- cross-posted to:
- atheistmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- atheistmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I met people on both sides that had either of those attitudes.
The “I’m always right because I have a PHD” is not uncommon, even on fields not covered by their education. At the same time, I’ve met many religious people (Muslims, Hindus, Christians) that for them religion was a private, personal aspect that helped them deal with their lives. As a kind of a routine, something done time and time again enough to clear up their minds from stress and give them an anchor when lost.I’m not religious, but I believe in freedom and the pursuit of happiness, and I support anyone as long as it doesn’t interfere with other’s.
My God, a reasonable person talking about religion on lemmy
I see somebody downvoted you already, but I completely agree with you 💯
I agree, but I also fear religious people. Religion has time and time again interfered with people’s autonomy.
It still does to this day. Women in Oman, for example need a man (even if it is their son) to approve of her surgery. A woman needed surgery, but had no male relatives closeby to approve it for her. It was an emergency. Thankfully it was approved, but required a lawyer.
Christianity isn’t any better where I live.
Religion is fine on a personal level, but dangerous for everyone on a larger scale.
You seem to be conflating religion and culture with regards to Oman.
Religion really isn’t about knowledge and Science really isn’t about personal moral and motivation, which is probably why (from what I’ve observed from the handful of Christian Scientists I’ve known), it only ever works well when they’re kept apart and neither is used in the domain of the other - it’s perfectly possible to want to “discover the wonders of God’s creation” and “be a good, moral person” at the same time as practicing Science as long as one does not believe that the words of the Bible are literal and actual “knowledge” in the Scientific sense.
The ratios are the opposite though.
The problem with religion is it primes people for believing things just based on a trusted authority saying so. There’s no evidence in support of the existence of any supernatural entities whatsoever, and there’s no evidence to support the existence of a life after death, but people believe it anyway and religion holds their “faith” to be a virtue in and of itself. You could argue that that isn’t harmful by itself, but consider that many religious people believe things that the evidence of their own eyes proves impossible, and that any idea is fair game when you treat faith as a virtue. It doesn’t matter if people today only believed the “good” parts of religion, eventually someone will corrupt their blind faith and convince them of whatever they want, like that being gay is a sin worthy of death, that trans people are evil and shouldn’t be allowed to exist, that your pastor is totally a great guy and you should donate money to the church and totally trust him alone with your kids. The dangers of religion are in teaching people to stop thinking for themselves.
“I’m 14 and this is deep.”
Accurate tho
Not really. If you read about the history of medieval universities, madrasahs, and mahaviharas, you will see how deeply and widely religious people have studied throughout history. It was customary for religious scholars to learn all kinds of topics, such as grammar, logic, and medicine.
Religions are made up of people, and have accommodated all kinds of people. Some are wise scholars, and others are ignorant conspiracists. Religion can’t really be boiled down to one side or the other, though I understand how the rise of fundamentalist Christian fascism might make this hard to see.
this is a common fallacy with religion, but basically it’s not that religion has aided studies, but rather studies have made it despite religion. just because it happened under religion doesn’t mean religion is what helped it.
basically it’s not that religion has aided studies, but rather studies have made it despite religion
In some cases, sure, and in other cases, no. For example, Buddhism is supported by nine other fields of knowledge – the vidyasthanas – including such things as grammar and logic. Religious teachers draw examples and ideas from these fields when giving religious teachings. One must study these other fields to become a “learned one” (pandita/mkhas pa).
This is a living tradition that continues to the present day. For example, the Dalai Lama has heavily promoted education in modern science among Buddhists, and has co-authored several books on the connection between the two.
The idea that religion is just some anti-educational brainrot is, ironically, anti-educational brainrot. Religion definitely can function that way, but it cannot be reduced to it.
“Studying” in madrasahs is literally just the rote memorization of a version of the Koran in a language that students don’t even speak and don’t get me started on just how Christian belief was so thickly weaved into medieval university teachings that being against the Aristotelian earth-centric view of the Universe was cause to be burned at the stake (the medieval times aren’t called the Dark Ages for nothing and during the time of Medival Universities Europe actually went back a lot on technology and scientific knowledge)
Having studied Physics at university level in a country which still back them had quite a bit of religiosity, I have come across a handful of people who were both true believer Christians and Physicists and the only way to manage it was basically to keep them apart except for the single point of contact which was “by discovering the wonders of the World, I’m discovering the wonders of God’s creation” which is not a logic link in any way form or shape, just an attempt at getting two very different perspectives to be side by side, never really touching.
Religion simply does not inform Science in any way form or shape (and vice-versa), not in terms of logic, not in terms of information or knowledge and not in terms of methods - at best some people manage to have personal motivations to practice Science include Religious motivations, but any actually “knowledge” they have from Religion does not feed through into their Science because it doesn’t obey even the most basic criteria to work (for starters, it’s just “belief” rather than actual measurable or at least detectable effects that could not be explained in any other way than divine intervention).
