Why do some professionals in the sciences reject religion?

[Age]

"islam' and logic are like water and fire.

You just wish!

1. I do not wish.

2. it is not some thing that I would say.

3. As I said, it would be some thing that "attofishpi" would say and believe.

4. it would be great if you did not assume any thing at all, here, but when you do you will be completely and utterly Wrong and Incorrect, like you are, here, again.

Islam is defined as the deductive closure around its scriptures.

That is 'defined' by 'those' who follow "Islam". 'Those' who do not, like "attofishpi", for example, would never define 'islam' that way.

There is no Church in Islam to deviate from deductive closure by means of "authentic" interpretation by a Pope or a council. These things only exist in Christianity!

Again, 'confirmation biases' are very alive and well, here.

I have never said that you should believe in Islam. Other religions are fine too, as long as they don't have a church actively damaging consistency and deductive closure of their doctrine.

I have said believing any thing is absolute insanity, illogical, irrational, nonsensical, and just plain old stupid. But, please feel free to keep believing whatever you want to.

It is absolutely not difficult to achieve that. Just don't have a church, and then consistency and deductive closure will naturally emerge. The religion will then automatically be compatible with mathematics, science, and engineering.

But, 'it' is not. Although you will never ever see and learn this while you remain in 'belief', itself.

[Age]

To the contrary, you are of late continually attempting to justify your rejection of Jesus the Christ.

I do not reject Christ's ministry. I merely reject his fake divinity, as well as the fake divinity of his single mother.

Why do you keep saying, 'single mother', as though there is some thing inherently Wrong with this?

[godelian]

I have said believing any thing is absolute insanity, illogical, irrational, nonsensical, and just plain old stupid. But, please feel free to keep believing whatever you want to.

Not sure if you are aware of the fact that knowledge itself is defined as the set of justified true beliefs (JTB).

[godelian]

Why do you keep saying, 'single mother', as though there is some thing inherently Wrong with this?

I would not say that if it were not true. So, is it false in any way?
It is mostly meant to emphasize that God was not her husband in any shape or fashion.
I really like the way in which the Quran puts it:

Surah Al-An'am (6:101):
"He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a child when He has no wife? He created all things and He has full knowledge of everything."

There is no wife of God. There is no son of God. There is no mother of God. All of that is obviously mere bullshit.

[Age]

I have said believing any thing is absolute insanity, illogical, irrational, nonsensical, and just plain old stupid. But, please feel free to keep believing whatever you want to.

Not sure if you are aware of the fact that knowledge itself is defined as the set of justified true beliefs (JTB).

It is obvious that you are not yet aware of completely outdated definitions, and knowledge.

[Age]

Why do you keep saying, 'single mother', as though there is some thing inherently Wrong with this?

I would not say that if it were not true. So, is it false in any way?

What?

Once again your assuming has let you completely and utterly way off track.

Not a single thing in what I said was there any thing at all about 'false' nor 'true'.

It is mostly meant to emphasize that God was not her husband in any shape or fashion.
I really like the way in which the Quran puts it:

Of course 'you' would.

Just like "attofishpi" really hates the way in which the quran puts it.

Surah Al-An'am (6:101):
"He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a child when He has no wife? He created all things and He has full knowledge of everything."

Besides this not even 'logically following', how a 'he' can have a child when 'he' has no wife, is very, very simple and easy. 'he' puts the penis into any bodies vagina, with the ability to have a child, and then 'kaboom' 'we' have a child. Being 'married' has absolutely nothing at all to do with the 'ability' to 'have child'. Also, why do you along with "christians" believe that the so-called 'Originator' or 'Creator' of all there is has a penis and gonads?

What is it with these two 'religions', here?

Obviously God/Allah is not a 'man' nor even 'male'. if God/Allah did not already know how gullible and easily fooled and deceived you human beings were/are, then it would be a wonder how so many of you human beings of different religions believe such a Truly obvious Falsehood.

There is no wife of God.

There is no God who is 'male' also. But that does not stop you adult human beings believing the most absurd, stupid, and ridiculous things.

