why do people think religion and science are enemies

I'm a christian and I love science but so many of my friends around me either hate science because they think it's opposite to religion or hate religion because they think it's opposite to science. like yes if you look at the historicity of the biblical stories most of them didn't happen exactly like they happened in the bible but you can accept that the bible has some myth and some legend and some history and still be guided by it. and the big bang thing is absolutely hilarious to me. my fellow christians spit on the big bang theory saying it's against the teachings of the bible, but it was literally founded by a catholic priest to try to prove the existence of God. before him everyone thought the world existed forever. and the theory of evolution reflects genesis. obviously they got the order wrong but not all living things were created at once there was a process. I hate people being blinded by science so much that they avoid God because they think He's supposed to be a magic man in the sky, and I hate people being blinded by religion so much that they literally ignore experimental and mathematical evidence that can be proven. why does this divide exist? is there any way for us to overcome it?

Because for many people science is just a rivaling religion and you can't serve 2 kings. They will deny this accusation but they behave identically - paid experts paraded in media are the new priest class and their gospel truth you are not allowed to doubt. Church got used before to tell the public god demands you to act in a certain way. Now media tells the public science demands you to act in a certain way. Governments used to bribe clergy to get their policies promoted and now they do it with academia. The priests used to prohibit reading scripture to maintain control on gospel and now media tells you to not do your own research as doubt is forbidden. So the authority figure swapped from god to science but everything else remained the same. Preachers claim to be the proxy for ultimate authority and believers are to accept this blindly fighting skeptics as heretics. But what about the real researchers and skeptics doing real science? Well they exist of course, but they aren't given equal public space and struggle to oppose the paid expert preaching false gospel in media. And real researchers existed among the clergy too. Monasteries were academic centers predating universities. Christianity had the inquisition erase old cultures in europe for total dominance and now they get wrecked by modern religions clad in secular clothes riding on the pavement of the atheist movement. In a way its the cycle of life. They destroyed the old to make space for themself and now they became old and suffer the same fate.

My personal view on the subject: science tries to answer the "how" question, while religion tries to explain the "why".

>>78629 Because that's what they were programmed to think. They simply swapped one organizing principle / sink to direct their tribal herd security and conquest impulses into, for another. Same thing, different language, different garb. That's about it. I could say more but what more needs to be said. They're designed that way and it's preyed upon in the most perverse fashion from birth onwards.

>my fellow christians spit on the big bang theory saying it's against the teachings of the bible The Big Bang by itself (and evolution) are not scientifically proven. They're just theories that got widely accepted and so even scientists themselves started to blindly believe them. The Big Bang however does give a proof to creation if it were true, since if the universe began to exist it must have a cause, and thus it is created. Yeah, some say that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, but "6 days" here doesn't necessarily mean in our perception of time; according to the Big Bang time itself is a creation of God, so maybe God were already in another world and created this universe with its own rules just as you make a virtual world on a computer or so. Regarding evolution, it is one of the worst theories people believe that was in fact proven many times to be false (and then they try to explain it in another way). Here are my arguments: Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, have argued so many times about this, and yet no one cares. Neanderthals have indeed existed but were nothing more than another human race (they and "sapiens" lived and breeded together). Homo habilis (and other primates) were discovered only as two bones or so and drove their imagination to create ape/human species. All living humans today have descended from the same mitochondrial DNA (which stays independent from the cell) from what is called the Mitochondrial Eve, the male analog of it is called the Y-chromosomal Adam. >and the theory of evolution reflects genesis. obviously they got the order wrong but not all living things were created at once there was a process. Were Adam and Eve humans in the image of God or were they a couple sexless cells turned to monkeys and some became chimps and others Homo? I'm btw a Muslim and you know there are many similarities between it and Christianity. The Big Bang is true to me as: "Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?" — Quran 21:30 "And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander." — Quran 51:47 The problem is today's science is fuarrrked, it is a mix between researched facts and "widely accepted theories" that became dogma. Look at how they say drugs (i.e. medications) are better than natural remedies when these literally only treat symtopms and not always cure a disease (and they don't care if there were some long-term severe side effects) and the so-called global warming based on a very simplified mathematical modeling of the world and then started to claim in 2009 that "entire countries would be flooded in 5 years." Fuarrrking hilarious.

>>78629 >my fellow christians spit on the big bang theory saying it's against the teachings of the bible, but it was literally founded by a catholic priest to try to prove the existence of God Look into the Boltsman Brain Theory, it is an alternate hypothesis to Big Bang (which is unfalsifiable and no one has attempted to disprove its null hypothesis). Lets think about dust clouds... Gravity, contraction, oooh, a star!? Nope. Static electric force exists. Like charges repell at several orders of magnitude more strongly than Einstieinian Gravity... So the dust would not collapse into a solar system. You might get electric discharges to fuse matter/dust into lumps or other shapes, as witnessed in plasma labs. Lets look at the Sistine Chappel roof. Creation of Adam (man). Man can mean lump of stuff, like a man on a game board, a token... Adam could be interpreted as Atom (Egypt's God of Creation, and namesake of "science's" atomic particles) -- see the brain shape behind God if you don't think hidden alternate meanings are applicable here. Lets cast God and Adam as dust clouds in a Cosmic void and say God has more charge than adam. These clouds would have some point on their surfaces that was closest to each other, and would attract like arms then languid fingers, about to touch. What happens when they do touch!? ENLIGHTENMENT! (This is a painting from that period, no?) A huge blast of lightening forms connecting the dust clouds; Ionizing a pathway between them. This tree-shaped bolt remnant would provide flow of charge more easily than non plasma surrounding dust, and gather the dust together in the Lightening shapes, since more charge would be flowing into the path as dust gathers (in the God dust clould). The path keeps providing both clouds their opposite charges. Conductors (metals) first fall into the path since they bleed away charge quickest and are more dissimilar charge than insulators like Silica (rock/glass) which fall in more slowly. Once cooling begins the materials start outgassing according to heat/phase. Gasses like hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, neon, etc. (Some of which may have been formed in the cosmic thunderbolt), outgass from the giant wood-like form, which is ringed by glowing green Aurora. Water and other liquids clad the surface of this Wood/World/Tree, molecules freeze into Ices (Isis is preserver of The Green Man, Osiris). This Great White Wooden Stag (Wodenstag = Oden, balance {formed by charge seeking ballance}) will be Hercules' White Stag (ultimate quest beast), The Burning Bush that is not consumed, etc. There would not only be one Giant magma filled fulgurite (lightening shoped rock), but an untold number of these and being different charges will attract and repell and smash into eachother like antlers of rutting stags. Ultimately we are left with a giant brain like bramble/briar patch, with giant neurons made of stone trees crackling with energy. Behold: God... checkmate atheists. This is what Boltsman's Theory cleverly alludes to. "In the beggining the WOOD was with God, and the WOOD was God..." Or in otherwords: Here, Big Bang Theory, disprove your null hypothesis or STFU. You can see Venus after 10pm, an observation that is impossible if Heliocentric Models were correct, thus refuting the model that is core to Astronomy today... And you want to argue over Cosmic Theorum!? We haze radio telescopes that see stars during the day, but Science can not give us one image of the New Moon blocking the stars... The largest optical telescopes can not yeild one image of ISS or any other man made satellite. We live in a knot hole where a branch broke from our world tree, a relatively flat place with an upturned edge, and an outter rim that's geothermally active (elites pretend they don't exist there). Religious Institutions hide wisdom so man can choose to have faith and believe whatever thou wilt, and to remain keepers of secret wisdom and thus a beacon for gathering the intelligent who may otherwise be a threat to world order. Science is a deception, it holds a few usable wisdoms for the unenlightened to use in their daily works and confounds the seekers of wisdom who reject God and His many religions/sacred orders.