Religion is absolutely fine when it’s about how people feel, but it ain’t fine when it tries to intervene into the domain of Science: back in the Medieval times the most advance civilization was Arab and mainly Muslim (such as the Moors, who invaded and occupied the Iberian Peninsula) - they were the true inheritors of the knowledge of Ancient Greece and Rome - but at some point in the 15th century within Islam the idea that all that Man needed to know was contained in the Koran spread, hence why Madrasahs are “schools” were people rote learn the Koran and why those nations have been going back Scientifically and Technologically ever since.
deleted by creator
While I broadly agree with the view that debate was sometimes a part of religious institutions in the past, this changed dramatically in the 20th century, especially with regards to Islam, perhaps due to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. When is the last time you’ve heard of a madrassah teaching that homosexuality is natural? Not to be Muslim-phobic, I am aware if the rich history of debate and science in the Middle East, but the material conditions have changed now, conservatism has been on the rise since the 70s.
You speak of mahaviharas, but Buddhists I have met are just as conservative as the average religious person when it comes to women’s rights, feminism and gay rights. Madrassahs were not ‘open’, even during the Islamic golden age. Even when Islam was less rigid, Mansoor al-Hallaj was executed for saying ‘Ann-al-Haq’, Omar Khayyam had to go on a pilgrimage to prove he was pious, al-Qadir ordered to kill every Mu’tazilite in Baghdad and no doubt there are countless other stories of persecution. That rational thought survived when people were religious is hardly to the credit of religion, and even in periods of prosperity when religious institutions weren’t on the defensive, such things happened anyway and under the sanction of religion. As long as religion is under an institution, it is the nature of institutions to cling to power and hence, suppress dissent.
Not to be Muslim-phobic, I am aware if the rich history of debate and science in the Middle East, but the material conditions have changed now, conservatism has been on the rise since the 70s.
Yes, we seem to agree here. And if you acknowledge that material conditions influence how religion plays out, then you must acknowledge that it is not really intellectually honest to reduce religion to one form or another. Religion isn’t inherently either intellectual or ignorant, it is subject to the material conditions that it appears in.
You speak of mahaviharas, but Buddhists I have met are just as conservative as the average religious person when it comes to women’s rights, feminism and gay rights.
Yes, most old religions have unfortunately inherited prejudice and closed-mindedness from broader society. Although, I think you must also acknowledge that educated people can be bigoted, and we see this among non-religious people too.
Mansoor al-Hallaj was executed for saying ‘Ann-al-Haq’
A religious person being executed on religious grounds for challenging the religious state isn’t exactly an indictment of religion – both sides were religious. It is an indictment of religious ideology being enforced by the state.
I don’t believe that religion is unique in this regard – states also use capitalism, liberalism, and other ideologies to repress proponents of competing economic + political systems. This doesn’t make economics + politics bad, and it doesn’t make religion bad either.
That rational thought survived when people were religious is hardly to the credit of religion
This is not true. In a Buddhist context, rational thought was taught by Buddhists like Dignaga and Dharmakirti. They studied and promoted logic + reasoning specifically for religious reasons.
such things happened anyway and under the sanction of religion
Yes, as I’ve said, religion includes both sides. You cannot erase the religiosity of the people that the state was trying to repress.
As long as religion is under an institution, it is the nature of institutions to cling to power and hence, suppress dissent.
I agree, with the exception of more decentralized and countercultural religious groups. When religious groups accrue great power, it’s a dark day for everyone. But I don’t think this problem is unique to religion. I think it’s a problem with having power over others.
Yeah I’m not so sure about this haha. I work in academia, and there is quite the abundance of closed mindedness and dogmatism.
Yeah no one seems interested in my perpetual motion machine.
In this Lemmy we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
I don’t think Lemmy is a closed system.
I think that’s just the comfortable position for humans. Questioning what you know to be true is hard, and the more fundamental the fact the more uncomfortable it is to doubt. Which is also why religion is so attractive.
I work in academia, and there is quite the abundance of closed mindedness and dogmatism
Are we talking about discrimination against young or foreign academics not getting grants and degrees because of bias about who should be the ones leading research and hesitancy to invest time, money and political capital into new tech, or are we talking about “They didn’t want to read my paper about how I think the sun pooped out the Earth and why this is evidence for God”?
Seriously, that’s a loaded claim, you need to provide some context and nuance there, I haven’t met many actual scientific-minded people who are dogmatic, that is usually the exact accusation thrown out by theists who are butthurt that evolution exists and can’t be disproven.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science
Read this. I used to favour Popper, but I now quite like Kuhn. Kuhn is based.
