One acts like a 'Know it all' and the other 'wants to learn it all'
One acts like a 'Know it all' and the other 'wants to learn it all'
One acts like a 'Know it all' and the other 'wants to learn it all'
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
The less you know, the less you know you don't know.
Religion: I don't know everything...but my god does!
Psh that guys a hack MY book is better
But God puts thoughts in brain means I know everything!
Yeah I’m not so sure about this haha. I work in academia, and there is quite the abundance of closed mindedness and dogmatism.
I think that's just the comfortable position for humans. Questioning what you know to be true is hard, and the more fundamental the fact the more uncomfortable it is to doubt. Which is also why religion is so attractive.
I work in academia, and there is quite the abundance of closed mindedness and dogmatism
Are we talking about discrimination against young or foreign academics not getting grants and degrees because of bias about who should be the ones leading research and hesitancy to invest time, money and political capital into new tech, or are we talking about "They didn't want to read my paper about how I think the sun pooped out the Earth and why this is evidence for God"?
Seriously, that's a loaded claim, you need to provide some context and nuance there, I haven't met many actual scientific-minded people who are dogmatic, that is usually the exact accusation thrown out by theists who are butthurt that evolution exists and can't be disproven.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science
Read this. I used to favour Popper, but I now quite like Kuhn. Kuhn is based.
My point is that the scientific endeavour according to Kuhn is not an inherently critical one(as it is with Popper, for example). Science is based on dogmas, positions and suppositions that are not questioned within a paradigm.
Also, if something can't be disproven, it isn't science.
Ah ok, so you seem to have misconstrued what I’ve said here and have added in your own assumptions and straw men. That’s ok, it happens to the best of us (myself included).
I’m definitely not trying to equate science with religion in every way. I just think it’s fair to acknowledge that science, being a human endeavor, isn’t immune to things like gatekeeping, resistance to new ideas, or institutional biases. That doesn’t mean science as a whole is bad or anti-progress. We’ve achieved incredible feats with science; we certainly didn’t “pray” our way to the modern automobile, or to the smartphone. All I’m saying is that, like any field, it has its challenges. And those challenges and weaknesses can be more than people or scientists like to imagine. I’m simply pointing out that dogmatism can exist anywhere, even in spaces that pride themselves on being open to new information.
The fact that you’re immediately jumping to extremes of either systemic biases in funding or absurd pseudoscience, kind of proves my point ironically. I’m a researcher at a nationally recognized university, and trust me when I say that there are many like you who seem to get their jimmies all riled up the second that someone so much as mentions that “scientific research may fall victim to dogmatism and other forms of human egoistic thought - just like religion”. It’s a strange phenomenon I’ve observed when people associate their entire identity with their specific scientific endeavors. And I get it too (and to say I don’t fall victim occasionally would be a lie). It is difficult for your ego to let go of 30 years of hard work and research, even when new data / evidence comes out to prove you wrong. It’s not easy to say “yup the research I associated my identity with the last 30 years? That’s actually all wrong”, but a good scientist is one who doesn’t attach ego to their work and remains perfectly objective. Much harder said than done- trust me.
Religion is a scam built to take advantage and control the uneducated masses.
Except that many highly educated people are also into religions :(
Religion is "built" by the actions of countless religious people. There is not a single cohesive force shaping its development. Religion has also been used for education, political liberation, charity, and emotional healing. Reality is complex.
As an aside, people who are bothered by my arguments should consider watching Contrapoints' recent video on conspiracism. The points I am making in this thread are the same points she makes against conspiracy theories.
Atheists like the OP suggest (ironically) that religion is an intentionalist, evil force, but a basic survey of the history of religion easily disproves this type of thinking. Intentionalism and binarism are cankers on the pursuit of truth. Like politics, religion is nuanced; it is not a grand conspiracy, even if there are groups in it who conspire. Atheists would do well to be wary of conspiracism, lest they place their hatred of religion over their pursuit of truth.
Religion is to calm a heart when it has nowhere to turn to.
Problem is the same as with comunism, few in power get greedy.