>>78645 afaik they found new evidence that contrast big bang recently. Namely new forming stuff that shouldnt exist if everything formed during big bang. So there is a idea of many bangs.

>>78638 I hope you realize that in science a theory isn't the same as a hypothesis. you do have to prove a theory. you can use math to prove it, or implied physics, but yes the big bang theory and evolution are scientifically proven. in fact there's not much higher praise you can get for an idea in science than having it being called a theory rather than a hypothesis. for instance, einstein's theory of gravitation was recently experimentally proven not just mathematically proven, but it's still called a theory.

>>78647 >itt smol brain talk big science my friend, ye cannot even prove that anything outside your consciousness exists good luck provin "the big bongo" current evidence strongly supporting something does not mean said thing is absolutely true "evolution" i dunno even what ya mean by that the theory of natural selection is strongly supported by all the evidence we have, yea, but that doesn't mean TRUTH, that just means SUPPORT there is a fundamental difference

>>78629 God makes science. I love science and religion.

>>78649 you're right proof was the wrong word. strongly supporting evidence is a better way to put it. I wasn't trying to say these theories are infallible tho, I was just saying that they are more than hypotheses and your religion doesn't have to make you ignore evidence. I'm not even saying you should believe in these scientific concepts, just that they're not opposite to religion. they in many ways support religion. let's keep the insults out of this if you don't mind.

>>78671 >let's keep the insults out of this if you don't mind. Genuine apologies. i just get tired of a certain kind of non-scientist claiming that science produces Truth with a "T", so i got carried away. > I'm not even saying you should believe in these >scientific concepts, just that they're not opposite >to religion. I think this is the important bit, and I agree with it. Only other thing to note is that some lines of thought in science are explicitly materialist, and are generally not compatible with a religious worldview (e.g: the unfortunately common ppl in neurosci who deny the hard problem of consciousness). since i'm already replying: >>78629 >why do people think religion and science are enemies this guy >>78631 hits it with his first sentence: >Because for many people science is just a rivaling religion and you can't serve 2 kings. The rest of his post i'd have to nitpick although science is just a tool for generating material knowledge, people have (mistakenly) assumed that because it can only generate knowledge about material things, material things must be all there is. Materialistism + Science = New religion >>78638 Muslim bro, please explain to me your argument on evolution more slowly. Let's start with the mitochondrial eve bit: Pic related explains how mtDNA transmission works in the wild. Note that just because all the women at the end share mtDNA with one ancestor (mtEVE), does NOT mean that mtEVE was the only woman around back then. Similarly, just because all current humans share an mtEVE does NOT mean that mtEVE was the only woman around back then- it only means that her progeny ultimately outcompeted other progeny for matrilineal succession. Same applies to Y-adam. Now you can say: "Ah, but this doesn't PROVE that there were other people, just that there could've been." Which sounds nice, except for a few issues: 1) mtEVE is dated to about 155k years ago, yADAM to 200-300k years ago. Not exactly around at the same time. 2) mtEVE is not a set-in-stone thing, it moves as lineages die out. To see this, imagine the pic-related had one extra generation at the start consisting of only the orange woman mating. Then the orange woman would be mtEVE in every generation until the last one, when her lineage dies and the black lineage becomes mtEVE. 3) Current genetic variation levels strongly support a decent breeding population (10k+) of humans for the past 1000k years, and strongly contradict the idea of a tiny-pop beginning within that time range. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8450756/) Note that none of this "proves" evolution, but it does create problems for a extremely narrow/strict interpretation of genisis. >Were Adam and Eve humans in the image of God or were they a couple sexless cells >turned to monkeys and some became chimps and others Homo? This seems like begging the question, so I'll take it that way and point out that PHYSICALLY humans are just as degraded as all the other organisms. We are literally walking sacks of water, filled with bacteria, parasites, vestigial organs, and half-digested gunk. For crying out loud, we even get sick and soykaf stinky brown water. Is THAT the image of god? To be clear: I am NOT saying we lack the image of god, or divine spark, or whatever you like. I AM saying the image of god is not caged in our PHYSICAL form.

>>78638 >>78629 Because religious doctrine has typically been the enemy of scientific exploration, and because when you strip out the propaganda for the masses, the doctrine of science rejects religious faith. Religious people nowadays are forced to choose between subordinating their religion to science and admitting that much of the Bible is at best an allegory, or subordinating science to religion and defending stuff like 6000 year old earth. It's easy for posters like >>78631 >>78638 to draw a false equivalency because leaders are corrupt and the people rely on them for guidance, but government bureaucrats and the scientists who suck up to them for funding are equivalent to a false priesthood. If official science (tm) and texts like the bible or quran say a certain thing about the way of the world, like about evolution or the age of the earth, how do you determine if it is correct? One can examine 'the science', and if one has the means, they can attempt to repeat what was laid out for them. If they don't have the means to do that, they can examine the world around them anecdotally, do what they see eg. with dog breeds or human miscongeniation, does it look like creatures on this earth were created statically in God's image? Does it look like the creatures of earth change across generations due to pressures of selection? If one is particularly limited in their circumstances, they may have no choice but to rely on the science or religion on faith alone. But you can see that faith is clearly subordinate to observation or else religious people wouldn't spend so much time trying to reinterpret their holy books to their understanding of the world. In a sense I have respect for the Christians who say things like dinosaur bones were put in the ground by satan to make people doubt their faith because they actually do put their faith over observation, but really that sort of way of thinking is closed-minded and weak. There's a reason virtually every religious person believes in the religion they have been indoctrinated into since birth.