My point is that the scientific endeavour according to Kuhn is not an inherently critical one(as it is with Popper, for example). Science is based on dogmas, positions and suppositions that are not questioned within a paradigm.
Ah ok, so you seem to have misconstrued what I’ve said here and have added in your own assumptions and straw men. That’s ok, it happens to the best of us (myself included).
I’m definitely not trying to equate science with religion in every way. I just think it’s fair to acknowledge that science, being a human endeavor, isn’t immune to things like gatekeeping, resistance to new ideas, or institutional biases. That doesn’t mean science as a whole is bad or anti-progress. We’ve achieved incredible feats with science; we certainly didn’t “pray” our way to the modern automobile, or to the smartphone. All I’m saying is that, like any field, it has its challenges. And those challenges and weaknesses can be more than people or scientists like to imagine. I’m simply pointing out that dogmatism can exist anywhere, even in spaces that pride themselves on being open to new information.
The fact that you’re immediately jumping to extremes of either systemic biases in funding or absurd pseudoscience, kind of proves my point ironically. I’m a researcher at a nationally recognized university, and trust me when I say that there are many like you who seem to get their jimmies all riled up the second that someone so much as mentions that “scientific research may fall victim to dogmatism and other forms of human egoistic thought - just like religion”. It’s a strange phenomenon I’ve observed when people associate their entire identity with their specific scientific endeavors. And I get it too (and to say I don’t fall victim occasionally would be a lie). It is difficult for your ego to let go of 30 years of hard work and research, even when new data / evidence comes out to prove you wrong. It’s not easy to say “yup the research I associated my identity with the last 30 years? That’s actually all wrong”, but a good scientist is one who doesn’t attach ego to their work and remains perfectly objective. Much harder said than done- trust me.
Ah ok, so you seem to have misconstrued what I’ve said here and have added in your own assumptions and straw men.
No I literally just asked you a question which direction you’re coming from, and the fact that you had to respond with this reactionary, defensive BS instead of using the opportunity to distance yourself from the kooks tells me you don’t have good-faith stake in this and my second option is probably true. No way I’m wasting my time reading further or engaging. Have a good one kook. Go ahead and say whatever you want, you’re blocked.
Reminder other readers: science is not dying, science is in a good shape other than US funding, we are making amazing discoveries every day around the world. The academic world isn’t perfect but it’s working. There is no coverup or conspiracy. Whatever sensational BS you guys read on the headlines, it’s not true, I promise, please talk to people who actually work in science and academia before trusting headlines.
Also, if something can’t be disproven, it isn’t science.
I am sure you know what I’m saying here, but thank you for the required-by-law pedantry that occurs every time anyone says anything.
Edgy 14yo post
Look at your fucking username before you blabber about edgy 14 yr olds
Except they don’t even read their own book.
Religion is a very broad umbrella. Quite many people understand the divine as an unknowable mystery they never stop being curious about
Not all religions claim to know everything.
Yes, the ones that do tend to be violent and oppressive, so I understand the criticism.
But many religions are more about searching truth, learning to love each other and have community. And their followers definitely tend to be modest and have a “I don’t know enough” mentality.
Religiosity is a spectrom and people of any extreme can be found in every religion. Because religion is human made fairytales and used for whatever it needs to be.
You do realize that’s straight up not true right? As a Muslim I don’t know how much of a thing biblical scholarship is, but on the Muslim side of things, uh… yeah. Literally no Muslim will say they “know everything”, because the non-scholars vaguely know they don’t know shit and the scholars will tell you “I don’t know shit”.
I’ve met a scholar who joked that these days you are called a Hafiz, if you memorize the entire Quran. During history many scholars referred to as Hafiz also memorized a hundred thousand Hadith (reports about the life of the Prophet Mohamed sas) or more.
It is really crazy how strong many peoples convictions about Islam are, with how little they usually now about Islam outside of the hate filled propaganda they have been fed for the past decades in many western countries.
deleted by creator
I interpret the image as saying: (some) religious people believe all answers worth knowing have already been revealed to us, and can only be found through study of the same few religious texts written hundreds of years ago. So those religious people don’t necessarily feel they already know everything, but they are convinced that the religious texts are the source of all knowledge.
I don’t know enough about Islam to claim that this applies, but it certainly applied to Christianity up until the enlightenment: there was no point in doing experiments to find out more about the world, the answer was already in the Bible. If you couldn’t see it yet, you needed to study the Bible more.
That wasn’t quite it. The church believed the natural sciences fit within a framework of metaphysical doctrine. The church engaged in all sorts of research and experiments because they believed it would prove the truth. People like Darwin and Copernicus and such were all commissioned by the church to develop and research their work.