You know everything, apparently.
Many religions are. The ones that focus inward to better yourself are not bothering anyone. When was the last time a Buddhist knocked on your door and asked you to find Buddha?
Edit: The self-righteousness of some atheists is truly hypocritical. Persecution is wrong, whether it’s of an atheist by a religious person, or vice versa. Yet another reason to be disappointed in my fellow man, I guess.
Buddhism is a religion in the same way that Christianity is a religion. I.e. it's an abstract concept and not an implementation.
The implementations are invariably the problem. Just look at Myanmar.
Yeah, I used to think that about Sikhism as well. Then I did some research. Every religion can and has been abused.
There's a difference between faith and organized religion. I have nothing against the former, but the latter brings only trouble
Don't look up events in Myanmar.
When was the last time a Buddhist knocked on your door and asked you to find Buddha?
Buddhism (and the Hinduism it is rooted in) isn't intended to accrued disciples as part of an elaborate religiously flavored MLM. It is intended to justify existing, generational, disparities in wealth, power, and property.
You won't find one knocking on your door. You knock on their doors, and hope to ingratiate yourself to their superiors by adopting their customs in exchange for status and business relations.
Fact: we would be better off if all of humanity were atheists
When was it the last time a Christian did that? Other than JWs who have stopped knocking on doors like 9 years ago.
Btw, I've 100% had Hare Krishna's and other "better yourself" religions bothering me for money. And christianity is a "better yourself" type of religion, too.
There's so much wrong with your comment that really, all the downvotes you are getting are totally warranted.
They fall into the same category of people that look inward and find themselves as a train or an anime character or some other spirit animal / past life bullshit.
These are all people that need mental help and prescription medication.
I met people on both sides that had either of those attitudes.
The "I'm always right because I have a PHD" is not uncommon, even on fields not covered by their education.
At the same time, I've met many religious people (Muslims, Hindus, Christians) that for them religion was a private, personal aspect that helped them deal with their lives.
As a kind of a routine, something done time and time again enough to clear up their minds from stress and give them an anchor when lost.
I'm not religious, but I believe in freedom and the pursuit of happiness, and I support anyone as long as it doesn't interfere with other's.
The problem with religion is it primes people for believing things just based on a trusted authority saying so. There's no evidence in support of the existence of any supernatural entities whatsoever, and there's no evidence to support the existence of a life after death, but people believe it anyway and religion holds their "faith" to be a virtue in and of itself. You could argue that that isn't harmful by itself, but consider that many religious people believe things that the evidence of their own eyes proves impossible, and that any idea is fair game when you treat faith as a virtue. It doesn't matter if people today only believed the "good" parts of religion, eventually someone will corrupt their blind faith and convince them of whatever they want, like that being gay is a sin worthy of death, that trans people are evil and shouldn't be allowed to exist, that your pastor is totally a great guy and you should donate money to the church and totally trust him alone with your kids. The dangers of religion are in teaching people to stop thinking for themselves.
I agree, but I also fear religious people. Religion has time and time again interfered with people's autonomy.
It still does to this day. Women in Oman, for example need a man (even if it is their son) to approve of her surgery. A woman needed surgery, but had no male relatives closeby to approve it for her. It was an emergency. Thankfully it was approved, but required a lawyer.
Christianity isn't any better where I live.
Religion is fine on a personal level, but dangerous for everyone on a larger scale.
You seem to be conflating religion and culture with regards to Oman.
My God, a reasonable person talking about religion on lemmy
Religion really isn't about knowledge and Science really isn't about personal moral and motivation, which is probably why (from what I've observed from the handful of Christian Scientists I've known), it only ever works well when they're kept apart and neither is used in the domain of the other - it's perfectly possible to want to "discover the wonders of God's creation" and "be a good, moral person" at the same time as practicing Science as long as one does not believe that the words of the Bible are literal and actual "knowledge" in the Scientific sense.
I see somebody downvoted you already, but I completely agree with you 💯
Those many "private, personal" benign religious people form a strong foundation upon which the crazies, cults, and conmen build their structures.