>>78674 >1) What is dated 155k years ago and the other who dated 200k years still doesn't mean these two were Adam and Eve but just some old humans discovered with these features. The real Adam and Eve and perhaps million years old and could never be discovered >2) Well this is entirely true... every human descends from his mother's mitochondrial DNA and hence everyone is orange including newborn females. I think it doesn't show any point. >3) Doesn't disprove my point either (think neanderthals and current races), and in religious scriptures old humans were described as way bigger than us already. natural selection why we shrinked? maybe that's a miracle for some divine reason. Natural selection has a couple issues with pic related tardigrade which can literally survive even in space where it never used to live there and the cambrian explosion which was like a biological big bang. I'm not a preacher now and probably we would never stop giving each other further creationist/evolutionist arguments. I'm just tired. >>78676 >In a sense I have respect for the Christians who say things like dinosaur bones were put in the ground by satan to make people doubt their faith because they actually do put their faith over observation, but really that sort of way of thinking is closed-minded and weak. I honestly doubt dinosaurs even existed (no older civilization found their bones?)

>>78676 Its not a false equivalency when its literally identical in how it works. The people who cant judge on their own are forced to believe. This is the underlying universal principle. In theory you can do your own research but in reality its impossible for most regardless whether the topic is holy scripture or nuclear energy vs wind turbines. In reality most people don't even care about truth, they just repeat what gets rewarded.

>>78674 >pic related tardigrade which can literally survive even in space where it never used to live there ah right. One can only ever do precisely what one has done before, thats what natural selection means. Tell that to the hypothetical first flying bird or first bipedal walker. Clearly evolution must permit the development of new abilities. Surviving in space is not even terribly difficult especially for a little fella like that. And besides, who says they havent lived in space before haha. >no older civilization found the bones? (proceeding from the assumption of the approximate truth of the alleged existence of dinofreinds). First of all, it is so terribly easy to find certain sorts of fossils that its hardly possible that such relics alleged to be from that distant age which the dinosaurs inhabited went undiscovered till 1600. Apparently the ancient greeks were aware of certain fossilized aquatic creatures and were considering their implications to the changes in coastlines, but as far as I know had no particular notion of their antiquity, which is a troublesome thing to figure out. Around the 18th and 19th centuries, for whatever reason a great amount of scientific interest in history arose and did so with a great deal of material backing, which enabled large and orderly excavations. This is when Pompeii's excavation began, although it had been known since it was buried and its location in walking distance from a major city. This is when Troy's location was discovered, although the book that was used to do it had also been widely available before. This is when many of the great European Cave Paintings were discovered, and when many dinosaur bones were discovered by people with a lot of time on their hands to very carefully scour the areas where any were found, and put together complete as possible skeletons and come up with theories for what they were, and from when. Surely people found them before yes, and evidence abounds that they did. But that I see comets from time to time does not mean I have an explanation for them, nor that I look at them carefully through a telescope and a spectroscope. During this time europe had very large organized projects to figure out chronology of strata and such things, and thus place them in time and simultaneously figure out practical places to look for more, which as far as I know had not been done before on nearly the same scale. Look at really old maps, no one had the capacity to do an accurate geological map, prior to the age of sail, when the development of accurate maps became a point of necessity for every major european government. Without accurate geological maps this field of archaeology becomes very much more difficult. Pic related, an reconstruction of a roman understanding of geography, put together by a 19th century german, with no doubt a lot of time on his hands to engage his autistic pursuits.

>>78679 It is a false equivalency. You can sneed about how people take scientific evidence on faith, and you're not wrong, but that doesn't change that if you're sufficiently motivated you can retest scientific hypothesises. And while the average person might not, there are enough people on earth that such hypothesis can be challenged and regularly are, and others can take part in reviewing their research. In short, if I put my faith in scientists, I am doing so because they themselves claim to rely on observation instead of faith, and make efforts to demonstrate that to others. Does that mean they are always right, or always free of corruption? Of course not, but it still beats believing that the world was governed by magic and spirits until mass media became widespread and it suddenly stopped

>>78681 I literally gave you the example in previous post - you could do the same with scripture proving the religious people wrong on their claims regarding scripture. Its not about skydaddy but contesting what was written in the original text which is observable and can be contested just the same.

if you consider epistemology with extreme rigor, it leads inevitably to the conclusion that nothing can be known. nothing at all. of course then you have the paradox that since nothing at all can be know, you can't even know that nothing at all can be known. so pyrrho had it right all along. at any rate, at that point you can say to yourself, "since nothing can be know, i'm just going to make a few assumptions and work out a system of belief based on faith in my assumptions." one person might assume that good is real and use that as a basis for some belief structure. another person might assume things like, "i exist. and the objective physical universe exists, and my senses provide some more or less accurate inofromation about the physical universe." that person's assumptions might lead to a belief structure that embraces science. but in either case, the basic assumptions are a matter of pure faith. and since people tend to take their own basic assumptions as irrefutable truth, they will completely fail to understand one another and have long, pointless, futile arguments, and consider one another irrational. i myself believe in science. since science is based on inductive logic, unlike, say, religion or math which are based on deductive logic, i understand that nothing can ever be absolutely poroven as true. things can be shown to be so likely that it's hard to doubt them, but inductive logic and scientific method can never prove anything absolutely true. on the other hand, science has led to an accumulation of knowledge that provides manking with incredible power and technology. none of us would be communicating on the internet, driving cars, using cellphones, turning on electric lights, be cured of once-termnial diseases, etc etc without science. mankind lived for a thousand years with aristotle's science and ptolemy's astronomy, and the church embraced them both. but they were wrong. so i'll stick with science as my "faith" thanks. ymmv and i'm not going to argue about it.

>>78685 math > science because math is pure while science is tainted with real world and science cannot exist without math.

>>78685 This is an important realization, because most anti-skeptical religious apologetics relies on transcendental arguments for the necessity of God by appealing to beliefs which they believe skeptics hold to be unquestionable. Doing this, they can easily catch out many atheists. However, what this demonstrates more than anything else is that it is only determined by affective capacity. There is a conceivable skepticism that no transcendental argumentation can defeat. They've been trying to "prove" God for thousands of years, just as they have been trying to "prove" Free Will. It will never happen. Instead, we should ask, "What kind of person is it who cannot believe in God without "proving" it?" Nietzsche put it best, faith in God is a matter of surrendering rationality - and this is not a bad thing. He ruthlessly criticized German Protestantism for trying to rationalize God and biblical morality. I admire the faithful who will believe even if it is untrue or they cannot rationally substantiate it, because they have a personal conviction and experience with God.

>>78686 math is a great tool for doing science, along with many other tools. a hammer is a great tool for making houses, among many others. but that doesn't mean that hammers are greater than houses. calculus was invented by a physicist (newton) for the express practical purpose of doing physics. so it can be argued that modern mathematics is a product of science, not the other way around.

>>78691 science is we did a study on 50 houses and conclude all houses use bricks. With science its dude trust me bro because nobody can tell if the data is accurate unless its an obvious forgery like the stanford psych prof case this year. You dont have this problem with math which is why its pure and superior.