What happened was there became a growing body of work that did not align with the church that could not be reconciled. They did the science, they were just subject to the demands of political power of their time.
I don’t know enough about Islam to claim that this applies, but it certainly applied to Christianity up until the enlightenment: there was no point in doing experiments to find out more about the world, the answer was already in the Bible. If you couldn’t see it yet, you needed to study the Bible more.
This is just plain wrong.
Have a look at this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
What often happened was that rich people’s sons became priests, because it was a respected and not very time intensive endeavor. This would give them ample free time to engage with the sciences as much as they wanted.
there was no point in doing experiments to find out more about the world, the answer was already in the Bible. If you couldn’t see it yet, you needed to study the Bible more.
For the umpteenth time in my life: What the shit Christians? Anyway if that’s the standard we’re working with then no, Islam isn’t like that; in fact the Quran explicitly states that all of God’s creation contains signs of His greatness that must to be pondered. Lemme just…
We will show them Our signs in the universe and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that this [Quran] is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is a Witness over all things?
Religion is an absolute rotting cancer
Sometimes religion: “it requires faith, therefore we can and should stop learning.”
The more you know, the more you know you don’t know.
The less you know, the less you know you don’t know.
I knew you were gonna say that…!
There are multiple points in human history where science has overestimated itself.
In Abrahamic religions, God is all knowing, not people. Eastern religions are more abstract, some have all knowing deities and some do not.
Science is a process, like running. It has no consciousness.
That’s certainly an oversimplification.
Science has representatives that are susceptible to the flaws in human thinking that are also apparent in religion. The recent pandemic made that very clear.
There is a scientific community that has good and bad players in it. Science doesn’t get to wash itself of human corruption just because it’s a process
When I responded to the commenter before you, I was thinking more in the general sense with scientific constructivism and the Bohrian interpretation of observation, measurement, and reality in mind.
However, what you said reminds me of the more institutionalized issues plaguing the sciences, and my mind went to the textbook case of The Bell Curve.
Science is a construct made by humans in their effort to best understand the world they exist in. The consciousness of science is not nothing, but the collective conciousness of every human being that has participated, and along with it, their collective follies and limitations.
People who think Science and Religion are opposed to one another don’t understand either one.
What is science? Observing how to world works and learning from that.
What is religion? Philosophy (Here how you should behave, and how to live a good life)
Science has no reason to argue with religion, because religion is not scientific. There is nothing that can be proven or disproven.
Religion has no reason to argue with science, because whatever religion believes about the origin of the world, science just seeks to better understand that world. Knowing how electrons move is not an affront to God.
Arguing Science vs Religion is like arguing Painting vs Music. Sure, they’re both art but they are completely different and do not overlap. There are plenty of scientists who follow one religion or another.
ITT: people with firmly held personal beliefs that Religion is anti-Science, and refusing to listen to rational arguments or studies that say otherwise. Proving that you can’t logic someone out of their personal beliefs and it’s a waste of time to try.
Religion has no reason to argue with science,
Well, that sounds good on paper. It would be nice if over the centuries, religion wouldn’t have ceaselessly attacked and persecuted scientists. If religion was “only philosophy”, there wouldn’t be so many religious zealots not only denying but actively trying to ban the teaching of evolution at schools. Nope… religion is anti-science. It has to be, because science is the one thing that has gradually taken away religion’s authority over the minds of people. Religion is a mind virus, science is the cure.
Again, there are plenty of scientist who follow one religion or another:
According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
It doesn’t make sense to claim religion is by default anti-science when scientists are just as likely to be religious as not. If religion was as anti-Science as you claim then no scientists would be religious.
People who don’t understand science or religion are anti-science, and they use religion as an excuse.
Citing a study about science in the USA, a very religious country, as if that in any way reflected the world of science as a whole… well, okay then.
Yes, and a lot of Science has historically happened in the USA, a very religious country.
You committed a logical fallacy, were called out on it and now you try to pretend it didn’t happen. Talking to you is futile.
What logical fallacy? The fact that the US is a very religious study doesn’t change the fact that they have scientists that are religious. If religion was anti-science then you wouldn’t have scientists that are religious, regardless of how religious the country is.
You’re the one committing the fallacy. How religious the the country is has no barring on the argument presented.
You presented the world of US science as the whole world of science. You pretended just because in America, 50% of scientists are religious, that would mean 50% of scientists in the entire world are religious, which is far from the truth. And you still refuse to accept that this renders your whole argument baseless. So stop wasting my time.
You don’t need to tell us about this. Religion needs to learn this.
“you don’t need to tell us not to be anti-religious because of Science, you need to tell people not to be anti-Science because of religion.”
My dude, I’m telling both. Which group is more common in this comment section?
Which group is more common in this comment section?
