has always been the issue with the 'religious' and the "believers".

That’s not freedom in any meaningful metaphysical sense. That’s just determinism wearing a nice suit.

There is absolutely nothing at all in the whole Universe that could make, so-called, 'meaningful metaphysical sense', to you, right "bigmike"?

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.

Talk about presenting another prime example of believing that one's own views, feelings, and/or perspectives of things is 'the same' for or from others.

Look "bigmike" when will you stop presuming that 'feel will' provides so-called 'emotional comfort'?
And, you say and claim that 'you get why people resist determinsim'. you obviously have never considered just how much this presumption of yours, here, contradicts its own self.
What do you think one could even be 'surrendering' from, exactly?
No one could nor would have a choice to nor not to so-call 'follow determinism', at all, let alone 'honestly or not'.
Compassion arises from what causes and creates compassion, and it certainly is not determinism nor free will themselves.

Because if people aren't free in the traditional sense—if their actions are caused—then blame becomes misguided.

What are you even on about, here, you have the absolute freedom 'to choose' to do some thing or to not do some thing. If you really want 'to choose' otherwise, then so be it. you obviously have 'the freedom' to do so.

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.

'Trying to twist and distort things, to 'try to' get thing to 'fit in with' your own beliefs, is certainly not helping you in any way at all, here.

So yes, the gap between religion and science is about emotional needs.

What a load of dishonesty. But, if you really want to 'choose' to believe otherwise, then okay.

Now, what even are so-called 'emotional needs', exactly?

How many 'emotional needs' do you have, exactly?

And, what are your 'emotional needs', exactly?

If you do not answer and clarify these questions, then, again, what a load of dishonesty, here.

And, I have not even got to the so-called 'gap between those two things, yet.

But facing the truth doesn't have to mean losing meaning.

So, what are 'your own emotional needs', which are stopping and preventing you from facing the actual Truth of things, here, exactly?

It means building it on a more honest foundation.

How many so-called 'honest foundations' are there, to you, exactly?

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.

And, if you ever get around to letting go of your obviously very own 'comforting illusion', here, and just let it 'fade away', also, then you can and will see the 'absolute beauty', here. Which you are obviously missing out on, now.

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?

Because if 'you' do not 'stand' with "bigmike", then "bigmike" will 'choose' to argue and fight with 'you', here. Although "bigmike" believes, absolutely, that it had no choice at all to do anything else, otherwise.

[Age]

Generalisation - you're just proving what an idiot you are. The above was VERY simple LOGIC and you failed.

Name-calling tells me you have nothing, have a nice fantasy life!

Yes, well, simple people that think they comprehend what is required on a PHILOSOPHY forum (LOGIC) and can't answer a very simple binary logical proposition tend to get on my nerves..

Any INTELLIGENT atheists upon the forum want to attempt to actually answer the following:

Which of these two men are the WISER? Which has the opportunity for greater KNOWLEDGE?

Man A: Atheist
Man B: Theist

Both these men are of equal intelligence, both have access to all the scientific comprehension and theories known to man.

ANSWER: Man B: Theist

Y?

..because the theist simply accepted that IF GOD exists, then it would be advantageous to have faith in ITS existence, since this GOD entity stated faith in ITS existence was a prerequisite to knowing of ITS (GODs) existence. Ergo, the theist has the ability to become more knowledge-able of the true nature of reality.

Do you (ANY intelligent ATHEIST) disagree?

Where and when, exactly, has it ever been stated absolutely anywhere that the prerequisite to knowing of God's existence was by 'having faith in God's existence'?

Are 'you' actually able to answer and clarify this question?

[BigMike]

What a conventional load of pure hogwash!

The word truth is as much subjective as objective, equally proficient in ennobling a lie as it is in declaring something to be true. In that sense it's different from a fact, an objective entity establishing its credentials being nothing more or less than what its existence affirms it to be. It requires no other affirmation for the simple reason that it can't be falsified. Truth, on the other hand, has always been subjectively modified. In most civilizations the word truth is given as much credence as the word god in being the ultimate pledge of authority by a deciding human agent with the overt intent of making its beliefs and decisions impervious to negation.

Humans have never ceased lying about truth from the first generation on.

Dubious, you're confusing two very different things—epistemic humility and epistemic surrender. Of course humans have lied about truth. Of course language has been used to mask, manipulate, and mystify. That’s precisely why facts matter. That’s why determinism matters. That’s why we insist on a rigorous definition of cause, effect, and inference. Because the human impulse to bend truth for comfort or power is not a reason to abandon truth—it’s a reason to sharpen our tools for finding it.

You say, “Truth is subjective.” No—it’s not. Our perceptions of truth are subjective. Truth itself is not. The existence of objective reality is what makes disagreement possible in the first place. If truth were purely subjective, there would be no contradiction, no debate—just endless, solipsistic monologues.