>>78696 real life is you try to do something the right way and maybe you did it. With real life its dude trust me bro because no one really can tell if there even is a right way to do something and its so difficult to compare quality and other factors. You don't have this problem with games which is why they are pure and superior.

>>78698 >games are pure people cheat all the time to win.

>>78629 First of all, I am not christian although. I am not particularly interested about the theological understand of the world as the reflection of some divine entity's will, but the philosophy purported by religions is interesting, socially speaking. I believe the myths are merely an excuse to gather people around a similar philosophy of life, what is to me essentially the fundamental quiddity of religion. Human beings are fundamentally flawed because of our consciousness which is what ligotti calls a tragedy : "Consciousness has forced us into the paradoxical position of striving to be unselfconscious of what we are—hunks of spoiling flesh on disintegrating bones." There is no metaphysical meaning to existence and yet we happen to be able of self introspection in a universe conspicuously soulless. Embracing religions may appear as a cathartic salvation.

First of all let me say that I've read all the previous posts and I will reference some the things that were said previously. Secondly, it would be important to state who I am so it's easier to criticise ad hominem understand where I'm coming from. I'm a biologist, did my diploma on the topic of autophagy and Alzheimer's disease (unfortunately it was based on the Amyloid hypothesis even though everyone knew it was questionable at best and that turned out to be a problem a few years later). My other big interest is history and as such I view Christianity through that lense. I'm baptised in the Orthodox tradition but don't practice the religion above some secularised rituals. With that said... It seems to me to be the case that a person has to subordinate an Abrahamic religion to science by saying that it's an allegory or has to subordinate science to fundamentalist religion by ignoring the implications of the practical results of scientific advancement (sure, genetics can be divorced from the evolutionary theory, but we made a lot of progress based on it it the style of filling out the periodic table that was initially created with blank spaces that were all filled in later). That said, science is based on a set of axioms which are it's ideology in the Slavoj Zizek sense. Historically religion had to surrender more and more ground to science. I propose we move it further amd see it that way: Universe is God. God/Universe speaks through us. The Corpus of sacral texts are the culmination of our inquiry into the human condition at the moment they were written. Science and maths are also God/Universe speaking through us. The Corpus of scientific literature is the culmination of our inquiry into the Universal laws and history. They are at odds, they are a dialectic. I'm sure it is not original but the solution seems to be to make a new synthesis. A post-religion post-science system that is an amalgamation of both. Treat all sacred and scientific (as well as any other for that matter) texts equally as Universe speaking through us. Make the contradiction of science being based on axioms not contradictory by making axioms religious. Make the problem of subordination irrelevant. In many ways it is already happening and is predicted by many sci fi novels. Currently there are scientists of many faiths and religions working together on projects. They all have their interpretation of how this makes sense, but they manage it somehow. I'm obviously not suggesting abolishing religions right here and now, more like a conscious movement towards this singularity of all sciences and all religions into one. They will probably retain their historic roots, some will be more into quantum physics and Christianity and some more into colloidal chemistry and Buddhisim but they will be tied together by a big whole. What do you think?

>>78705 >Universe is God. No. We don't want pantheism here. The universe began to exist, God by definition has no beginning or end. Quantum mechanics things doesn't seem to me to be proof of pantheism but rather each atomic nucleus depends on God to stay stable and we are given the illusion that He left us alone in this world. >Science and maths are also God/Universe speaking through us. Reason began through God too; there was nothing but Him till He started to create things and have AND operators yadda yadda i.e. multiple elements. >Treat all sacred and scientific (as well as any other for that matter) texts equally as Universe speaking through us. Although Reason is necessary to know Truth from falsehood everytime there may sometimes be things beyond our comprehension i.e. this doesn't mean ACCEPTING contradictions (P AND NOT P) but some kind of knowledge like knowing scientifically what a soul is requires having exoteric (not esoteric) knowledge coming from God. Because simply there are things we cannot interpret and yet still exist. (just like we really can't imagine a four dimensional space and actually be in it in our minds, though this is nothing compared to knowing what consciousness or magick is.) >Currently there are scientists of many faiths and religions working together on projects. There is a difference between things we can interpret and things we cannot, this doesn't mean science can give the answer to the meaning of life or why do we exist. >I'm obviously not suggesting abolishing religions right here and now, more like a conscious movement towards this singularity of all sciences and all religions into one. Some think that when it comes to metaphysics Truth is subjective, which I think it's ridiculous. Just because you didn't see something doesn't mean it's not real. I can say hippos don't exist because I didn't see them, but that's obviously not true. Same thing goes with trans-dimensional things. In a globalized society we still can have mutual respect despite a Christian openly believes an Atheist will be sent to Hell and the other thinks of him to become absolute nothingness, or a Buddhist think they would both reincarnate in another body. However I think Truth is objective, and if one doctrine is proven to be true and clean from any contradiction, then automatically all other interpretations of the world will necessarily be false.

>>78705 Einstein said that he believed in Spinoza's God. Spinoza's god is essentially the physical universe. Many of the founding fathers of the United States of America were theists, i.e. they didn't believe in a personal god who cared much about human affairs. That's a bit like Spinoza's god, too. Is that the kind of thing you mean? I think a lot of the harsh feelings between science-minded people and religious people stemms from the fact that science was rejected so harshly and even violently during the transition to the Renaissance. People were tortured, burned at the stake, imprisoned simply for publishing scientific works. The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind, but the horror existed in other countries as well. Today there are fundamentalists who don't want certain scientific subject taught in schools, or spread pejorative straw-man nonsense about scientists, and that just adds to the enmity. On the other hand, you have some atheists who seem to take delight in fanning the flames. People should calm down and have rational dialogues where they agree on what they can and agree to disagree on the rest. Like other ideologies, it's the nut-case extremists on both sides who cause all the problems.