Lemmy is a predominantly young, leftist or liberal community, religion is going to be a minority here in all regards. When you come in “both siding” religion broadly, you’re asking a lot of people who already have discarded religion to accept some part of it without giving a good reason or argument why.
You don’t need religion to come up with morality, philosophical ideas about nature or anything else religion claims to have the monopoly on. It’s fine if people want to have belief for themselves about higher powers or spirituality, but again, that shouldn’t even be placed on the same table as actual systems of reason and logic and material science.
When you come in “both siding” religion broadly
I am not “both siding”, I am saying they have nothing to do with each other.
you’re asking a lot of people who already have discarded religion to accept some part of it
Where did I do that? I simply said there is no point and no reason to try to use science to argue against religion. The fact that people seem to find that offensive makes me think there are a lot of people wasting their time trying to use science to argue against religion.
People who think Science and Religion are opposed to one another don’t understand either one.
This was your first paragraph, you are starting with the thesis that someone like me, who has defended truth from religious attacks for decades, that I simply “misunderstand” the people who are screaming that God doesn’t want us to get vaccines or learn about cosmology.
Science is on the defense against a powerful, hateful, spiteful ideology that has been wearing us all down for millenia. Religion is fucking HOSTILE so no, you need to focus your statement against the actual antagonist here. This isn’t a place to use this pathetic neutral language, we have active fucking book-burnings happening in the USA right now, as schools become defunded even more than they already are.
you need to focus your statement against the actual antagonist here.
Agreed. The USA is less religious now than it has ever been. If “Religion”, as a monolithic group, was anti-science then book burnings would have been commonplace for its entire existence and vaccines never would have been allowed.
The fact that these are more common now while the USA is less religious would suggest the problem is not the monolithic group of “religion” but instead a specific group. To me it looks a lot more politically driven than it is religious, but I would not claim that “politics is anti-science”.
To put it bluntly, Science wouldn’t give any shits about religion if religion would stay in their lane.
While there’s plenty of atheists who have taken up the charge of destroying religion as much as they possibly can, with limited success, Science has, to my knowledge, never tried to influence religious teachings. Religion, conversely, has tried to stop, slow or otherwise discredit, scientific research, and understanding.
It seems to me that if religion would stay in its lane, this problem wouldn’t exist.
Science has, to my knowledge, never tried to influence religious teachings
The meme I was responding to seems to be specifically trying to use Science to discredit religion.
Religion, conversely, has tried to stop, slow or otherwise discredit, scientific research, and understanding.
And I argue strongly against any idiots trying to do that. However It’s incredibly disingenuous to claim “Religion” as a whole does this. Many scientist are religious in some for or another, so it’s not the concept of “Religion” that tries to discredit scientific research, it’s specific groups using religion as an excuse. The AntiVax MAGA crowd aren’t trying to stop vaccines for religious reasons, they’re doing it for political reasons. Some of them might try to use religion as an excuse (despite their religious literature saying nothing that would oppose vaccines) because they do not actually understand either religion or science.
I understand your argument, and I recognize that you’re discussing the current state of affairs on the current political and social landscape.
My statements, as a whole, are not specific to the current state of affairs. Religion and belief tried to deny that the earth revolves around the sun, as an example. Of course, there’s hundreds of examples of this kind of interference. Darwin’s evolution theory is another prime example. I won’t go on or this will turn into an anti-religion rant.
The problems I’m pointing at are much broader in scope and longer in the timeline / deeper in history than what you seem to be discussing.
I’m only generalizing about “religion” rather than a specific group or religion, because it’s happened so often and come from so many different sources that it’s hard to not generalize as “religion” vs naming all the various belief systems that have hindered scientific progress and understanding.
Certainly religion, as a concept as a much more broad and lingering effect on our society, from state religions (mostly eliminated in developed nations), like the church of England, and other, similar religious organizations, where you were obligated to believe in that religion if you lived in that nation or state, to policy set by proxy, by religious groups or extremist believers. Things that oppose bodily autonomy, and equality… Among others. While these are relevant to our society, both historically, and presently, they are not necessarily blocking, refuting, denying, or otherwise trying to remove scientific knowledge and understanding. It’s a sad state of affairs that we allow such things to have a significant impact on our society, but these things are not significantly impacting our ability to make scientific discovery and progress.
Speaking strictly of direct interference from religious organizations and belief, both now and especially historically, and the damage it has caused to scientific progress and discovery, is difficult to quantify. Needless to say, it has been a significant detriment to scientific progress.
I cannot think of any examples of Science, or any scientist, trying to influence what religion teaches, or what the followers of that religion believe. Science is happy to let entire swaths of people deny what they say and believe whatever the hell they want. Science and scientists will proceed with the information they have; nobody cares what you think your sky daddy has to say about it.