In my experience, these benign people are one tragedy away from metastasizing into the malignant religious type.
I have cousins who were benign-religious for most of their life, but after a death in the family they started following a new sect of christianity. Their children have never seen a doctor, nor a vaccine.
I agree people are entitled to their personal freedoms, but we would be much better off as a society if we could educate our way out of the cancer that is religion.
In my experience, these benign people are one tragedy away from metastasizing into the malignant religious type.
This kind of thinking and language is also used by a variety of "Anti-Theists" talking about the "Woke mind virus" and working together with current US fascism.
Talking about people as "diseases" is a pretty good indicator of Fascist ideology and you might be more entangled by it than you think.
The ratios are the opposite though.
Edgy 14yo post
Yeah, your username speaks for itself
Ok edgy 15yo
Look at your fucking username before you blabber about edgy 14 yr olds
This isn't true at all. It all depends on the person. People could fit into:
Religion - I know everything. Religion - I don't know enough. Science - I know everything. Science - I don't know enough.
You know, some people even love both religion and science!
I've met scientists who say God exists and the universe is billions of years old. Their perspective is definitely a bit different. They see themselves as discoverers of God's work but their academic work was just as valid as their atheist colleagues. Most often they were the first to criticize their church and continued to believe. Blew my mind.
Their academic work is only valid if it doesn't incorporate their religion. Because faith has no value in science.
Yeah, there are also Christian scientists who do lots of research and studies and come to the conclusion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Because they challenge modern science with valid questions that get ignored, they are considered quacks. Like why you can listen to 20 different scientists who are all respected in the field, and get 20 vastly different answers on how old the earth is. You don't come up with 20 different answers (as though they are truth) by using the scientific method. Which would have to mean at least 19 of them are only guessing.
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?
Only thing I'd say about the christian scientists who say the earth is billions of years old, is that they'd have to deny the scriptures of their faith in order to believe that. Seems like an odd thing to do. Either they really believe it and not what their faith (religion) teaches, or they just want acceptance from non Christians.
I guess in the end, if you are on the right side of the image, (in the religious or science realm), maybe you should consider the other sides arguments. Maybe its just that they actually figured out the answer and have no need to continue searching. Maybe they don't have the answer, maybe they do.
I've seen a lot of conservative (the American Republican model) Christians but I have also seen what I consider to be "true" Christians, with a strong faith and love for everyone, and part of that faith often involves confronting reality, thinking about solutions to problems, helping the poor and weak. I agree with you that it's not all black and white. A lot of Christians don't believe in the literal text of the Bible for its supernatural claims, but instead they read it (and other religious texts, there are a lot of religious people who do some multi-track drifting) for its morals and guiding principles, which can all be interpreted in different ways, and there is a lot of discourse in religious circles about the meaning and morals of texts, about finding ancient wisdom or reinterpreting old texts to better suit modern standards. It can be a very research intensive way of life to be religious and have faith. I'd argue that if you have any principles at all that you stick to, that counts as faith.
Well honestly, (since you mention Christians), if they are true, they'd have to say it is the only way. Not because they are bigoted, but because all the various religions disagree. But, that view (that Christianity is the only way) may have been achieved by doing lots of research. I think its kinda foolish to say all the religions are different paths to God if they disagree with each other. Any religious person who says all faiths are valid paths to God, are either fools, or liars. Some of the popes have said that, and that would make them not Christian.
I agree. Western Christianity is a perversion of the religion imo. To be fair a large part of biblical text has absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Christ and that confuses a lot of people. A lot of them seem to be quite contradictory to what he was saying.
If anyone is into reading interesting books these helped to clarify Christianity for me. I do not consider myself a Christian ( maybe in my next life) but Jesus was a radical cat and what he did at that point in history was revolutionary .
Leo Tolstoy , The Kingdom Of God Is Within You. This one may turn you into a Vegan Anarchist so watch out
Swami Sri Yukteswar, The Holy Science
Tao Te Ching , Lao Tzu ...this one has nothing to do with Christianity but helped me understand what God ( the Supreme Being , God Head, Jah, Allah or whatever you want to call the source) was in simple terms. It's a quick read
Paramahansa Yogananda, Autobiography of A Yogi.