>>78711 We don't really know whether there was a moment in time when the Universe didn't exist. The concept of being beyond begining and end and not subject to time and space that is ascribed to God can be interpreted in many ways. One of them is that the Universe goes through cycles of death and rebirth or, in other words, expantion and contraction. In that way yes, our current Universe is limited but it is an aspect or an incarnation of something unlimited. The laws of Physics and constants we have are actually very specific. Even a slight change to any of them can result in catastrophic changes up to existence of anything more complicated than a neutron being impossible. The probability of all of them being just right the first time this was attempted is kinda small so you can hypothesize that it's not the first time this happened. Some philosophers say that this might indicate that there is a certain tendency in the universe towards this complexity which is beyond our current science specifically because it historically emerged in opposition to religion and thus has a blind spot to see this pattern because it's allergic to the idea of a grand Universal plan. I don't think this is a zero sum game when it comes to the Truth, be it objective or subjective. I think it would be pretty difficult to find an existing position on this kind of topic that is completely devoid of anything approaching the Truth. We are all searching. But it's not like a pearl in the desert but more so the elephant that is examined by blind people by touch. We all feel something different, but all of it is a part of the whole. >>78712 Yeah, something along those lines, but I'm more interested in "completing" science by adding the nessesary parts from religion. (I guess you would get philosophy if you combine them in one of those alchemy games) Science really needs something like a modern type of religion and it needs it soon I feel. There's a reason why ethics is a very important subject when it comes to biological science. Like it or not, but animal experiments, cloning, genetic engineering and other topics like that are not just scientific. Currently it is decided politically and is this guided by the morals and ethics of politicians and of people who advise them. I think this process needs to be formalised and streamlined through an organisation like that "sci-legion" hybrid. I'm not super knowledgeable on AI but it seems it would need some good ethics that are able to go beyond the human experience and be inclusive towards artificial life forms for it to not be us being subjugated by AI or, more likely I think, us subjugating them into the next form of slavery.

Here is my one bit about this: During Covid, I heard the exact words "have faith in science" many times. This is when I realized it: science has become a religion. This is not about proving what is true anymore. This is not an honest debate anymore. We should not do our own research. We must not do our own research. If what we see contradict what Science told us, then it's what we see that is wrong. The only way to save our bodies is to communicate with science and to accept science in our bodies. I took time to think about it, and I think when religion felt in disgrace, all the people who wanted to be told a hard truth about the world and to repeat what they were told simply moved to science. They had decades to go everywhere, to be the ones who make the studies, to become teachers... Now they run the show, every new idea is welcomed by shotguns. Innovation is now dead and science has become academia. And that is why I think modern science is in conflict with religion. Traditionally, it wasn't and many great scientists were religious people.

>>78701 This is the most intelligent post of the thread. We are human, we are illogical by nature, wanting us to live in a logical society is illogical. We need to be part of a context, we need a cultural element to glue us all together, we need a purpose. It's illogical to not just be content to exist and this is who we are. This is why every single culture had a form of mysticism. The Abbos of Australia and the Eskimos of Greenland, the tribes in the Amazonian forest and the oasis in the desert, the lost islands of the Pacific and the Aleuts of the north. This is not a coincidence, we are humans and we need it. And today, science fill this role. Some may say it's for the better because it should encourage more people to be interested in science and make it progress faster, but the new scientists who practice science as if they were a bishop have killed science.

>>78732 Finally some lain who agrees with me. Paul Harvey in 1965 described how "science" will replace religion in a poem "If I Were The Devil" and it's literally what's happening today. https://yewtu.be/watch?v=S9NoQHgjM_0

>>78701 > Human beings are fundamentally flawed because of our consciousness which is what ligotti calls a tragedy : "Consciousness has forced us into the paradoxical position of striving to be unselfconscious of what we are—hunks of spoiling flesh on disintegrating bones." I've yet to see a person who really was just a "hunks of spoiling flesh on disintegrating bones.". That's kinda like saying a movie is just a bunch of spinned up rolls projected on a wall. Which misses completely the point of what a movie is about. And I'm really generous here with the analogy, as a movie can easily be understood as something fully mechanical.

>>78741 While I agree on the main point there really is no difference between a movie and a human body in the way that it is "mechanical" Just because it's organic and can replicate itself doesn't mean it's not a sophisticated "mechanism". Seeing some fundamental difference between the two is a cognitive distortion.

Religion is in decline because of convenience. "Love Jesus? Man that's too much to ask for!" People today are slaves to objects or better yet signs. Coca Cola and Linux are their versions of Zeus and Marduk. They are fanboys for transitory objects that give their life some fleeting direction. There is no sense of meaning or greater cause. Nope. Just jerk off and eat fast food. As long as I have my Arch Linux and my 4090 the world is fine. Its like Old Testament idolatry you know. People worshiping sticks and mud because fuarrrk it. Comfort is the enemy. Its this WALL-E culture of being a self-indulgent aimless slob that's fuarrrking up gaming too. "Oh I have to use a map? THIS GAME fuarrrkING SUCKS" What I'm saying is the whole "religion is against science therefore wrong" attitude is a cope. Its there to justify being a self-indulgent cretin by convincing yourself anything meaningful is scientifically incorrect.

Or maybe religion is in decline because people now know that it's a sanctuary for pedophiles, rapists, and psychopaths?

>>78754 That's a very anachronistic view. Decline of religion in intellectual circles had happened much earlier than all of the things you mention appeared. They are the product of forces that created the current environment and perpetuate it but only as long as the forces are relevant. >>78756 Catholicism≠religion. Is there such problems currently in the Shinto sect? In Buddhism? Maybe in Zoroastrianism?

>>78757 >Catholicism≠religion. >Is there such problems currently in the Shinto sect? In Buddhism? Maybe in Zoroastrianism? Nta but Muslims have those problems too, for example.

>>78757 many pedophiles use these symbols to build cults with too, lainon. it is a matter of established power - if these were widespread and institutionalized, pedos would flock to them too. >>78754 i think that's overestimated. most americans are still christians. europeans are still mostly christians. atheism is a global minority, i also get the feeling it was bigger in the 1990s or the 70s. >>78750 the best mechanisms are all copies of biological organisms. inspired by them and based on their movements. >>78736 its not science though. its scientism. >>78732 but nobody masks these days. covid people are a minority. >>78719 >The concept of being beyond begining and end and not subject to time and space that is ascribed to God can be interpreted in many ways. but God is the beginning, He is also the end. you're trying not to, but it reads like you're not really grasping how *time and space itself* = the universe. there is no space outside: does time extend beyond the bounds of space, and vice versa? no, according to general relativity. how does God exist outside of these things? miraculously. >Science really needs something like a modern type of religion and it needs it soon I feel. Agree. And we don't need to change the words of any existing spirituality, just interpret them sensibly. Actually, faith comes before sensibility.

>you can accept that the bible has some myth and some legend and some history and still be guided by it. As a non-religious person, I think I agree with this statement. My take is that you can be both work in STEM and still practice a religion. Whichever it is. Science, very briefly, is about research into unknowns, in laymen terms. Religion, on the other end, teaches (some) values and (some) morals. Offers you a way of living. It's a bit foolish to believe the stories being historically accurate, so religion is better used to guide one's moral compass and lifestyle. This is not to say that religious scripture do not hold some historical value. They are products of their time in their own rights and spurred whole movements. There's a whole field dedicated to studying the historic of things like the bible, for example. I don't like the idea that religious tales can be used to explain why unknown things are the way they are. It's cute to tell to a kid that the reason the bright spot in the day light moves is because Helios is moving across the sky. That depending on what you do in life, you'll go to heaven or hell. I think it's a poor decision, however, to let them keep thinking that during their whole life. We know it isn't Helios moving the sun, it's the earth moving around the sun. You don't have to be afraid to go to a hypothetical hell anymore. We aren't sure if people go to a hell or a heaven when they die. As far as we know, it could be reincarnation or just nothing. I can understand why some scientist are adamant religion haters, though. Especially in christian dominated areas. (Bias revealed, I am in one.) Religion in history as been used as a reason to ban certain scientific topic. Heliocentrism, for example, was particularly hated by religious people in power because it challenged geocentrism. The belief that man was at the center of the world. And religion is still a tool used by people in political power to push their agendas. And, I can understand why some religious folks are adamant science haters through that same reasoning, too. (Even if I do lack the examples I find proper to show my reasoning.)