There is no son of God. There is no mother of God. All of that is obviously mere bullshit.

Just like there is no so-called 'Originator' who is 'male'. But, you, still, believe this obvious what you call 'bullshit'.

So, why do you believe, and absolutely so, 'bullshit' "godelian"?

What is Wrong with 'you'?

[godelian]

I have said believing any thing is absolute insanity, illogical, irrational, nonsensical, and just plain old stupid. But, please feel free to keep believing whatever you want to.

Not sure if you are aware of the fact that knowledge itself is defined as the set of justified true beliefs (JTB).

It is obvious that you are not yet aware of completely outdated definitions, and knowledge.

For foundational definitions in philosophy, I often go back to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, because I find them staunchly solid:

“True belief accompanied by an account is knowledge.” — Plato, Theaetetus, 201c-d

I find quite a few core philosophical abstractions dating back to Greek antiquity often unassailable. I think that it is really hard to do better. It's a bit like the Pythagorean theorem in classical geometry. It has been around for a very long time:

ChatGPT: The Pythagorean Theorem is very old—it's been known for over 3,700 years!

~1800 BCE: The earliest known reference comes from a Babylonian clay tablet called Plimpton 322, which shows knowledge of Pythagorean triples (sets of numbers that satisfy the theorem). This predates Pythagoras by more than a thousand years!

~570–495 BCE: The Greek mathematician Pythagoras is traditionally credited with the formal proof of the theorem, which is why it bears his name. But the knowledge definitely existed before him, especially in Mesopotamian and Indian mathematics.

The world of abstraction is fundamentally eternal. Once you discover a truth in it, it is immutable. It will not be possible to improve on it.

[godelian]

Just like there is no so-called 'Originator' who is 'male'.

God is neither male nor female.

[Age]

Not sure if you are aware of the fact that knowledge itself is defined as the set of justified true beliefs (JTB).

It is obvious that you are not yet aware of completely outdated definitions, and knowledge.

For foundational definitions in philosophy, I often go back to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, because I find them staunchly solid:

But, what you, personally, 'find' is never ever necessarily the actual and irrefutable Truth. Or, do you believe otherwise?

“True belief accompanied by an account is knowledge.” — Plato, Theaetetus, 201c-d

But, you human beings only 'believe' things, which you are not yet sure of the actual irrefutable Truth of. Because if you were, then there is no need to 'believe', itself. 'Knowing' always over rides 'belief'.

I find quite a few core philosophical abstractions dating back to Greek antiquity often unassailable. I think that it is really hard to do better. It's a bit like the Pythagorean theorem in classical geometry. It has been around for a very long time:

Okay, but, again, what you 'find' or 'found' is not necessarily True nor Right, at all.

ChatGPT: The Pythagorean Theorem is very old—it's been known for over 3,700 years!

Who cares?

What 'I' actually said and wrote was, 'It is obvious that you are not yet aware of completely outdated definitions, and knowledge.'

Now, you can either 'stay with' 'this', or you could keep going on the completely other tangent of what 'you personally find' and/or 'theorems', which obviously have absolutely nothing at all to do with what I actually said and pointed out, here.

~1800 BCE: The earliest known reference comes from a Babylonian clay tablet called Plimpton 322, which shows knowledge of Pythagorean triples (sets of numbers that satisfy the theorem). This predates Pythagoras by more than a thousand years!

~570–495 BCE: The Greek mathematician Pythagoras is traditionally credited with the formal proof of the theorem, which is why it bears his name. But the knowledge definitely existed before him, especially in Mesopotamian and Indian mathematics.

The world of abstraction is fundamentally eternal. Once you discover a truth in it, it is immutable. It will not be possible to improve on it.

So, have you 'found' 'a truth' in 'abstraction'?

If yes, then what was 'that truth', exactly?

[Age]

Just like there is no so-called 'Originator' who is 'male'.

God is neither male nor female.

Yet, here 'you' are continually calling God a 'male' or a 'he'.