That's how you know to not take them seriously
"I'm 14 and this is deep."
When your viewpoint is fairly tales, even a 14 year old can bust your view.
Accurate tho
Not really. If you read about the history of medieval universities, madrasahs, and mahaviharas, you will see how deeply and widely religious people have studied throughout history. It was customary for religious scholars to learn all kinds of topics, such as grammar, logic, and medicine.
Religions are made up of people, and have accommodated all kinds of people. Some are wise scholars, and others are ignorant conspiracists. Religion can't really be boiled down to one side or the other, though I understand how the rise of fundamentalist Christian fascism might make this hard to see.
Sometimes religion: "it requires faith, therefore we can and should stop learning."
Religion is a very broad umbrella. Quite many people understand the divine as an unknowable mystery they never stop being curious about
I knew you were gonna say that...!
Are you seriously trying to tell me that atheists don't claim to know everything? Come on...
This is about the perspective of science on knowledge. Are you seriously trying to tell me that all scientists are despicable know-it-alls?
I don't think that's the message
I get the sentiment, but check out the length of the Taoist cannon, it would challenge even some modern day myth lengths like Marvel super hero comics.
Here I thought that the Taoist canon was only the Tao Te Ching (which is pretty short).
canon = approved literature
cannon = large gun that fires grapeshot, etc.
Now I can't help thinking about what a Taoist Megaman villains gallery would look like
Ennui man, Hubris man?
There is also an idea in philosophy of science called "pessimistic meta induction". Basically the concept is that science is a continually evolving process where we get increasingly accurate understanding about how things work. However since science progresses by falsifying previously held beliefs we can speculate that all of our current scientific theories are technically false.
It'll end up like the Bohr model. Someday we'll miss the elegant simplicity of everything just being vibrating strings.
What you know about a few cultures built around one monotheistic religion does not generalize to all religion.
Yeah cause other religions are so progressive and constantly evolving for the better lol
Religion is an absolute rotting cancer
Not all religions claim to know everything.
Yes, the ones that do tend to be violent and oppressive, so I understand the criticism.
But many religions are more about searching truth, learning to love each other and have community. And their followers definitely tend to be modest and have a "I don't know enough" mentality.
Religiosity is a spectrom and people of any extreme can be found in every religion. Because religion is human made fairytales and used for whatever it needs to be.
This meme was made by a "know it all".
Plenty of people claiming to be on the side of science think they know everything too.
Nobody likes to work with those people and they generally don’t do very well in their careers. Sometimes you get an exception but it’s pretty rare. Most technical people I’ve met are very curious people and in my experience, the most likely to actually update their views with more information.
Both have a lot of books involved
I feel like it depends on the person.
There are multiple points in human history where science has overestimated itself.
In Abrahamic religions, God is all knowing, not people. Eastern religions are more abstract, some have all knowing deities and some do not.
Science is a process, like running. It has no consciousness.
That's certainly an oversimplification.
Science has representatives that are susceptible to the flaws in human thinking that are also apparent in religion. The recent pandemic made that very clear.
There is a scientific community that has good and bad players in it. Science doesn't get to wash itself of human corruption just because it's a process
Science is a construct made by humans in their effort to best understand the world they exist in. The consciousness of science is not nothing, but the collective conciousness of every human being that has participated, and along with it, their collective follies and limitations.
People who think Science and Religion are opposed to one another don't understand either one.
What is science? Observing how to world works and learning from that.
What is religion? Philosophy (Here how you should behave, and how to live a good life)
Science has no reason to argue with religion, because religion is not scientific. There is nothing that can be proven or disproven.
Religion has no reason to argue with science, because whatever religion believes about the origin of the world, science just seeks to better understand that world. Knowing how electrons move is not an affront to God.
Arguing Science vs Religion is like arguing Painting vs Music. Sure, they're both art but they are completely different and do not overlap. There are plenty of scientists who follow one religion or another.
