Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[accelafine]

Of course the two are entirely incompatible. There is a reason why 'God' was described as 'unknowable'. It's because it's literally true. If actual scientific evidence could ever be found for the existence of this 'whatever' then it would no longer be 'unknowable' and therefore no longer a 'God' but simply a part of the natural world. The best that the religious can come up with in terms of 'evidence' is airy fairy nonsense like ''I see the 'evidence' all around me, in the flowers, in the trees blah blah''. As if their personal opinion and 'feelies' mean anything.

[BigMike]

Of course the two are entirely incompatible. There is a reason why 'God' was described as 'unknowable'. It's because it's literally true. If actual scientific evidence could ever be found for the existence of this 'whatever' then it would no longer be 'unknowable' and therefore no longer a 'God' but simply a part of the natural world. The best that the religious can come up with in terms of 'evidence' is airy fairy nonsense like ''I see the 'evidence' all around me, in the flowers, in the trees blah blah''. As if their personal opinion and 'feelies' mean anything.

Perfectly Said—But Let’s Take It Further.

Accelafine, you’ve nailed the crux of the issue: the concept of "God" thrives precisely because it’s cloaked in vagueness and impervious to scrutiny. As soon as something becomes knowable—observable, testable, and part of the natural world—it ceases to fit the definition of a deity. That’s why the religious rely on poetic appeals to "the beauty of nature" or vague "feelies" rather than providing concrete evidence.

But let’s not stop there. This deliberate vagueness isn’t just a defense mechanism—it’s intellectual cowardice. By labeling their "God" as "unknowable," the religious conveniently shield their beliefs from falsification. It’s the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card: a claim so nebulous that it can’t be challenged, much less disproven. And yet, they expect this unprovable abstraction to stand on equal footing with centuries of rigorous scientific inquiry.

The truth is, when your best argument is "look at the flowers and trees," you’ve already conceded the intellectual high ground. Nature’s beauty doesn’t require divine explanation; it’s awe-inspiring precisely because it’s the product of physical laws, not supernatural meddling.

So yes, "airy fairy nonsense" sums it up nicely. If the religious want their beliefs taken seriously, they’ll need to do better than feel-good platitudes and appeals to the unknowable. Until then, they’re just spinning their wheels in the realm of irrelevance.

[Gary Childress]

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.

It's difficult to change habits but they seem to be changeable just by the mere movement of a hand. I mean, I guess I still don't understand what conservation laws have to do with free will. Obviously, there are some things that we are physically incapable of doing, however, we can choose among a number of options at a given time of things we are capable of doing. How does me choosing to brush my teeth versus eating a piece of candy violate "conservation laws" of science if I freely choose to do one and not the other? It seems like I can choose to do either and it seems like there's no law preventing me from doing one or the other. Someone may tell me that it's not healthy for me to do the latter, but I then choose what to do and it seems like if I choose to ignore the advice, then I'm responsible for the outcome.

If someone says that grand theft auto is unethical and I then run out and steal a car and am caught, what is the judge supposed to do? Is the judge supposed to say, "oh well, I can't blame you. You didn't have a choice but to steal the car"? How should we interpret these "conservation laws" in a court of law or what ramification does it have on laws?

[FlashDangerpants]

All of that counts as self comment, you just haven't got enough education to realise it.

You've been smug and discourteous from the start so you may as well not bother whining about a bit of smugness coming back your way. You clearly know an awful lot less than you think you do, and are absurdly pretentious. Nobody has actually dismissed science so far as I have seen, but you are not a very sophisticated reader, so it might appear to you that they have.

You wax poetic about the 'elegance of science', that doesn't really mean anything. You are not equipped to judge what is or is not a coherent argument. You are not at all special and not particularly talented. Several of the times you have accused somebody of saying nothing, the problem has been you.

This offer excludes Walker obviously, he's a custard-brained dotard. But Skepdick is an idiot with an epic scale personality disorder, and even he has the beating of you here. That's bad, real bad.

Flash, let’s clarify something fundamental: do you accept that every event, including thoughts, has a physical cause? That’s the cornerstone of any meaningful discussion about science, determinism, and the nature of reality. If you reject this, then say so plainly, so we can stop pretending this is a serious conversation. If you accept it, then it’s time to acknowledge the implications rather than sidestepping into personal jabs and deflections.