So, why do you, and quite a few other human beings in the days when this is being written, keep calling God what It is NOT?

[attofishpi]

Y don't U address ALL my questions of U? Try AGAIN:

Allah?
--- Allah = Arabic for God
Allah in ANY English dictionary should translate to Satan.

Islam was formed in the year 666

I wasn't born into Islam. So, I do not have an emotional attachment to it. The same holds true for Judaism. I just read about these doctrines on the internet.

If you were born into "Christianity" - then GOD had you born into that religion for a reason - based upon your previous life. The fact that you have rejected where\what GOD had you born into, is something you should consider.

The only kind of remarks I am potentially sensitive to, would be the claim that they are not deductively closed. You see, lack of deductive closure would be massively damaging to their credibility. It would mean that they are just the same kind of bullshit as Christianity.

No Divine being requires worship, submission and killing, in particular, of those that leave their religion - apostasy. That is ridiculous nonsense from your warlord Mohammed.

I do not believe that this could ever be the case. You really need a centralized monopoly on "authentic" interpretation, i.e. a Church, to create a bullshit religion.

Islam prime example. I do not care for men and their interpretations and their bigotry imposed via their forms of religion. I believe in the Commandments and what Jesus the Christ suffered through in insistence of LOVE & TRUST in fellow wo/man.

So, every religion tends to be a legitimate theory in logic unless it has a church to actively prevent that.

Islam and Mosques are more guilty of that than ANY "religion".

All other religions are fine. Seriously, all of them. It is only Christianity that is a steaming pile of shit.

Were you born into a Christian family/upbringing or atheist or what?

So, in a sense, I don't give a flying fart what people say about these doctrines.

To the contrary, you are of late continually attempting to justify your rejection of Jesus the Christ.

I do not reject Christ's ministry. I merely reject his fake divinity, as well as the fake divinity of his single mother.

So you do not believe that Jesus the Christ as a soul in the least could have been implanted (by GOD) into the mother Mary?

[godelian]

If you were born into "Christianity" - then GOD had you born into that religion for a reason - based upon your previous life. The fact that you have rejected where\what GOD had you born into, is something you should consider.

I came to understand that Christianity is complete bullshit.

No Divine being requires worship, submission and killing, in particular, of those that leave their religion - apostasy. That is ridiculous nonsense from your warlord Mohammed.

It is only meant for deserters on the battlefield. Furthermore, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Last but not least, none of that is inconsistent or lacks deductive closure.

If you want to credibly criticize Islam, point out inconsistency or lack of deductive closure. Any other argument is irrelevant to me.

So, every religion tends to be a legitimate theory in logic unless it has a church to actively prevent that.

Islam and Mosques are more guilty of that than ANY "religion".

There is no "Church" in Islam. So, they wouldn't be able to do that even if they wanted to.

All other religions are fine. Seriously, all of them. It is only Christianity that is a steaming pile of shit.

Were you born into a Christian family/upbringing or atheist or what?

No, they are Christian but they do not even understand the basics of it. For example, they are not even truly aware of the fact that Jesus is considered to be God in Christianity. They certainly do not think anything through.

So you do not believe that Jesus the Christ as a soul in the least could have been implanted (by GOD) into the mother Mary?

I completely and utterly reject the possibility that it would be God himself that was implanted into Mary.

[BigMike]

Are you kidding me?!!

We’re talking about belief systems that billions of people take as literal truth—truth that informs how they vote, how they treat others, how they raise their kids, and how they justify wars. This isn’t about admiring a fictional hero or using parables to explore moral nuance. This is about people believing in invisible beings, immaterial souls, and supernatural punishments—and shaping real-world decisions around that.

Sure, fiction can be valuable. So can myth, as metaphor. But when people start treating myths as fact—and using them to make laws, restrict rights, or push dogma—that’s not “literary genre appreciation,” that’s a dangerous confusion between storytelling and reality. The problem isn’t that fiction exists. The problem is pretending it’s the truth.