You want to call Ben’s defense of truth “hogwash”? Fine. But facts don’t become negotiable because you’re jaded. If a stone falls, it falls whether a priest blesses it, a poet sings it, or a cynic shrugs at it. The fact stands. The law of gravity doesn’t care about your philosophical exhaustion.

Ben isn’t offering blind certainty. He’s offering alignment with the physical, the causal, the testable. That’s not dogma—it’s discipline.

The only real “hogwash” here is the implication that because truth has been abused by history, we should stop chasing it. That logic is poison. And worse—it gives cover to the very manipulations you claim to despise.

Within the context of human usage, truth is as much subjective as objective. I never said it was only subjective. Truth and how it may manifest is constantly argued in philosophy and especially philosophy forums. Consider it in any epistemic mode you like, but a fact is no-longer a fact if or when it becomes disputable or falsifiable; its truth probability will then demerit itself into the questionable.

This may seem somewhat simplistic to you but overall I think it's a fairly accurate assessment of the difference between an asserted truth and an actual fact in spite of being related to a greater or lessor degree within the context of accuracy or, better still, Bayesian reasoning. For example, the inescapable rule by Divine Right was regarded as absolute for millennia since god himself endorsed it, its Truth made sacred; but was it ever a fact since we only claimed that god endorsed it during the long periods when god was invoked to endorse any truth regarded as favorable to authority?

Truth, most often, is based purely on the authority of its claimant, more often created than existing.

As for Ben, I find his one-liners trite and conventional showing very little insight which requires more than single-line statements as if it were meant to be poetry...which it surely isn't! Not least, I find his idiotic way of replying to posts as more deformed by ego than any intellectual manifestation of superiority he may assume himself to have.

I'm Sorry if that offends you!

No offense taken, Dubious—though I do think your position badly underestimates the stakes. Let me explain why.

You're right to be cautious about who is doing the claiming, and how language can be used to manipulate. History is littered with “truths” that were really just power in disguise. But the answer to that isn’t to blur the line between truth and lie further—it’s to reinforce it with every tool we’ve got. Because once you let untruth through the door, it doesn’t politely sit in the corner. It metastasizes.

This isn’t just a philosophical quibble. It’s ex falso quodlibet—a proven principle in logic that should terrify every thinking person: from a falsehood, anything follows. Once a false premise is introduced into a system of reasoning, everything becomes questionable. You can prove unicorns. You can justify genocide. You can defend slavery. Sound familiar?

So no, I won’t say that truth is “just as much” subjective as it is objective. Our perception of truth is certainly filtered through language, culture, psychology, and authority. But the truth itself—the causal structure of the world, the forces that shape events, the biology that drives behavior—is not “created” by opinion. It exists. It operates. And it can be tested, falsified, refined. That is the lifeblood of science. Of justice. Of sanity.

You mentioned Bayesian reasoning. Perfect. Because that’s what this all comes down to: updating beliefs in proportion to the evidence. But even Bayesian updating only works if we don’t pollute the system with false priors. Once a falsehood is locked in—say, the divine right of kings, or the myth of racial superiority—you can derive almost anything. That’s why truth—actual, evidence-based, self-correcting truth—isn’t some quaint philosophical toy. It’s a firewall against madness.

And that’s also why I defend Ben. His brevity isn’t a flaw—it’s a feature. In a world drowning in postmodern sludge, clarity is subversive. You call him conventional? I call him anchored. You call him egoic? I call him precise.

We don’t need more word games, or poetry about how "truth is complicated." We need a line in the sand. Because the moment we let falsehood masquerade as truth—especially under the comfy banner of “subjectivity”—we enable every manipulator, propagandist, and ideologue to do whatever the hell they want.

So yeah, be skeptical of authority. Question the storyteller. But don't abandon the story of truth altogether. Because when we do, we don’t just lose the argument.

We lose the plot.

[BigMike]

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.

If absolutely any one in a philosophy forum that any "religious person" reject 'all' science, then then this is some thing very unbalanced with 'that one'.

But when science begins to challenge moral foundations like free will, eternal judgment, or the soul, that's often where the line gets drawn.

What do you even mean by 'moral foundations', exactly?

'Free will' and the 'soul' have nothing at all to do with morality, nor with judgments.

And, once and again, 'your own personal and individual definition' of the term and phrase 'free will' could never ever exist under any terms, theological nor scientific. So, 'this point' still exists.

And understandably so—because if you remove free will, the entire structure of divine reward and punishment begins to collapse.

you adult human beings in the days when this is being written, still, have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what some might call, 'divine reward and punishment' is even in relation to, exactly. So, until you people do come to understand and know what 'divine reward and punishment' is in relation to, exactly, all of 'your talk', here, is 'wasting time' and 'falling on deaf ears', as some would say.

When the word 'religion' is being defined as, a particular system of faith and/or worship, and/or a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion, then you people who are being 'religious', here, can be equal in either the 'theologies' or the 'sciences'. For the most simplest example, the 'religious', of the 'sciences', believe, absolutely, that the Universe began with or by a 'big bang', with the 'religious', of a 'theology', believe, absolutely, that the Universe began with or by a 'God'.