Religion has no reason to argue with science,
Well, that sounds good on paper. It would be nice if over the centuries, religion wouldn't have ceaselessly attacked and persecuted scientists. If religion was "only philosophy", there wouldn't be so many religious zealots not only denying but actively trying to ban the teaching of evolution at schools. Nope... religion is anti-science. It has to be, because science is the one thing that has gradually taken away religion's authority over the minds of people. Religion is a mind virus, science is the cure.
Again, there are plenty of scientist who follow one religion or another:
According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
It doesn't make sense to claim religion is by default anti-science when scientists are just as likely to be religious as not. If religion was as anti-Science as you claim then no scientists would be religious.
People who don't understand science or religion are anti-science, and they use religion as an excuse.
As long as religion makes unprovable claims, it has no place next to science.
The only religion that is science-proof is sun worshipping.
Most scientists want humanity to explore the cosmos beyond the Solar system. Turns out there's planets all over the place!
As long as religion makes unprovable claims, it has no place next to science.
Like I said: they are completely different things. I agree there is no reason for the two to interact with one another. As such there is no reason to do things like compare the size of their literature (as a random example).
Yah, that's not the problem, it's the fact that religion is designed to push itself where it isn't, and it claims to be able to solve not just the moral problems, but the logical and societal problems as well.
If religion was just fucking "philosophy" we would all be fine with it, there would be no conflict. Science isn't trying to invade people's homes and tell them what they can and cannot do as consenting adults. Science isn't trying to give people an excuse to be passive about injustice. Science doesn't condone slavery and hate and violence and organize mass numbers of people to adopt hateful views.
There is material HARM that comes from religious ideology because it's trying, and has BEEN trying to supplant logic and reason and the scientific process since science became a thing.
This is not a "two sides" issue and I strongly resent the framing as such. Religion is trying to drag the world down to a state of willful ignorance and subservience to magical-thinking as an entity, and science is just a word to describe a process for investigating the universe. They are not equivalent. Do better.
Edit: readers, do not pursue this, you can't "fix" this person, they're some kind of closet theist trying to pretend to be intellectual but they have no idea what they're doing and will lead you in intellectual circles for hours and hours.
Science isn't trying to invade people's homes and tell them what they can and cannot do as consenting adults. Science isn't trying to give people an excuse to be passive about injustice. Science doesn't condone slavery and hate and violence and organize mass numbers of people to adopt hateful views.
People have tried to use science to do all these things. Eugenics was used as an excuse to push horrific policies.
The problem with blaming "Religion" is you are excusing the people who are doing the horrible shit. Instead of blaming the person who is being a homophobic shitbag you blame religion, dismissing the agency of the individual and excusing their terrible behaviour because "religion make them do it." Don't fall for it. Don't let them hide behind religion and use it as an excuse. Blame the person for being a piece of shit and treat them accordingly as someone who has willfully chosen to do so.
There is material HARM that comes from religious ideology because it's trying, and has BEEN trying to supplant logic and reason and the scientific process since science became a thing.
And scientists have never done material harm by performing unethicall experiments citing "logic and reason" as an excuse... Clearly all Science must be bad then because some "scientists" are pieces of shit.
This is not a "two sides" issue and I strongly resent the framing as such
The meme in the OP is framing it as a "two sides" issue and that is what I am arguing against. I agree that this is not a "two sides" situation. This is a "two completely different things that have nothing to do with each other" situation.
They are not equivalent.
I have been explicitly saying that they are not the same at all. I used an analogy of Painting and Music which are not equivalent because they are two completely different things. My entire point is people shouldn't be comparing the two or conflating the two.
Using science to "argue" against religion makes as much sense as using religion to "argue" against science: none. They do not operate in the same spheres, they do not seek to answer the same questions. They do not share and of the same purposes or goals. People need to stop treating them like they have anything in common.
Good points. Lemmy has a bit of an anti religion echo chamber.
Pointing out the extremes of one and cherrypicking the other. Both sides have done a lot of good and bad.