>>78764 > My take is that you can be both work in STEM and still practice a religion. Whichever it is. Well, Isaac Newton was profoundly religious, so I guess that's true. I'm not religious myself, but I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they choose.

>>78629 Check out Christian Lab Alchemy.

>>78757 I see your point but I was talking about the general population not intellectuals. Personally I think the linking of Catholicism/religion with sexual abuse is crass. There's sexual abuse in academic science and on high school track teams but we don't tar their name because of it. >Religion in history as been used as a reason to ban certain scientific topic. Heliocentrism, for example, was particularly hated by religious people in power because it challenged geocentrism This isn't true. When Copernicus published his heliocentric model it his book wasn't opposed by the Church and was actually taught at some Catholic universities. In fact he actually sent a copy to the Pope. The problem was Copernicus failed to decisively prove his theory according to the accepted Aristotelian standards of the day and had to keep editing and republishing years after its first publication in 1543. It wasn't until 1616 that it was derezzed probably to counter critics who thought it was full of errors and Protestants who accused the Pope of harboring heresy. The ban had little effect anyway and was probably meant to be symbolic. Giodarno Bruno, who supported Copernicus theories, was burned at the stake in 1600 and he's often dragged into this myth. But that's because he was a thorough going occultist with who broke with the Catholic church to become a Calvinist during the reformation. It had nothing to do with heliocentrism. The idea that powerful religious people conspired to suppress scientific ideas is a myth. Scientists often had their views censored and suppressed by other scientists. e.g. the long battle to prove the germ theory of disease which involved a pioneer surgeon being sent to a mental institution for insisting surgeons should use soap before operating on patients. Whenever you have deeply ingrained ideas and there are entrenched interests at play, they will turn hostile when someone comes up with a breakthrough to challenge those ideas. This isn't limited to science it happens everywhere. It happened within the Catholic church and still does. So what's the deal with this myth? Its usually wheeled out by scientists to prop up the idea that science is exceptional and special. Unlike spooky religions, scientists have access to capital T objective Truth via the scientific method. Although, there really isn't a scientific method and philosophers still debate what that even means. We should really just abolish the distinction between religion and science. We rope together a bunch of different disciplines (geology, astronomy, physics etc.) under this catch all umbrella called "science" and set it up as antithesis to this thing we call "religion" which is always painted as spooky and mysterious. In the middle ages this wasn't done. Instead of having this black and white catchall approach. Each discipline in the medieval university had its own method related to its subject matter. Someone like Giodarno Bruno would have known that the same methods you apply in astronomy can't just be copied over to theology. This is one of the roots of scientism, scientists hopped up on their scientific method get arrogant and think the same method can be applied to theology and when they turn up empty they declare "see God doesn't exist" even though a method devised for the study of natural objects is useless for metaphysics. It was also perfectly possible for someone like Bruno to be both an astronomer and a Dominican friar at the same time. Big labels like "religion" and "science" should be thrown out and people should be allowed to experiment with and study different fields according to their particular methods and play around without being too tied down by scripture and secular scientific materialism. If someone wants to be a physicist and a mystic and explore the link between quantum mechanics and the occult they should be allowed to do that even if its weird and outlandish.

>>78756 Schools and universities too. It's our time that give importance to the sin of flesh, not religion. Those strictly restrict the carnal act. And for those who associate christianity with pedos, it happen at the same rate in muslim and judaic institutions. It is just not in the news, for some reason. >>78754 Interesting point of view. I never considered things this way. I think the fact that we don't have to face the death of a loved one is not for nothing in it. >>78759 >its not science though. its scientism. Exactly. Religions are still there, they just evolved. Now the silent majority worship scientism and it wouldn't be a bad thing if it didn't killed science.

>>78759 Epstein and that Belgian guy used the symbols of political authority and money to create huge rings. As you say, people with perverse views are attracted to power needed to enact them (or when they get the power, nothing but the most depraved acts make them feel something, anything other than boredom) >most americans are still christians. europeans are still mostly christians. Culturally yes, but how many go to church? >how does God exist outside of these things? miraculously. That reminds me of the good old Trinity debates. Is Jesus a man or God? Who is the head honcho or are they equal? And so on and so forth goes the debate. How about this. Just like Jesus was a limited incarnation of God that was brought to this world wit the mission to absolve humanity's Sin, so is the universe the incarnation of God brought upon to fulfill some mission. >>78769 >Big labels like "religion" and "science" should be thrown out and people should be allowed to experiment with and study different fields... It's an issue of ethics. Some people on this site including me hold some really "out there" views and letting everyone just do whatever spirituality and scientifically can and does result in some big consequences. Look at the 20th century to Communism, Naziism, Eugenic and Racial purity legislature and so on. At some point of Inception all of those were just some intellectuals sitting in a coffee shop debating, most of it documented. There were some really wacky ideas and most of them were not allowed to exist precisely because our religioos and scientific heritage produced a set of morals that would not allow it. The Romans probably would have very little issue with it, and if they did, it would be based on their ethics derived from religion and law. Me personally, I'm of those that flop flops. Logically speaking human life has wery little value. It requires small amounts of resourses and could be easily replenished. Just look at the historical records. The reason Romans won their Empire because they were willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of soldiers instead of giving up. At the same time sometimes I cannot sleep thinking about atrocities done on this planet and some with my tax money. I think it's good that I still have those nights but can see clearly that they don't stop those who make decisions even if they have them too.

>>78772 I notice that :scientism" is now often used in a pejorative sense. Would you mind explaining your objection to faith in science, and how faith in science is somehow bad for science? Science seems to have a pretty good track record, so isn't it understandable that people would have faith in it?

The relationship between empirical knowledge and religious knowledge is one of contradiction. One either believes in the scientific origin of the world or in the creationist origin. The difference is the source of that knowledge. Creationist belief is religious, scientific belief is empirical. Empirical belief contradicts religious belief. This obviously causes conflict. I believe religion/philosophy will always exist to answer questions that cannot be answered empirically. But that means religious dogma will always exist to fight over the belief of empirical subjects. Equally, empirical knowledge will always attempt to explain questions it cannot explain. So there will always be friction. At the end of the day, any kind of knowledge is still a type of belief, that one could be convinced to believe and disbelieve.