Your criticism of my tone is noted, but let’s not forget—smugness is no substitute for substance. So, what’s your answer?

Well I feel like I already answered that one tbh
viewtopic.php?t=43090&start=15

But if you want to know what I believe to be the case, that would be the materialist/physicalist explanation. We have no evidence of non-physical causation, but this is not the same as knowing that there is no such phenomenon. Nor does it prove that strict determinism cannot be upended by unpredictable physical events either. So I used the word believe deliberately because I am aware of the limitations of our knowledge.

Either way, there are no implications, certainly not moral or political ones anyway. Whether you choose to view the world as entirely caused, and fully explicable by reference only to the physical laws that direct the motion of atoms with no levels above that, it doesn't actually change how our conceptual picture of the world around us works unless it is wrong.

If you don't understand what I've written, please don't try to interpret that as me saying nothing. Perhaps it would help to think of other debates that seem really important to this one dude but which are completely unimportant in the grand scheme of things. There's a debate among scientists and philosophers about which things are real, or really-real, or really-really-really-real. Many hold that universe doesn't really exist, or that there's something there but we will never exactly know what. Some say that we are doing fine as long as we all sort of agree that we are talking about the same general thing. It's all really just a matter of how you describe the universe and what you think 'reality' needs to mean, but it isn't an actual important debate with real outcomes.

You can probably see what I mean when I say that about the realist debate, but I can point you at a guy who thinks all philosophy boils down to that one debate and nothing else and that guy really tries to use it to settle every argument. I say that you are doing a similar thing with this other unimportant debate.

[Dubious]

It's a surefire way to get stuck in the latrine of philosophy.

On this site, it's been in the latrine for the longest time thanks to prolific posters of shit like you.

And the thread has devolved to poop-slinging thanks to the monkey that is you.

I guess civility is too much to ask from a hairless ape with a handful of misfiring braincells

Perhaps you should practice some civility yourself if there's enough brain cells left at your disposal to manage it. Oh yeah, and while we're at it, read a science book occasionally; perhaps it will reactivate those dormant brain cells which haven't yet degenerated into dried up bone meal.

Furthermore, being the incredible dumb fuck you've perennially proven yourself to be, know that since unfortunately we belong to the same species, you are as much of a hairless ape as anyone else who's ever displayed their demented drivel on a philosophy forum.

[Dubious]

Until then, I’m starting to think this forum is just a carnival of nuts masquerading as philosophers.

True! It seems there aren't many left to do the heavy lifting. Most of the time it feels as if one is communicating with someone from 2000 years ago with nothing of significance happening since. The mystery remains, by what corrupt process have so many clones of the stupid gene been created. Is this an education malfunction or something worse? Rhetorical question only!

[accelafine]

Where has this gem been hiding? Anyone who can get up the nose of smashflappypants gets an up-thumb from me

[Age]

All of that counts as self comment, you just haven't got enough education to realise it.

You've been smug and discourteous from the start so you may as well not bother whining about a bit of smugness coming back your way. You clearly know an awful lot less than you think you do, and are absurdly pretentious. Nobody has actually dismissed science so far as I have seen, but you are not a very sophisticated reader, so it might appear to you that they have.

You wax poetic about the 'elegance of science', that doesn't really mean anything. You are not equipped to judge what is or is not a coherent argument. You are not at all special and not particularly talented. Several of the times you have accused somebody of saying nothing, the problem has been you.

This offer excludes Walker obviously, he's a custard-brained dotard. But Skepdick is an idiot with an epic scale personality disorder, and even he has the beating of you here. That's bad, real bad.

Flash, let’s clarify something fundamental: do you accept that every event, including thoughts, has a physical cause? That’s the cornerstone of any meaningful discussion about science, determinism, and the nature of reality. If you reject this, then say so plainly, so we can stop pretending this is a serious conversation. If you accept it, then it’s time to acknowledge the implications rather than sidestepping into personal jabs and deflections.

Your criticism of my tone is noted, but let’s not forget—smugness is no substitute for substance. So, what’s your answer?

Well I feel like I already answered that one tbh
viewtopic.php?t=43090&start=15

But if you want to know what I believe to be the case, that would be the materialist/physicalist explanation. We have no evidence of non-physical causation, but this is not the same as knowing that there is no such phenomenon. Nor does it prove that strict determinism cannot be upended by unpredictable physical events either. So I used the word believe deliberately because I am aware of the limitations of our knowledge.