I like your view of religion as a spiritual guide for morality. Most people are too narrow minded when it comes to religion. They purley hate and focus on the byproducts of the zeitgeist, cultural norms from times past. Instead they should read between the lines and try to understand the actual message it's trying to convey.
Lol do you live in a cave or something, religious organizations used to straight up torture and kill scientists if they made any claims that were not in line with what the religion claimed, read up on what they did to the early astronomers who were figuring out that the sun and not earth is the center of or solar system, and that's just one instance, I can point to a million other atrocities that today's society views as barbaric done by organized religion. Religion has nothing to do with living a good life, it's about centralising power and control over the masses and making them obey your commands.
Lol do you live in a cave or something,
religiousPolitical organizations used to straight up torture and kill scientists if they made any claims that were not in line with what thereligionpolitics claimed, read up on what they did to the early astronomers who were figuring out that the sun and not earth is the center of or solar system, and that's just one instance, I can point to a million other atrocities that today's society views as barbaric done by organizedreligionpolitics.ReligionPolitics has nothing to do with living a good life, it's about centralising power and control over the masses and making them obey your commands.
I guess all politics are bad and we would be better off if banned all politics.
People using religion as an excuse does not mean all religion is bad and that the people doing these things are not culpable for their actions. You are dismissing the people who chose to do these things and blaming Religion instead. Don't let them get away with that. Blame the person for being a piece of shit.
There are just as many scientist that are religious in some fashion as scientist that are not. If religion was antithetical to science you wouldn't have scientists with religious beliefs.
Science isn't out there making rules for owning slaves. And so that line about philosophy is utter bs. Philosophy also doesn't lay out rules for owning slaves.
Science isn’t out there making rules for owning slaves.
Okay, I just said science and religion do not overlap so saying religion does something science does not just further supports my argument.
And so that line about philosophy is utter bs
Philosophy is not science
Philosophy also doesn’t lay out rules for owning slaves
Depends in the philosopher:
Aristotle, in the first book of his Politics defends slavery ...
"Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature."
The fact that people can have a religious book that has rules for owning slaves, while they themselves are opposed to owning slaves, indicates they are taking the "philosophy" they find useful from the book and not strictly adhering to everything in it.
What is religion? Philosophy
I wish people just saw religion as a metaphor, but they really do believe there is a god and act accordingly even though there is no evidence of any gods existing.
This pokes at one of my biggest gripes with it, if there is a big guy with pearly gates upstairs, and doing good in life is a reward, does that mean you only do good things because your paid? It cheapens the entire philosophy and moral compass they proport to have.
On that topic. Religions does have philosophy, but it requires more effort than just showing up to what ever service you attend, I personally only know 3 religious people who have even read Aquinas (which is sad, because his work is a good read even if christiantiy aint your jam). For everything else religion is a crutch, its easier to scare kids into not steal things and acting with good-enough morals than it is to plonk a tomb of Plato or Confucius in front of them and tell them there will be a quiz on ethics at dinner.
even though there is no evidence of any gods existing
This is that Science arguing with Religion thing that I already said doesn't actually make sense.
Gould’s “non overlapping magisteria.”
I'm six teen and this is deep.
Out of concern for how much the “Bible Belt” throws in with Israel’s Zionist bullshit, I did some basic searches on the topic, and the discussion was a bit different than I thought it’d be.
People need a place to belong. For many, they have communities in cities that fit. For rural areas, it’s one thing to say “Stop listening to that televangelist ordering you to deposit your savings”, but you’d need something else to take that place - something to believe in.
That’s where more progressive preachers, people similar to the current pope, are shaming themselves for not stepping up enough, recognizing people’s needs and being genuine voices of compassion; not trying to be the economic “immigrants pay taxes” or scientific “colleges fuel cure research” voice, but the “Be good to your neighbor” voice.
So even though I’m not a believer, I’m at least seeing the way churches can bring communities together rather than leave all one’s connections to Facebook. The important thing is what sort of voice is unifying them - because by god, there’s a million ways to pervert the message of any major religion into one of hate.
Life is hard people are desperate for some source or strength. Makes sense.