What should we base our ethical codes on? Isn't it possible that traditional wisdom -- Thou shall not kill; do unto others, etc.-- is a good place to start? Why throw out the baby with the bath water?

It's even possible that religious belief -- "untrue" though it may be-- conduces human well being. Perhaps there are evolutionary benefits to religion that help.individuals and society. Isn't it likely that religion has social snd psychological functions that have value? Isn't that just as likely to promote human well being as determinism is-'regardless of which is "factual"?

At universities the Humanities study human cultural achievements: economics, literature. art, languages, music, and, yes, religion. To dismiss religion as unworthy of study and deleterious in its influence is anti-intellectual. It has been one of the key facets of human culture. Morality, music, art, literature and social relations might have been "determined" (if they were determined) very differently without its influence.

You're shifting the goalposts.

No one said we shouldn’t study religion as a cultural phenomenon. Of course it has historical value. So does monarchy, slavery, and bloodletting. The issue isn’t whether religion has shaped civilization—it clearly has. The issue is whether we should keep believing in it as a source of truth or moral authority, when it's built on unverifiable claims and defies the fundamental laws of nature.

You ask, “Why throw out the baby with the bath water?” But we’re not throwing out compassion, cooperation, or empathy. We’re throwing out the baseless metaphysical scaffolding—the part that says morality requires an invisible sky-being to enforce it. We don’t need to believe in Zeus to enjoy the Iliad. Likewise, we don’t need to believe in Yahweh to value “do unto others.”

As for religion being evolutionarily beneficial: yes, it's plausible that belief systems once conferred survival advantages. So did tribalism. So did fear of outsiders. That doesn’t mean we should cling to them now. We're not hunter-gatherers on the savannah anymore—we're building AI, editing genomes, and simulating quantum systems. Our ethics should be evidence-based, not relics of superstition.

And determinism? It's not a belief system. It's a description of how the universe actually works—based on physics, neuroscience, and cause-and-effect. If we care about truth and human well-being, then yes, what’s factual matters. Because only truth gives us the tools to build a better, more honest world.

[Alexiev]

[quote=Alexiev post_id=766499 time=1744932629

Our ethics should be evidence-based, not relics of superstition.....

Because only truth gives us the tools to build a better, more honest world.

How can ethics be "based on" evidence? How can we derive an ought from an is? We can't.

If the truth will set us free, won't it discredit determinism?

[BigMike]

[quote=Alexiev post_id=766499 time=1744932629

Our ethics should be evidence-based, not relics of superstition.....

Because only truth gives us the tools to build a better, more honest world.

How can ethics be "based on" evidence? How can we derive an ought from an is? We can't.

If the truth will set us free, won't it discredit determinism?

That’s a clever-sounding challenge, but it falls apart on inspection.

First: the idea that we “can’t derive an ought from an is” (Hume’s Guillotine) is often misunderstood. It doesn’t mean values can’t be informed by facts. It means you need at least one value assumption to get going—something like: “We should reduce suffering,” or “Human well-being matters.” Once you accept even a single ethical premise like that, the rest absolutely can be shaped by evidence.

For example: If we value human flourishing, then we can use evidence to determine what promotes it. Do children thrive better in peaceful, stable environments? Yes—data shows it. Does access to healthcare improve life expectancy and reduce suffering? Absolutely—countless studies confirm it. That’s how you base ethics on evidence. You don’t just pull rules out of ancient scripture—you test what works in the real world.

Second: you ask if truth discredits determinism. Quite the opposite. Determinism is the truth—the backbone of physics. Every scientific discipline assumes causality. Conservation laws, quantum field theory, statistical mechanics, neuroscience—they all rest on the idea that things don’t happen without causes. Determinism isn’t an optional metaphysical flavor—it’s the structure reality operates by.

So no, truth won’t set us free from determinism. But it can set us free through it—by helping us finally stop blaming people as if they were “free agents” floating outside causality, and instead start understanding why things happen, and how we can change the conditions that lead to harm. That’s a better world. And it’s not built on belief—it’s built on knowing.