There will always be people using Science to denounce bad teachings from the church, but this is limited in scope, and generally on an individual basis; typically atheists who are anti-religion will use scientific truths to dissuade beliefs in general, not any specific teaching. Any/all scientific organizations have no comment on the matter.
You contradict yourself:
I cannot think of any examples of Science, or any scientist, trying to influence what religion teaches, or what the followers of that religion believe.
There will always be people using Science to denounce bad teachings from the church
The most charitable interpretation I can give you is that “scientists” aren’t trying to use science to discredit the religion, “people” are.
So people who understand science aren’t trying to use science to attack religion, people who don’t understand science are, which was my original point. Just like it’s people who don’t understand science that try to use religion to attack it.
I didn’t claim it doesn’t happen from either science or religion. I claimed the people doing it don’t understand and it’s a pointless waste of time.
I recognize that you’re discussing the current state of affairs on the current political and social landscape.
Yes. Historically speaking everything is terrible. There is a long history of Science doing terrible and unethical experiments. There is a long history of governments doing terrible things. There is a long history of immoral and cruel laws. The history of humanity is full of atrocities.
This does not mean Science, Politics, Law, and Humanity should be by default considered bad. People who used Religion to attack Science were dumb as fuck then and are dumb as fuck now.Science is happy to let entire swaths of people deny what they say and believe whatever the hell they want. Science and scientists will proceed with the information they have; nobody cares what you think your sky daddy has to say about it.
So if science doesn’t care (which I agree with by the way) then making memes that imply science cares is a waste of time. Not only that, by acting like science cares and has something to say about religion it implies that religion has something to say about science. Instead of treating them like they have nothing to do with each other, it invites more “Religion vs Science” BS.
Yah, that’s not the problem, it’s the fact that religion is designed to push itself where it isn’t, and it claims to be able to solve not just the moral problems, but the logical and societal problems as well.
If religion was just fucking “philosophy” we would all be fine with it, there would be no conflict. Science isn’t trying to invade people’s homes and tell them what they can and cannot do as consenting adults. Science isn’t trying to give people an excuse to be passive about injustice. Science doesn’t condone slavery and hate and violence and organize mass numbers of people to adopt hateful views.
There is material HARM that comes from religious ideology because it’s trying, and has BEEN trying to supplant logic and reason and the scientific process since science became a thing.
This is not a “two sides” issue and I strongly resent the framing as such. Religion is trying to drag the world down to a state of willful ignorance and subservience to magical-thinking as an entity, and science is just a word to describe a process for investigating the universe. They are not equivalent. Do better.
Edit: readers, do not pursue this, you can’t “fix” this person, they’re some kind of closet theist trying to pretend to be intellectual but they have no idea what they’re doing and will lead you in intellectual circles for hours and hours.
Science isn’t trying to invade people’s homes and tell them what they can and cannot do as consenting adults. Science isn’t trying to give people an excuse to be passive about injustice. Science doesn’t condone slavery and hate and violence and organize mass numbers of people to adopt hateful views.
People have tried to use science to do all these things. Eugenics was used as an excuse to push horrific policies.
The problem with blaming “Religion” is you are excusing the people who are doing the horrible shit. Instead of blaming the person who is being a homophobic shitbag you blame religion, dismissing the agency of the individual and excusing their terrible behaviour because “religion make them do it.” Don’t fall for it. Don’t let them hide behind religion and use it as an excuse. Blame the person for being a piece of shit and treat them accordingly as someone who has willfully chosen to do so.
There is material HARM that comes from religious ideology because it’s trying, and has BEEN trying to supplant logic and reason and the scientific process since science became a thing.
And scientists have never done material harm by performing unethicall experiments citing “logic and reason” as an excuse… Clearly all Science must be bad then because some “scientists” are pieces of shit.
This is not a “two sides” issue and I strongly resent the framing as such
The meme in the OP is framing it as a “two sides” issue and that is what I am arguing against. I agree that this is not a “two sides” situation. This is a “two completely different things that have nothing to do with each other” situation.
They are not equivalent.
I have been explicitly saying that they are not the same at all. I used an analogy of Painting and Music which are not equivalent because they are two completely different things. My entire point is people shouldn’t be comparing the two or conflating the two.
Using science to “argue” against religion makes as much sense as using religion to “argue” against science: none. They do not operate in the same spheres, they do not seek to answer the same questions. They do not share and of the same purposes or goals. People need to stop treating them like they have anything in common.
You are still trying to weigh these two ideas against each other like they are neck-and-neck in a race, and again, I am saying your dichotomy is bullshit, and you should feel bad.