You do realize that's straight up not true right? As a Muslim I don't know how much of a thing biblical scholarship is, but on the Muslim side of things, uh... yeah. Literally no Muslim will say they "know everything", because the non-scholars vaguely know they don't know shit and the scholars will tell you "I don't know shit".
I interpret the image as saying: (some) religious people believe all answers worth knowing have already been revealed to us, and can only be found through study of the same few religious texts written hundreds of years ago. So those religious people don’t necessarily feel they already know everything, but they are convinced that the religious texts are the source of all knowledge.
I don’t know enough about Islam to claim that this applies, but it certainly applied to Christianity up until the enlightenment: there was no point in doing experiments to find out more about the world, the answer was already in the Bible. If you couldn’t see it yet, you needed to study the Bible more.
That wasn't quite it. The church believed the natural sciences fit within a framework of metaphysical doctrine. The church engaged in all sorts of research and experiments because they believed it would prove the truth. People like Darwin and Copernicus and such were all commissioned by the church to develop and research their work.
What happened was there became a growing body of work that did not align with the church that could not be reconciled. They did the science, they were just subject to the demands of political power of their time.
I don’t know enough about Islam to claim that this applies, but it certainly applied to Christianity up until the enlightenment: there was no point in doing experiments to find out more about the world, the answer was already in the Bible. If you couldn’t see it yet, you needed to study the Bible more.
This is just plain wrong.
Have a look at this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
What often happened was that rich people's sons became priests, because it was a respected and not very time intensive endeavor. This would give them ample free time to engage with the sciences as much as they wanted.
there was no point in doing experiments to find out more about the world, the answer was already in the Bible. If you couldn’t see it yet, you needed to study the Bible more.
For the umpteenth time in my life: What the shit Christians? Anyway if that's the standard we're working with then no, Islam isn't like that; in fact the Quran explicitly states that all of God's creation contains signs of His greatness that must to be pondered. Lemme just...
We will show them Our signs in the universe and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that this [Quran] is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is a Witness over all things?
I've met a scholar who joked that these days you are called a Hafiz, if you memorize the entire Quran. During history many scholars referred to as Hafiz also memorized a hundred thousand Hadith (reports about the life of the Prophet Mohamed sas) or more.
It is really crazy how strong many peoples convictions about Islam are, with how little they usually now about Islam outside of the hate filled propaganda they have been fed for the past decades in many western countries.
I often see this sentiment on the internet, but I wonder what definition people who hold this view are using for "religion" to reach this conclusion. I have found that the definitions of “religion” and “faith” in use by people are so varied or vague that they are almost pointless to use. The way I define them, everyone is religious and faith is a necessity.
life presents a dilemma to me: I would like to conclusively know everything about the universe and reality before deciding what choices to make, but I do not have that luxury. I must make decisions daily with what amounts to almost no information. Faith is not an optional part of life. Some people recognize that necessity and others do not. It is merely a question of who and what you place your faith in.
Rather than use the word "religion", I would be much more interested in asking about people’s worldviews. Wikipedia gives this description: One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical or consistent theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven.
I have boiled this down to two essential questions about the nature of life/existence/reality that can be graphed on a quadrant:
The horizontal axis is the duration of existence. The difference between a worldview with an infinite existence and a worldview with a finite existence is immeasurable. If I believe in an infinite petsonal existence, then my actions have infinite consequences which I must experience the results of. Short of infinite personal existence, I may believe that life/the universe will exist forever, but that I will personally cease to exist when I die. In this case, my actions may still have infinite consequences (for future generations) but I will not personally experience them. A purely finite/temporal worldview would mean that I believe that everything will end in the heat death of the universe or similar life ending event. In this case, it ultimately doesn’t matter what I, or anyone else does in life, everything will end the same way for everyone and all life.
The vertical axis represents the nature of our existence. Is the source of life personal or impersonal? If I believed a completely impersonal worldview, then I would believe that we are essentially just biologically pre-programmed to live our lives based on the DNA that we have been built from and that person hood/personal agency is a construct of the mind with no higher meaning. If I believed in a completely personal worldview, then I would believe that I am created by a personal being that is also interested in a personal relationship with me, and I am created as a reflection of their person hood.