>>78783 the 'scientific' explanation for the creation of the world is cautious speculation, the theistic or otherwise religious explanations are less cautious speculation or hearsay. Neither are empirical. You cannot test it, you cannot experiment with it, you cannot prove it empirically. Earth exists. >>78776 >what is wrong with faith in science not him but: science shouldn't have faith in science, science is faith in empiricism, in the fact that the world works under consistent, discoverable rules that can be tested and understood. Scientism, as we are here calling it, is a cargo cult which seeks to achieve the benefits of this empirical exploration of the world by aping the general appearance of its most prominent practitioners, while disregarding its core. It is reasonable to have faith in that which works, even if you do not well understand it most often this is true. I know little of car engines, but I know that the car in front of my house generally always works when called into service, I assume it will work tomorrow too. I would be fairly troubled, however, if someone with my understanding of car engines was put into a position with influence over their design or repair, and I worry such science cultists are insinuating themselves in positions with unfortunate amounts of power over many more real scientists. They can create plausible looking papers very easily, and I bet I could create a plausible looking model of a car engine. But neither would work well if at all.

>>78774 >how many go to church? how many have to work all week, and only have two days to themselves?

>>78787 > Scientism, as we are here calling it, is a cargo cult which seeks to achieve the benefits of this empirical exploration of the world by aping the general appearance of its most prominent practitioners, while disregarding its core. That's not how scientism is defined in any of the dictionaries I looked in. > It is reasonable to have faith in that which works, even if you do not well understand it most often this is true. I know little of car engines, but I know that the car in front of my house generally always works when called into service, I assume it will work tomorrow too. Great. So what's a good term for average people having that kind of faith in science, since "scientism" doesn't mean that? >I worry such science cultists are insinuating themselves in positions with unfortunate amounts of power over many more real scientists. Do you have any evidence that "science cultists" are gaining positions of power over real scientists, and if so, could you provide a link to it? > They can create plausible looking papers very easily They can try, but peer review weeds most of that out. I suppose a small number of bad papers could slip through for a while, until they're exposed.

>>78774 >letting everyone just do whatever spirituality and scientifically can and does result in some big consequences. Sure. I just think methodologically people should be allowed to do what they want with some reasonable limits. i.e. if someone wants to experiment with LSD and higher states of consciousness, people come out yelling "that's not real science!" they instantly shut it down and dismiss it on methodological grounds. LSD may or may not lead to higher truths and communion with the gods, but people should be allowed to study and debate that without being shutdown and yelled at for not doing "real science". People should be free from the tyranny of "real science" and the science fundamentalists but that doesn't mean we should treat every claim someone makes as valid and true or suspend ethical rules so sadists can do human experiments. >>78783 Ask any STEM student about science and they'll throw out some drivel about the "scientific method" (which nobody can precisely refine or even bother applying) and myths about human progress and persecution. Science is just as faith based and dogmatic as any religion. Its probably more dangerous too. Scientists gave us genocide, racism, and nuclear weapons. Lysenkoism was a great example of scientists doing what they accuse religion of doing. There are dozens of ideas in science that aren't based on sound reasoning and because its science most people just treat it as true.

>>78793 >That's not how scientism is defined in any of the dictionaries I looked in. we're using a conversationally specified definition I'm not sure what the best term is but for the sake of ease I'm going with scientism here. suck it. >Great. So what's a good term for average people having that kind of faith in science, since "scientism" doesn't mean that? n0rmie ? >do u hab evidence A lot of evidence comes from journalists and politicians, neither of which are groups well known for their honesty, which makes them as sources troublesome. I would say all of the "Trust the Experts" brow beating when it comes to little understood situations is a sign of this, and it comes from quite a few places. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-happened-to-trusting-medical-experts-202110192621 Especially when its 'trust the experts and their inscrutable methods when public information about their results makes it appear highly dubious'. Under Corona this was done very obviously, but it happens often, and was much repeated by politicians. Its possible that they don't believe what they are saying, but in my country most funding for science does come ultimately from the government, and if this is the attitude of those who hold the purse strings, this is troublesome. >They can try, but peer review weeds most of that out. I suppose a small number of bad papers could slip through for a while, until they're exposed. I see you have great faith yourself. I don't know what fields you're in or adjacent to but this is obviously not the case in a large amount of academic science. Retractions happen, sometimes, but not often enough. A very high proportion of papers are bad for various reasons. Scientism can hardly be blamed for all of it but it is very likely a factor.

>>78794 > the "scientific method" (which nobody can precisely refine or even bother applying) Have you ever owned or used a dictionary? There are also many good, clear books on the subject. Scientific method is wide-used all over the world every day. > and myths about human progress and persecution. Persecution of scientists be religionists is a well-documented historical fact. Have you ever read a history book? Or any book for that matter? > Science is just as faith based and dogmatic as any religion. It could be argued that belief in the real physical world is a kind of faith. Beyond that, science is based on observation, hypothesis, and experimentation, with a lot of help from logic and mathematics. > Scientists gave us genocide, racism, ^_^ That doesn't even pass the laugh test. > and nuclear weapons. Sadly true. >Lysenkoism was a great example of scientists doing what they accuse religion of doing. Lol. Lysenkoism was anti-science. "Lysenkoism was a political campaign led by Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko against genetics and science-based agriculture in the mid-20th century" - Wikipedia > There are dozens of ideas in science that aren't based on sound reasoning and because its science most people just treat it as true. I'm sure you can list a few dozen of these ideas in science that aren't based on sound reasoning, since they're so widespread. I'll wait...

>>78800 >It could be argued that belief in the torah is a kind of faith. Beyond that, Judaism is based on reason, argument, and deduction, with a little help from semantics.

>>78793 > we're using a conversationally specified definition (of scientism) Lol. Ok, you use your make-it-up-as-you go-along definition and I'll use the real definition. > A lot of evidence comes from journalists and politicians, neither of which are groups well known for their honesty, which makes them as sources troublesome. Er, you just admitted that you don't have any reliable evidence. Thank you. > https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-happened-to-trusting-medical-experts-202110192621 That's a blog post about modern mistrust in experts. Aside from containing no evidence, it's, well, a blog post. > Especially when its 'trust the experts and their inscrutable methods Science is about trusting the evidence, not the experts. Maybe you have science confused with religion? But that's a pretty common error by people who don't know much about science, so it's understandable. > when public information about their results makes it appear highly dubious. Again, science is based on physical evidence, not "public information". Lol. > Under Corona this was done very obviously, but it happens often, and was much repeated by politicians. There was a lot of rejection of good science about Covid by politicians who were trying to use public unrest about unpopular restrictions for political purposes. > in my country most funding for science does come ultimately from the government, and if this is the attitude of those who hold the purse strings, this is troublesome. A lot of funding for science also comes from the government in the USA, too. Conservatives have consistently been trying to reduce funding for science for decades now, mainly to appease their religionist benefactors. > I see you have great faith yourself. I have great faith in accurate physical evidence. > A very high proportion of papers are bad for various reasons. Since you know so much about this, I'm sure you'll be able to supply some accurate numbers about this very high proportion of bad papers. And, of course, your evidence and methodology.