If you think experiments with eugenics is anywhere comparable to the thousands of years of wars fought in the name of some God or another, or the constant and unending hate that religion is using right now to justify abusing children, if you think that people make some choice like “will I use science or religion to figure this out” if you think that they are anywhere close to the same thing, you are too dense to have this conversation.
You are scared of death, I get it. We all are. Religion offers comfort, but no evidence of anything other than people like to tell stories about things they’re scared of.
I have been explicitly saying that they are not the same at all.
I didn’t fucking say you’re saying they’re the same, I am saying you’re fucking EQUATING them against each other, and you’re doing it with a fervor, and if you say you’re not, you’re either lying or unaware of what you’re doing. Again, go watch some actual atheist debates and understand that you’re not treading new ground here, you’re falling into the exact same mental fallacy that many so-called “religious intellectuals” get in. You don’t need religion or God to have a better world, a better personal perspective of the universe or anything else.
Using science to “argue” against religion makes as much sense as using religion to “argue” against science: none.
Okay here is where the crux of your stupid argument is. What exactly do you think is happening? Do you think science is waging war on Christianity? Do you believe science is trying to “kill god”? Do you think people adopt science for the same reasons they adopt religion? Do you think that if “both sides just stopped fighting it would be better”? Because if you say yes to any of these questions, again, you are radically misinformed or your perspective is tainted by religion and you are not being honest with yourself.
Science is, and I say this fucking again, a system for finding truth. It’s not designed to attack religion, it’s not competing for anything, you can indeed have both spirituality and religion and science in your life without conflict. But that’s not what Christians and theists broadly do, is it? They’re the ones trying to burn textbooks and trying to get schools to teach creation. Science is not invading churches and forcing them to teach motherfucking geology.
They do not operate in the same spheres, they do not seek to answer the same questions. They do not share and of the same purposes or goals. People need to stop treating them like they have anything in common.
I’m glad you agree, now why are you doing it?
You are still trying to weigh these two ideas against each other like they are neck-and-neck in a race
I am not. How is repeatedly saying they have nothing to with each other treating them like they are in a neck-and-neck race? One is running down a track and the other is painting a picture. They have nothing to do with one another
if you think that people make some choice like “will I use science or religion to figure this out”
Again, if they have nothing to do with one another, why would I think “people make some choice like ‘will I use science or religion to figure this out’” ? That makes as much a thinking people use some choice like “I will use math or art to figure this out.” I have said repeatedly they are not the same and you keep arguing as if I have been claiming otherwise.
I am saying you’re fucking EQUATING them against each other
No more than the meme is, and I am pointing out the pointlessness of doing so.
You don’t need religion or God to have a better world
Never claimed you did.
What exactly do you think is happening?
I think people on the Internet who don’t properly understand Science or Religion try to use one to argue against the other without realizing it makes no sense and is useless.
It’s not designed to attack religion, it’s not competing for anything, you can indeed have both spirituality and religion and science in your life without conflict.
That is exactly what I said, yes. I’m glad we agree.
But that’s not what Christians and theists broadly do, is it?
If you think the majority of Christians and Theists are trying to burn books and force creationism is schools then you will be shocked when you find out how many Christians and Theists actually exist in the world. The majority of Americans are Theists. The fact that some sect is trying to force creationism in schools, and it’s not there by default, would be evidence that that is not a broadly held opinion by thesists. Afterall, if the majority of people wanted it it wouldn’t be that hard to implement.
now why are you doing it?
Where specifically did I do it?
I was raised devout and my parents wanted me to become a pastor, I know a little about religion and what it looks like out there. This is why I know the motivations of the Christian Right and the threat they pose to everyone on Earth. It’s a dangerous fucking death-cult.
I said already what your error of framing was, how you have been using the weakest, most neutral language here because you’re afraid of pushing away theists and think that being like “both sides don’t understand each other” that you will make more progress to get people to get along.
Maybe you could get a bite in a Christian forum, but it’s inappropriate in this community because most of us are not religious and see it for the threat it is. Religion is a threat to us all, it’s a scourge, a cloud of locusts that consumes the world around it. We don’t need to be told that the people who practice it are misguided and don’t understand science. We need someone to tell THEM that, because we’re the ones being attacked.
This is why I know the motivations of the Christian Right and the threat they pose to everyone on Earth. It’s a dangerous fucking death-cult.
I agree, the Christian Right is fucking insane. So it’s the Taliban. Note how we are now talking about specific groups instead of Religion as some monolithic entity (Something you were opposed to people doing to Science.) Also note that trying to use Science has never successfully convinced these groups to behave differently.
because you’re afraid of pushing away theists and think that being like “both sides don’t understand each other” that you will make more progress to get people to get along.
You are inferring a lot here. I’m not scared of pushing anyone away. I’m also not trying to get everyone to get along. I’m saying it’s a waste of fucking time and makes no sense for either one.