These are foundational questions about the nature of reality that demand an answer. Every choice I make in my life should reflect the answers to these questions. But where are the answers?
In our current society, it seems to be accepted that science and religion are diametrically opposed and cannot co-exist. I have observed, especially on the internet, that if I espouse to be religious, then it is assumed that I believe in flying spaghetti monsters and think the earth is flat. I believe that intellectually honest people will find that they are actually in more similar circumstances than they realize. It would be foolish for me to disregard scientific observation and experimentation, but it would be equally foolish for me to disregard the limitations of those observations and experiments:
It is impossible to take a zero-trust approach with science (never trust, always verify). I don’t have access to a Large Hadron Collider to observe the Higgs boson for myself. I don’t have access to the LUX-ZEPLIN to experiment with dark matter. I don’t have access to the LIGO Lab to observe gravitational waves. I trust that these experiments are conducted correctly and that their findings are correct, but by doing so I am placing my faith in the scientists performing the experiments. I do so also knowing that complete objectivity is impossible. I have a personal bias. My own life experience and observations skew the way I see the world. I assume this is the same of other people, scientists included. Even if I had access to all the equipment necessary, and dedicated my entire life to scientific experimentation, I would only be able to conduct a tiny fraction of experiments necessary to explore just a few of the questions about the nature of the universe. At the end of my life, I would likely have more questions about the universe than when I began. Even if I had the time, ability, and equipment necessary to conduct all necessary experiments to explore my questions about the universe, I would be making a fundamental assumption that I am actually able to observe everything. I have no idea if there are other dimensions that I will never be able to observe or experiment with. I simply have to accept by faith that these do or do not exist. Even if I assumed that everything is observable, and I had the capacity to conduct all necessary experiments, I would still have an impossible problem from a practical standpoint: I need to make decisions on a daily basis. I don’t have a lifetime to wait and scientifically determine the nature of the universe before I make a decision about how I want to live my life. I am living it right now. The fundamental truth about the universe matters in the decisions that I have to make right now.
This is why faith is a necessity. I look around, and I see that I am just one of over seven billion people on this Earth, and that Earth is just one of eight planets orbiting our Sun, and that our Sun is just one of billions of stars in our Milky Way Galaxy, a galaxy that is so vast, even travelling at the impossible speed of light, would take me thousands of lifetimes to traverse, and that galaxy is just one of possibly trillions of galaxies in what is just the observable universe. One thing is for sure. I am very small, in every sense of the word. To sit here, and read this paragraph again, and then think that I really know-it-all would make me one of the most arrogant beings in the universe. I know very little, and I live by faith.
Trust and Faith are not the same thing. A belief is not the same as a fact. Language is a terrible way to talk about this, which is why science uses math.
While trust and faith aren't perfect synonyms they are closely related: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/trust
As for math, are you familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorems?
This is a good explanation/interview for anyone who is not: https://youtu.be/u3GYrEOoKGk
Most people use "religion" to mean "organized religion" in particular, and many people further take it to mean christianity and christianity-like religions. Religion is a word that is hard to define, but I think that although there are many edge cases, most people mostly agree on what is and what isnt a religion. My point here is that, just because they are not definable in a strict sense, does not mean the words "religion" and "faith" are "pointless". They very much have meaning.
Many words are like that: no clear definition but they refer to real things or ideas. For example, existentialism, postmodernism, artistic styles (such as cubism or impressionism), etc. And even many terms in the sciences are like that. None of the words mathematics, physics or philosophy have clear-cut definitions. Hell, i can take this to the extreme. Even words like water or gold do not have a clear definition, in the way that lay people use them. Seawater is water even though it is made up of more than just H2O. 95% ethanol is never called water, even though 5% of it is water.
My point is that memes like this use religion as a strawman because they don't actually want to discuss the foundational concepts expressed by the meme. Which is what I addressed, in my admittedly very lenghy, response.