Now here is a prime example of what I have been pointing to. Which is; how a word is used in and by one culture and/or individual is not necessarily how that word is used in or by another culture or individual.

Which explains WHY there is so much 'talking past' and so much disagreement and misunderstanding among one another, here, in forums like this one

Either way, there are no implications, certainly not moral or political ones anyway. Whether you choose to view the world as entirely caused, and fully explicable by reference only to the physical laws that direct the motion of atoms with no levels above that, it doesn't actually change how our conceptual picture of the world around us works unless it is wrong.

If you don't understand what I've written, please don't try to interpret that as me saying nothing. Perhaps it would help to think of other debates that seem really important to this one dude but which are completely unimportant in the grand scheme of things. There's a debate among scientists and philosophers about which things are real, or really-real, or really-really-really-real. Many hold that universe doesn't really exist, or that there's something there but we will never exactly know what. Some say that we are doing fine as long as we all sort of agree that we are talking about the same general thing. It's all really just a matter of how you describe the universe and what you think 'reality' needs to mean, but it isn't an actual important debate with real outcomes.

You can probably see what I mean when I say that about the realist debate, but I can point you at a guy who thinks all philosophy boils down to that one debate and nothing else and that guy really tries to use it to settle every argument. I say that you are doing a similar thing with this other unimportant debate.

Are there any so-called 'important' debates to you?

[attofishpi]

- .

You appear to be asserting that belief in an intelligence behind the construct of REALITY (GOD) means that theists must reject science, that the two mutually exclude each other.

Is that your position?

[Skepdick]

Perhaps you should practice some civility yourself if there's enough brain cells left at your disposal to manage it. Oh yeah, and while we're at it, read a science book occasionally; perhaps it will reactivate those dormant brain cells which haven't yet degenerated into dried up bone meal.

Furthermore, being the incredible dumb fuck you've perennially proven yourself to be, know that since unfortunately we belong to the same species, you are as much of a hairless ape as anyone else who's ever displayed their demented drivel on a philosophy forum.

When you begin practicing your own advice you might come to recognize that I've done more reading; as well as application of science than you have.

Perhaps you need me to explain all the books your monkey-brain is struggling with?

[Skepdick]

…

My sense is that a great deal is lost when one invests so heavily in reductive scientism. This does in no sense invalidate science processes and their applications of course.

I wonder if you have further thought on what is to be gained or what can be gained by an expansion of knowledge and contemplation beyond the limited confines of reductive ‘scientism’?

Science has a domain of applicability. A good scientist is familiar with its limitations and refrains from misapplication of their mental instruments.

What's gained is diversity of thought - different tools for different problems. To a man with a scientism hammer everything looks like scientific nail...

[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.

It's difficult to change habits but they seem to be changeable just by the mere movement of a hand. I mean, I guess I still don't understand what conservation laws have to do with free will. Obviously, there are some things that we are physically incapable of doing, however, we can choose among a number of options at a given time of things we are capable of doing. How does me choosing to brush my teeth versus eating a piece of candy violate "conservation laws" of science if I freely choose to do one and not the other? It seems like I can choose to do either and it seems like there's no law preventing me from doing one or the other. Someone may tell me that it's not healthy for me to do the latter, but I then choose what to do and it seems like if I choose to ignore the advice, then I'm responsible for the outcome.

If someone says that grand theft auto is unethical and I then run out and steal a car and am caught, what is the judge supposed to do? Is the judge supposed to say, "oh well, I can't blame you. You didn't have a choice but to steal the car"? How should we interpret these "conservation laws" in a court of law or what ramification does it have on laws?

Gary, let’s break this down to the nuts and bolts of physics and why the concept of "free will" as traditionally understood is incompatible with conservation laws.

The Physics of Choice
Choosing between brushing your teeth and eating candy involves your brain, which operates on physical processes: neurons firing, neurotransmitters releasing, and ions moving. Here’s the kicker: every one of those processes follows the laws of physics. Let’s focus on one foundational law—Newton’s First Law: "An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force."

