Not even that.

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.

I would encourage you to watch some of the “atheist call-in” shows on youtube so you understand better just how serious the brainwashing in religion is, and how it has a base motivation to attack and drown out systems of thinking like science and reason.

You’re not in here supplying people with a way to harmonize conflicting belief systems, because science isn’t a fucking belief system. Anyone who has already been through this journey already knows this, this is why you’re getting hammered in the comments here.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I don’t think Lemmy is a closed system.

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.

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.

The whole life has a purpose and eternal soul thing make people want to believe as well

Plenty of educated religious people are converts. I was raised atheist and converted to Buddhism in my late teens. The same was true of many of the other students in my university’s religious studies department.

The fact is, being religious doesn’t depend on lack of education or childhood indoctrination. People will still be religious in the absence of those things.

Of course it can, just as science has the ability to do the same. Do we brand all scientists as unethical because of Unit 731 or the Nuremberg trials? Ironically, this entire thread is very unscientific in its criticism of the religious.

Yeah, similar thoughts here

Buddhism is one of the world’s largest religions and originated 2,500 years ago in India.

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/buddhism/

Not sure about this one, but we’d definitely be better off if religion was treated as strictly something you practice personally at home and not as part of any large hierarchy.

That is an opinion by definition. Facts can be proven true or false. “Better off” is a subjective sentiment. How very unscientific of you.

[Buddhism] is intended to justify existing, generational, disparities in wealth, power, and property.

Uh, no, this simply isn’t true. In South Asia, these disparities are instantiated in the hereditary varna system (usually translated as “caste”, though conservative Hindus will object to this), in which the highest social class is the Vedic clergy called the “brahmins”. Brahmin supremacy has been a constant feature of South Asian society going back millennia, and it is still widespread today.

As the Buddha said in the Vasala Sutta, “Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a brahman.”

This runs counter to the idea of generational class, which was the general attitude of brahminical society and was how brahmins maintained their power over others.

The Buddha elaborates on this idea in the Vasettha Sutta:

While the differences between these species

are defined by birth,

the differences between humans

are not defined by birth.

Not by hair nor by head,

not by ear nor by eye,

not by mouth nor by nose,

not by lips nor by eyebrow,

not by shoulder nor by neck,

not by belly nor by back,

not by buttocks nor by breast,

not by groin nor by genitals,

not by hands nor by feet,

not by fingers nor by nails,

not by knees nor by thighs,

not by color nor by voice:

none of these are defined by birth

as it is for other species.

In individual human bodies

you can’t find such distinctions.

The distinctions among humans

are spoken of by convention.

This is essentially an early version of social constructionism.

The Buddha goes on to criticize the various things that brahmins do, saying that e.g. doing sacrifices makes you a sacrificer, not a brahmin. He ultimately says that only people who are virtuous, detached from pleasures and free from disturbing emotions are really “brahmins”. So, the Buddha actually taught a countercultural criticism of hereditary class.

That’s where atheists overstep. Why does it matter what someone believes if it has no effect on you? Isn’t that exactly what you criticize the religious of doing?

lol, actually, good science would be on the left side of the image, at least after giving an answer to a question. Good science will actually prove something, then give the answer, then have no reason to continue to find another answer for it (whatever the issue is.) If you are giving a different answer year after year (like say for the age of the earth), then aren’t you admitting that so far you haven’t known the answer?

That’s not really the take of the modern philosophy of science. All modern schools of thought when it comes to science have the acceptance of falsehoods embedded into their nodels. I’ll give a few examples:

Karl Popper famously stated that science cannot prove that anything is true, only that something is false. Thus, any scientific theory that’s still accepted is regarded as not yet being proven wrong. Science is just a cycle of giving theories, proving them wrong, giving new ones to account for the problem of the old one and so on, ever getting closer to the truth, but never arriving.

Thomas Kuhn wrote about scientific paradigms, which are models of the field in question that every scientist uses (for example Aristotelian motion, which was surpassed by Newtonian mechanics, which were surpassed by Einstein’s relativity). During the period of “normal science”, scientists are using their established methods until they end up with too many problems they cannot resolve, at which point it is accepted that the paradigm cannot hold up, and a scientific revolution needs to bring forth a new paradigm, that is incomparable with the old one. Some knowledge is lost in this process, but we move on until the next crisis.

Paul Feyerabend wrote about countet-induction, which prevents science becoming a dogma. An example he gives is Copernicus going completely against the science of his time with his heliocentric system. The Ptolemaic system was as cutting edge science back then as quantum mechanics is today.

All in all, findings being continuously disproven and replaced by new ones is not bad science, it is science. Achieving actual, “true”, positive knowledge of the world, documenting it and saying “that’s it, we solved this problem, we’re done” is not something modern science event attempts at.

We pretty confident in the age of the Earth and have been pretty confident in its age for quite some time if you asked 20 scientists they will all give you pretty much the same answer. I don’t know where you’re getting this belief that the age of the Earth is in debate.

then aren’t you admitting that so far you haven’t known the answer?

That’s the point of science. Humility and requestioning yourself everytime someone gives new input, instead of sticking to some old text that some human wrote and multiple other humans over a long period of time, translated; all using lossy translation techniques.

This mentality is similar to what you will see from many people in places of power (no matter how small), trying to evade criticism using the same social power that they need to be responsible about. Just that in case of religion, one has found a scapegoat, so unassailable that it can be reused indefinitely.

You can see, which approach is more desirable by simply considering the following facet of the result that we have when we have a science majority vs a religion majority…

• In times when religious organisations were in power, those who criticised them were killed and their works destroyed to as much of an extent as possible
• In times when scientific thought was prevalent (scientific organisations don’t get social power owing to their lack of charisma, which stems from the very basic attribute of the modern philosophy of science - that one can be wrong) the religious organisations criticising science are not destroyed until almost extinction, but are allowed to question all results and have the opportunity to aggregate their views.
  • You will always see some kind of religion vs another
  • You might see “science-ism” vs some other religion
  • You will see political orgs (which represent one of the peaks of social power in the current age) vs some politico-religional orgs trying to destroy and silence the other
  • You will not see science trying to silence a religion
  • You will see businessmen trying to use scientific results as a stepladder to social power. You will also see them fail in the long term, simply due to the nature of science.

I don’t think you need to be so black and white. you can pick and choose what goes into your faith, and still remain 95% christian. I guess to me the label just doesn’t matter very much. also if the Pope claims that to accept all faith is christian, then that is very much what Catholic Christianity is. the Pope also plays a guiding and interpreting role, and you can choose to go with his interpretation or not.

You have to accept that religions can be wrong about some things to have the view that they’re all different paths to God.

Plus everyone should turn a critical eye to their own religion, every holy text and every doctrine has both wheat and chaff.

That Tolstoy book sounds interesting, I’ll have to check it out.

There are versions of the Bible where Big J’s words are written in red text, that’s what I would recommend to people so they focus on the part that matters (for Christians)

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.

“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.

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.

I think my post makes it quite clear that I was not referring to people as diseases, I specifically said that religion is the disease. The people are victims to the disease.

And if it isn’t also obvious, I do consider myself an anti-theist. The overall effect of religion on society is negative, and we would be better off without religion. I don’t see what this has to do with “woke mind virus” nonsense.