Religion is a threat to us all
Do you see what happened there? You were talking about the Christian Right and the problems they cause, and then suddenly changed to the monolithic group of “Religion” as a whole again, as if the Christian Right was every religion and religious person in the world.
Lol do you live in a cave or something, religious organizations used to straight up torture and kill scientists if they made any claims that were not in line with what the religion claimed, read up on what they did to the early astronomers who were figuring out that the sun and not earth is the center of or solar system, and that’s just one instance, I can point to a million other atrocities that today’s society views as barbaric done by organized religion. Religion has nothing to do with living a good life, it’s about centralising power and control over the masses and making them obey your commands.
Lol do you live in a cave or something,
religiousPolitical organizations used to straight up torture and kill scientists if they made any claims that were not in line with what thereligionpolitics claimed, read up on what they did to the early astronomers who were figuring out that the sun and not earth is the center of or solar system, and that’s just one instance, I can point to a million other atrocities that today’s society views as barbaric done by organizedreligionpolitics.ReligionPolitics has nothing to do with living a good life, it’s about centralising power and control over the masses and making them obey your commands.I guess all politics are bad and we would be better off if banned all politics.
People using religion as an excuse does not mean all religion is bad and that the people doing these things are not culpable for their actions. You are dismissing the people who chose to do these things and blaming Religion instead. Don’t let them get away with that. Blame the person for being a piece of shit.
There are just as many scientist that are religious in some fashion as scientist that are not. If religion was antithetical to science you wouldn’t have scientists with religious beliefs.
There are aeronautical engineers who think the world is flat. Human beings aren’t rational creatures, so it’s not surprising that there are scientists that are religious, but acting like it’s some bad apples who give religion a bad name is also not correct. Might I remind you the vatican itself has helped hide multiple crimes committed by the clergy over the years, everything from shielding child raping priests by moving them around to burying the bones of the native American children that were kidnapped from their families and brutalized in church grounds. Point me to any country on the map that’s a theocracy and I’ll show you how they brutalize their population. I’m not against religion, but religion shouldn’t be allowed to interfere in other people’s lives, should not have any say in how a goverment runs and how laws get passed and should be forced to pay taxes like any other business. Religious people with power over others are a danger to society.
Point me to any country on the map
that’s a theocracyand I’ll show you how they brutalize their population.FTFY. Don’t tell me it’s “some bad apples”, clearly all government’s are bad.
religion shouldn’t be allowed to interfere in other people’s lives, should not have any say in how a goverment runs and how laws get passed and should be forced to pay taxes like any other business
I agree 100%. I don’t know what you think you’re arguing against because I never said otherwise.
Science isn’t out there making rules for owning slaves. And so that line about philosophy is utter bs. Philosophy also doesn’t lay out rules for owning slaves.
Science isn’t out there making rules for owning slaves.
Okay, I just said science and religion do not overlap so saying religion does something science does not just further supports my argument.
And so that line about philosophy is utter bs
Philosophy is not science
Philosophy also doesn’t lay out rules for owning slaves
Depends in the philosopher:
Aristotle, in the first book of his Politics defends slavery …
“Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another’s and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature.”The fact that people can have a religious book that has rules for owning slaves, while they themselves are opposed to owning slaves, indicates they are taking the “philosophy” they find useful from the book and not strictly adhering to everything in it.
What is religion? Philosophy
I wish people just saw religion as a metaphor, but they really do believe there is a god and act accordingly even though there is no evidence of any gods existing.
This pokes at one of my biggest gripes with it, if there is a big guy with pearly gates upstairs, and doing good in life is a reward, does that mean you only do good things because your paid? It cheapens the entire philosophy and moral compass they proport to have.
On that topic. Religions does have philosophy, but it requires more effort than just showing up to what ever service you attend, I personally only know 3 religious people who have even read Aquinas (which is sad, because his work is a good read even if christiantiy aint your jam). For everything else religion is a crutch, its easier to scare kids into not steal things and acting with good-enough morals than it is to plonk a tomb of Plato or Confucius in front of them and tell them there will be a quiz on ethics at dinner.
even though there is no evidence of any gods existing
This is that Science arguing with Religion thing that I already said doesn’t actually make sense.
Good points. Lemmy has a bit of an anti religion echo chamber.
Pointing out the extremes of one and cherrypicking the other. Both sides have done a lot of good and bad.
I like your view of religion as a spiritual guide for morality. Most people are too narrow minded when it comes to religion. They purley hate and focus on the byproducts of the zeitgeist, cultural norms from times past. Instead they should read between the lines and try to understand the actual message it’s trying to convey.
Gould’s “non overlapping magisteria.”
Religion: I don’t know everything…but my god does!
But God puts thoughts in brain means I know everything!