For you to "freely" choose between brushing your teeth or eating candy, some nerve signals in your brain have to go one way (brush teeth) or another (eat candy). Those signals depend on ions moving across ion channels and neurotransmitters moving across synaptic gaps, and ions, like all physical objects, only move when acted on by a force. This force can only come from one of the four fundamental interactions: gravity, electromagnetism, or the strong or weak nuclear forces. There’s no fifth "force of will" in physics.

The Problem of Will as a Force
For "your will" to act on those ions in your brain and make a choice, it must itself have properties that interact with physical systems—such as mass (to interact via gravity) or charge (to interact via electromagnetism). But if your will has mass or charge, it’s no longer outside the physical system; it’s part of it and fully subject to the laws of physics. In other words, it becomes another link in the chain of deterministic cause and effect. There’s no "freedom" in that; every action your will takes must itself be caused by prior events, which themselves are caused by others, all governed by physical laws.

Breaking Conservation Laws?
Now let’s consider the alternative: if your will isn’t governed by these physical laws—if it can somehow move ions in your brain without relying on gravity, electromagnetism, or any known force—then it’s introducing energy or momentum into the system from nowhere. That directly violates the conservation of energy and momentum, foundational principles of physics. For your will to truly be "free," it would have to break these laws—essentially creating energy or force out of thin air. But this doesn’t happen; every observed event in the universe complies with conservation laws. No exceptions.

Free Will in the Courtroom
Your example about laws and moral responsibility is a social question, not a physical one. Determinism doesn’t mean people aren’t accountable; it means accountability must be reinterpreted. Laws and courts don’t exist to assign metaphysical blame—they exist to maintain order and prevent harm. A judge doesn’t need to believe in free will to punish theft; they only need to ensure the consequences discourage future thefts.

The Illusion of Choice
The feeling of "choosing freely" is just that—a feeling. It emerges from complex neural processes that follow deterministic rules. You feel like you’re deciding, but that decision is the outcome of prior causes: genetics, experiences, the state of your neurons, and so on. There’s no ghost in the machine—just the machine itself, running exactly as physics dictates.

In summary: for "free will" to exist as traditionally imagined, it would need to break the laws of physics by introducing uncaused forces. But those laws are unbroken, leaving us with a deterministic framework where every thought and action has a physical cause. Choices aren’t "free" in the metaphysical sense; they’re the inevitable results of preceding conditions.

[BigMike]

All of that counts as self comment, you just haven't got enough education to realise it.

You've been smug and discourteous from the start so you may as well not bother whining about a bit of smugness coming back your way. You clearly know an awful lot less than you think you do, and are absurdly pretentious. Nobody has actually dismissed science so far as I have seen, but you are not a very sophisticated reader, so it might appear to you that they have.

You wax poetic about the 'elegance of science', that doesn't really mean anything. You are not equipped to judge what is or is not a coherent argument. You are not at all special and not particularly talented. Several of the times you have accused somebody of saying nothing, the problem has been you.

This offer excludes Walker obviously, he's a custard-brained dotard. But Skepdick is an idiot with an epic scale personality disorder, and even he has the beating of you here. That's bad, real bad.

Flash, let’s clarify something fundamental: do you accept that every event, including thoughts, has a physical cause? That’s the cornerstone of any meaningful discussion about science, determinism, and the nature of reality. If you reject this, then say so plainly, so we can stop pretending this is a serious conversation. If you accept it, then it’s time to acknowledge the implications rather than sidestepping into personal jabs and deflections.

Your criticism of my tone is noted, but let’s not forget—smugness is no substitute for substance. So, what’s your answer?

Well I feel like I already answered that one tbh
viewtopic.php?t=43090&start=15

But if you want to know what I believe to be the case, that would be the materialist/physicalist explanation. We have no evidence of non-physical causation, but this is not the same as knowing that there is no such phenomenon. Nor does it prove that strict determinism cannot be upended by unpredictable physical events either. So I used the word believe deliberately because I am aware of the limitations of our knowledge.

Either way, there are no implications, certainly not moral or political ones anyway. Whether you choose to view the world as entirely caused, and fully explicable by reference only to the physical laws that direct the motion of atoms with no levels above that, it doesn't actually change how our conceptual picture of the world around us works unless it is wrong.