Both sets of you "believers" believe, absolutely, that the Universe began. And, both sets only believe what they do because 'it is written', in a book.

Both sets of "believers" are as closed as each other is. The 'religious' of 'sciences' are not necessarily any more nor any less 'religious' of 'theologies'. you are ALL as narrowed or closed as each other.

Now, I will repeat this, again:

When the words 'free will' are being defined as, Having the ability to choose, then there is not a human being that could refute nor validly and soundly argue against the Fact that you human beings 'have the ability to choose'. Therefore, 'free will' exists.

If absolutely any one would like to define the words 'free will', then you are absolutely free 'to choose' to do so.

Obviously 'free will', as defined above, here, exists, but, just as obvious, what one is able to 'choose from' is limited, and limited to 'that one's' own 'past experiences'. Which obviously then has and plays a 'deterministic' role in what can and will happen and occur in the future.

Once you human beings can comprehend and understand these irrefutable Fact, then, and only then, can and will this ridiculous 'free will' OR 'determinism' discussion 'finally end', and 'we' can move along and progress, here, towards things like, 'divine reward and punishment have absolutely nothing at all to do with the 'current and popular belief' that 'they' are about you 'individual human beings'.

The whole entire structure of 'divine reward and punishment' completely collapses any time any one of you human beings thinks or believes that 'that' is about 'you', personally. you adult human beings, here, have become so absolutely greedy and selfish that you think or believe that 'that', and literally many other things, including the 'whole world' to some of you, revolves 'around you'.

There is not a single word nor teaching in regards to the 'after life', which is about any individual human being. Even the words 'after life' have never ever had absolutely any thing to do with a single human being. And, if you all were not so selfish nor self-centric, then you would have already realized and known this.

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.

your absolutely 'religious belief' that 'free will' could not and never could exist is letting you down, absolutely, here, "bigmike".

But, 'this' has always been the issue with the 'religious' and the "believers".

That’s not freedom in any meaningful metaphysical sense. That’s just determinism wearing a nice suit.

There is absolutely nothing at all in the whole Universe that could make, so-called, 'meaningful metaphysical sense', to you, right "bigmike"?

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.

Talk about presenting another prime example of believing that one's own views, feelings, and/or perspectives of things is 'the same' for or from others.

Look "bigmike" when will you stop presuming that 'feel will' provides so-called 'emotional comfort'?
And, you say and claim that 'you get why people resist determinsim'. you obviously have never considered just how much this presumption of yours, here, contradicts its own self.
What do you think one could even be 'surrendering' from, exactly?
No one could nor would have a choice to nor not to so-call 'follow determinism', at all, let alone 'honestly or not'.
Compassion arises from what causes and creates compassion, and it certainly is not determinism nor free will themselves.

Because if people aren't free in the traditional sense—if their actions are caused—then blame becomes misguided.

What are you even on about, here, you have the absolute freedom 'to choose' to do some thing or to not do some thing. If you really want 'to choose' otherwise, then so be it. you obviously have 'the freedom' to do so.

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.

'Trying to twist and distort things, to 'try to' get thing to 'fit in with' your own beliefs, is certainly not helping you in any way at all, here.

So yes, the gap between religion and science is about emotional needs.

What a load of dishonesty. But, if you really want to 'choose' to believe otherwise, then okay.

Now, what even are so-called 'emotional needs', exactly?

How many 'emotional needs' do you have, exactly?

And, what are your 'emotional needs', exactly?

If you do not answer and clarify these questions, then, again, what a load of dishonesty, here.

And, I have not even got to the so-called 'gap between those two things, yet.

But facing the truth doesn't have to mean losing meaning.

So, what are 'your own emotional needs', which are stopping and preventing you from facing the actual Truth of things, here, exactly?

It means building it on a more honest foundation.

How many so-called 'honest foundations' are there, to you, exactly?

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.

And, if you ever get around to letting go of your obviously very own 'comforting illusion', here, and just let it 'fade away', also, then you can and will see the 'absolute beauty', here. Which you are obviously missing out on, now.

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?

Because if 'you' do not 'stand' with "bigmike", then "bigmike" will 'choose' to argue and fight with 'you', here. Although "bigmike" believes, absolutely, that it had no choice at all to do anything else, otherwise.

Age, what a word salad of nonsense.

You say free will is “the ability to choose,” but you ignore the core question: what determines the choice? Saying we “have the ability” doesn’t answer whether that ability is free from causes. You keep dancing around that with verbosity instead of facing it head-on.

You babble about "divine reward" and "metaphysics" while dodging the physics. Your writing is a fog machine—no clarity, no definitions, just noise and ego.

And no, people don't believe in the Big Bang "just because it's written in a book." They believe it because it's supported by measurable, testable, predictive evidence. You confuse evidence with dogma because you’ve never grasped the difference.

You’re not debating. You’re rambling. Loudly. And badly.