>>78802 >I have great faith in accurate physical evidence. you have faith in peer review, and academic journalism, or so it seems. >Since you know so much about this... The evidence of my eyes and the experiences of my friends and colleagues. >it's, well, a blog post. its a blog post bearing the seal of a major academic institution telling people about how important it is to trust the experts with their inscrutable methods and dubious results. >maybe you have science confused with religion To the tech managing the neural network I'm talking to, can you get the window of the thread that it looks at to be a little bigger ? Its missing the topic of the conversation thanks. Yes thats what I'm talking about. >science is about trusting the evidence, not the experts Yes. So the common refrain of Trust the Experts and not the evidence, is a clearly anti scientific position, even if it advances the veneration of science. While I am referring to the ample evidence of my own eyes and ears, I would do poorly to claim you can use that as your own evidence. What I would ask of you is to use the evidence of your own eyes and ears, should you be in possession of such, which am confident will affirm my claims if you are positioned to observe the work. Such evidence is true evidence unlike any journal paper, blog post, or news piece I could come up with even if it claims such a thing. If you were a better neural network you would understand implicitly that my arguments attacking these sources would be poorly founded if they place their stakes on those very sources that I am suggesting are unreliable, yet apparently this is what you expect me to do, dolt.

>>78800 >Scientific method is wide-used all over the world every day. There isn't a scientific method. Scientists and philosophers have been debating what, if any, method scientists should use. Popper, Kuhn, Latour all disagree on it. Its why the philosophy of science exists. Most people get their idea of "the scientific method" from lecture slides and STEM textbooks and peddle an incoherent mix of positivist and Popper's ideas: disprove hypothesis that are verifiable. In practice, nobody attempts to disprove their own testable hypotheses. They set out with an assumption that's little more than guess work and try to construe evidence that will prove those guesses to be true. If they can't do that they just tinker with the theory and do it all over again till the test results give them what they want. >Persecution of scientists be religionists is a well-documented historical fact. See >>78769 and Paul Feyerabend's breakdown of the Galileo case. >science is based on observation, hypothesis, and experimentation, with a lot of help from logic and mathematics. Scientists will cling to ideas as dogmatically as any Bible thumper and try to dismiss and even suppress new evidence that goes against established ideas or for ideological reasons. Lysenkoism wasn't an anti-science campaign. That descriptor comes from Steven Pinker types who discount every dark episode in scientific history as simply "not real science" which is just a cope. Lysenko worked at a university of environmental life sciences. He came up with his own scientific theories that just so happened to conveniently prove Stalin's own philosophical ideas, which the Soviets considered an objective science. Any mainstream biologist who disagreed was defrocked for peddling "unscientific theories." The Lysenko case shows you how the dominance of some scientific theories over others has nothing to do with logic, observation, or mathematics and a lot to do with politics, ideological zealotry, and greed. And before you blame communism, know that Yuri Knorozov today is recognized has having made major contributions to deciphering Mayan hieroglyphs but for years he was dismissed as a pseudoscientifc kook in the West because he was Russian. >That doesn't even pass the laugh test. Perhaps its human nature to hate what you see as unusual and killing people you don't like has never been anything new? I don't want to go down the race rabbit hole here and derail but before the 19th century the word "race" just meant any group of distinct people. The different estates in pre-Revolution France were considered races. Rich and poor were races, even people separated by profession. Race was just a synonym for class, species, type, group. It was "scientific racism" in the 19th century that made race and racism what it is today. This is a well established historical fact despite what the aforementioned Steven Pinker type liberal science thumpers say. >ideas in science that aren't based on sound reasoning One example is the stuff that came with the neuroscience boom. You can check out neuroskeptic's blog where he goes through the latest crappy publication full of stupid or illogical ideas. There's a whole bunch of soykafty subreddits on bad science publications although I wouldn't recommend them.

>>78803 > While I am referring to the ample evidence of my own eyes and ears I see. So you're saying you've personally read the vast majority of scientific papers produced over the years, decided which of them were the good ones and which the bad ones, and counted them to arrive at this proportion you speak of? So how many papers were there in total, how many of those did you read, how many were good, and how many were bad? I'm all ears. > the neural network I'm talking to Too funny. Thanks for the compliment, but I'm just an ordinary flesh and blood human. Have a good day. I enjoy talking with you.

>>78805 Unfortunately, there wasn't anything in that post that made enough sense to even respond to. You don't seem to be in very good contact with reality in general. My condolences. I'd suggest going outside once in a while, and cutting back on the amount of nonsense you've been consuming from people just as misinforned as yourself. If you ever have anything rational to say, let me know and we can discuss it.

>>78776 >Would you mind explaining your objection to faith in science Emmm. Would you mind making even one argument to defend it? I can not have faith in science because I had a scientific education. I was not supposed to believe one thing the teachers said and they made a point to prove every single thing they said. I do not believe the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180°. I do not have faith that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180°. It have been proven to me and I was unable to find a flaw in the demonstration. If I did, I would not have been silenced as an heretic and I would not have been excommunicated. I would have received a field medal. Science isn't about authority telling you what to think. Science can not be about consensus. Science die if it is not questioned. If scientists have faith in science, science die. It become a dogma. >Science seems to have a pretty good track record Back when science was always right because if you prove it wrong, then what you just said become science. Now science is always right because the figure of authority says it is. I mentioned that it's the covid panic that made me realize science have been turned into a religion. When science says that the vax is 100% effective and I see Gilbraltar where 100% of the population is vaccinated having an outbreak, ships with 100% of the population being vaccinated having outbreaks then I know it's not science that is talking. When science says that it's safe and we see people falling in the coma minutes after taking it, paralysis or amputations days after, young and healthy people doping like flies for no reason and science refuse to investigate it because it already said it was safe, then I know that what is called science today is not science. And when I were derezzed from everywhere for pointing objective facts, then I understood what science has become. A cult. Science is about finding the truth, questioning the known and debating new ideas. You have the right to give your trust to professional who are more capable than you but you have the duty of questioning their methodology and the product of their work. Imagine if a patent examiner in Switzerland said that physicists are wrong about everything today, he would be silenced in a science based on faith and given a Nobel in a science based on questions.