If you don't understand what I've written, please don't try to interpret that as me saying nothing. Perhaps it would help to think of other debates that seem really important to this one dude but which are completely unimportant in the grand scheme of things. There's a debate among scientists and philosophers about which things are real, or really-real, or really-really-really-real. Many hold that universe doesn't really exist, or that there's something there but we will never exactly know what. Some say that we are doing fine as long as we all sort of agree that we are talking about the same general thing. It's all really just a matter of how you describe the universe and what you think 'reality' needs to mean, but it isn't an actual important debate with real outcomes.

You can probably see what I mean when I say that about the realist debate, but I can point you at a guy who thinks all philosophy boils down to that one debate and nothing else and that guy really tries to use it to settle every argument. I say that you are doing a similar thing with this other unimportant debate.

Flash, I appreciate your effort to clarify your position, but let’s cut to the heart of the matter. If you accept the materialist/physicalist explanation—that every event, including thoughts, has a physical cause—can you see how this forces us to reconsider what moral responsibility even means?

If every action is the inevitable outcome of prior physical causes, then what does it mean to hold someone morally responsible for their behavior? Punishment, blame, and even concepts like guilt hinge on the idea of free will—on the notion that someone could have acted differently in the same circumstances. If free will doesn’t exist, these concepts need rethinking. It’s not just an abstract philosophical exercise; it’s about how we approach ethics, justice, and accountability in a deterministic framework.

You’ve said determinism has "no implications," but is that really true? If every action is determined by physical processes beyond our control, doesn’t that demand a shift in how we think about personal responsibility? It doesn’t mean we throw out justice systems or moral reasoning altogether, but it does mean we need to align them with the reality of causation rather than outdated assumptions about autonomy.

I’m curious if you see this connection or if you genuinely think it’s unnecessary to reconcile determinism with moral responsibility. Because if we can’t question the foundations of these ideas in light of physical causation, what’s the point of even acknowledging it? This isn’t a side issue—it’s central to how we understand human behavior and societal structures. Can you see why it matters?

[attofishpi]

The Physics of Choice
Choosing between brushing your teeth and eating candy involves your brain, which operates on physical processes: neurons firing, neurotransmitters releasing, and ions moving. Here’s the kicker: every one of those processes follows the laws of physics. Let’s focus on one foundational law—Newton’s First Law: "An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force."

For you to "freely" choose between brushing your teeth or eating candy, some nerve signals in your brain have to go one way (brush teeth) or another (eat candy). Those signals depend on ions moving across ion channels and neurotransmitters moving across synaptic gaps, and ions, like all physical objects, only move when acted on by a force. This force can only come from ONE of the four fundamental interactions: gravity, electromagnetism, or the strong or weak nuclear forces. There’s no fifth "force of will" in physics.

Y R U insisting that only ONE force is being used within a free will decision?

The Problem of Will as a Force
For "your will" to act on those ions in your brain and make a choice, it must itself have properties that interact with physical systems—such as mass (to interact via gravity) or charge (to interact via electromagnetism). But if your will has mass or charge, it’s no longer outside the physical system; it’s part of it and fully subject to the laws of physics. In other words, it becomes another link in the chain of deterministic cause and effect. There’s no "freedom" in that; every action your will takes must itself be caused by prior events, which themselves are caused by others, all governed by physical laws.

Quantum Indeterminacy obliterates any insistence on strong determinism - the level U R suggesting. That you think that since the Big Bang to now..now....now.....NOW (much time later) atto typed this full stop --> .

..that the universe at that above point in time was always going to get that full stop out of my keyboard.

Such a BELIEF (strong determinism) is absolute nonsense.

The Illusion of Choice
The feeling of "choosing freely" is just that—a feeling. It emerges from complex neural processes that follow deterministic rules.

No they don't, nothing has the level of determinism that U want..quantum mechanix clearly proves that.



Since U mention religion have you considered that GOD (an entity capable of judgement as to whether U get to reincarnate and make more use of energy through time) will exist eventually? Indeed that it is HIGHLY likely that we will evolve into a simulation where an A.I. would be capable of that judgement? We could be calling an AI GOD right now..

[Skepdick]

If determinism were true one would have to explain how a random choice function (as implemented on your average computer) works.

Record a thousand; a million or a billion iterations, figure out the seed then predict the next one.

In [1]: import random
In [2]: random.random()
Out[2]: 0.15804230865420843

Why doesn't any physicist want to play this game? It's just two lines of Python.

There is exactly zero operational difference between "determinism" you can't predict and randomness.