Comment on Lmao

• AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Is there a particular instance you’re referring to here? Because contrary to popular belief, the church has historically been big on investing in what we now call science.

  For instance, although the trial of Galileo is often characterised as “big bad church holds us back because religion is opposed to heliocentrism”, there was actually a lot of legitimate scientific beef against Galileo. Although he ended up being right about heliocentrism, he didn’t really have good evidence to support his claims; He didn’t understand Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, and his telescope produced so many aberrant artifacts that astronomers who use it were reasonable to be dubious of his claims.

  If you’d like to learn more, here’s an excellent video by Dr Fatima, an astrophysicist turned science communicator. The philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend also uses Galileo as a case study in his book Against Method

  source

  • liuther9@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Because religion contradicts scientific approach to thinking. I personally like the way in which Carl Sagan gets rid of all the “noise” information when investigating how the world works. Religion is a noise

    source

    • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      If you’re a fan of Sagan, you might be interested to hear that he considered that “science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality”.

      Religion might be noise for you, but for countless people across history, it has been what has helped them to cut through noise. Religion unequivocally does not contradict scientific thinking — what we understand as scientific thinking wouldn’t even exist today if not for religion.

      Things don’t have to be a binary of religion vs science. Religion has so often been the driving inspiration for brilliant scientists across the world, for much of recorded history. And in parallel, there have been religious scholars who find spiritual awe and fulfillment in seeing scientific advances.

      That definitely doesn’t mean that everything is always great between religion and science — I’m very much not a fan of things like evangelical Christians who claim that dinosaurs weren’t real, or the Taliban who prevent women from being educated. Those are examples of religion being used as a cudgel against science, but if we want to genuinely resist that kind of thing, it’s not productive to instead try to use science to bash religion. Our best resistance is to embrace the fact that science and religion can and do coexist, in many different shapes and forms.

      Part of my stance here is pragmatic — I’m a scientist myself, and I am filled with dread when I see how anti-science rhetoric is flourishing nowadays, and I am resentful as hell towards the many religious assholes who are feeding that. However, if I direct my beef towards religion as a whole, then that’s a heckton of people that I’ve given up on trying to convince. I believe that the scientific method should be a tool that everyone has available in their toolbox, even if it’s not something their daily life often requires — it’s a useful perspective to have on hand no matter your background.

      However, I’m realistically never going to convince someone to give up their faith in exchange for this tool, especially as I am not religious myself and thus don’t properly understand what purpose religion serves them. I can make a far more compelling case for science if it isn’t framed as something that seeks to displace their faith. And you never know, once someone does have scientific thinking as a tool in their toolbox, and they know how to use it, they might end up relying on it more and more. I personally know many scientists who have experienced this kind of journey. Though giving up on faith entirely isn’t required, as evidenced by the many excellent scientists I have known whose religious faith drives their passion for research — the best biochemistry tutor I ever had was even a reverend.

      Science and religion are not incompatible, and there is evidence of that strewn across history and society. To ignore that fact would be to betray the principles of empiricism that the scientific method is built upon.

      source

      • liuther9@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Yes I am well aware that he advocated against religion but was pro spirituality.

        The thing about religion and science is - religious scientists believe that absurd things in religious books are just a metaphysical explanation, though if you read it you just can not give a second meaning to it. Or they believe that god and his books exists outside of logical explanation. There are lots of religious people who practiced science and made their contribution. If mistakes like that exist in such a book of “extraordinary claims”, with some shallow but definitely not “extraordinary evidences”, that is just an “intellectual mistake” to believe it.

        We already know that ppl despite all the intellect will be prone to believe what they were programmed for in their young age.

        source
    • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Because religion contradicts scientific approach to thinking

      Any scientific base for that claim? Because there seems to be way to much religious scientist for it to be true.

      source
  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Pick a religous war. then pick another. Then knock all the rest of the religous wars into your shopping cart. Now consider future religous wars.

    source

    • krull_krull@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      We’re talking about science not wars here.

      Also wars are one of the Strongest advancer of science, case in point: jet engine

      source