• Poiar@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    19·
    9 months ago

    I wish we called it “the scientific method” as this is truly what it is - a methodology, not a belief system/ideology.

    Comparing the two is like comparing baboons to birthdays; it is possible, but really really stupid.

  • gregorumEnglish
    174·
    9 months ago

    There is no debate. There are the irrefutable, proven facts backed up by evidence, and the mentally ill who refuse to accept them.

    • betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.worldEnglish
      81·
      9 months ago

      Might even be more important for theories to be refutable but unrefuted. Given the vast wealth and personnel resources available to parties interested in proving evolution wrong (or substitute for your choice of decided-except-in-fantasy-land issue and truth value), it’s notable that they have yet to do so. If the evidence or some consistent logic that doesn’t eventually lead back to a version of “God did it” were on their side, we’d know all about it.

  • Shirasho@lemmings.world
    4·
    9 months ago

    Ive come to feel lately that the war isn’t two sided. The war is raging between science, religion, and ethics. People will argue against science because of dubious ethics that are unrelated to religion. They will ignore scientific evidence because it goes against their moral compass.

    Science is cold and uncaring. It will always be at odds against people who live their lives following their heart.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
      3·
      9 months ago

      Right so in theory you can have religion as long as it makes no claims and you can have God as long as it has no power and you can have faith in it all as long as there is nothing to have faith in.

      Does anyone really want that? I was raised a devout kid. I didn’t pray to no diest god, I was convinced the Bible held the keys to the universe not a bunch of stories that are best metaphors by long dead ignorants, I “knew” that God took an active role in our world, and I also “knew” that my religion alone had the proper moral conduct for humanity.

      In order to save religion from science you have to abandon one or the other. Even if you could somehow weaken religion to the point, a god of the gaps if you will, where it can still live what you are left with is not worth thinking about

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
          3·
          9 months ago

          So basically you have invented a god that knew that childhood cancer would be a thing but let’s it happen because he thinks helping is worse than that.

          I don’t know about you but I am a parent and wouldn’t sit there while my kid is dying for fear that I would corrupt their natural self.

          The only excuse for God is it doesn’t exist.

  • Limonene@lemmy.world
    313·
    9 months ago

    There is no debate between science and religion. The only religions that are incompatible with science are the insane fundamentalists. 99% of Christians don’t believe that the creation story in the Bible is literally true; they believe in evolution. The 1% fundamentalists invented the debate between creationism and big bang, evolution, etc. because they want to force Christians to believe they can’t believe in science.

    I’m an excommunicated Catholic. I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic school as a kid. The Catholic school taught evolution and a bit of relativity, which are incompatible with creationism.