• TheAndrewBrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, scientifically this is a hypothesis that there is no way of proving. It’s theoretically possible there is a god or gods that whispered in someone’s ear to set up a particular religion and would do the same again if all the religions are wiped out. Competing religions doesn’t disprove that, it would just mean those people didn’t hear the whisper (or maybe misunderstood it). This statement is literally impossible to prove or disprove (without lots of genocide and record destroying).

    If we’re gonna base ourselves on science, we should actually follow its rules.

    • 3rdBlueWizard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The same science has happened in two places at once before. Lots of people rush to publish to avoid getting scooped.

      Religion is just fiction, so this has not happened there. Heck, Joseph Smith couldn’t even invent his religion twice without messing things up.

      Maybe not precisely the same as the quote, but it’s pretty similar. If there was a true religion, you’d expect it to have happened many times identically all over the world.

      • TheAndrewBrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not disagreeing with that, but the person claimed it was 100% true and that’s not how science works lol

      • fisk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Scientific innovation that occurs at multiple places coincidentally is not an indicator that there’s some grand and unbiased truth to the world, it’s an indicator that our shared ideas about the world lead to the same conclusions.

      • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It sounds like you haven’t studied the broader fabric of religion much. There are fundamental principles that do indeed pop up in unrelated systems, at least as unrelated as the scientific examples you refer to. That doesn’t prove it’s true, just that this is an argument built on fallacy. Any differences that exist would just be part of scientific experimentation, so to speak.

    • fisk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Science is not some monolithic set of rules applied in the same way across all fields.

      • TheAndrewBrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        There absolutely are rules that apply across fields. One of them is coming up with a hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis and not accepting it as fact until it’s been tested, proven, re-proven, and peer reviewed. That’s the basis of science.

          • fkn@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Have you even read the source you linked? I am getting heavy, heavy bad faith argumentation from you. Either you truly don’t understand what is being said here or you are arguing in bad faith.

            • fisk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yeah, I know you’re getting bad faith vibes, I get it. No. Fellow athiest, overly educated, social scientist and critical theorist. I’ve read all of my sources - but I’ll admit that one of them (whatever Christian site I liked to) was a quick skim to confirm that yes, this was a long discussion about the different factions and their disagreements, and that was exactly the point I was looking to make.

              The original post - the image itself - demonstrates a genuine lack of understanding of the history and philosophy of science. I’ve cited Fleck elsewhere in the comments. It’s just a meme community, I can let that slide.

              The comments that seem to be suggesting that disagreement among members of a religion is sufficient to dismiss their ideas is, however, more worrying. Disagreements and their resolutions (or lack thereof) are key features of scientific discovery - we need diverse perspectives, we need people who disagree, we need people who argue their positions in compelling and challenging ways. To call out those disagreements as epistemic flaws in contrast to science dismisses the incredible importance of disagreement and controversy in not just science but in all areas of human and social life.

              As I’ve said elsewhere in the comments - both science and religion are messy, problematic, lack internal consistency, and have caused great human and environmental harms. That doesn’t mean science isn’t useful, and science isn’t diminished by our frank discussion of it.

              edit: reviewer @fkn has requested a revision of paragraph two, and the author acknowledges that all of the above was written in haste (and surrounded by loud children)

              *edit 2: apologies, I was replying from my inbox, didn’t get the context. Yes, I’ve read Epistemic Cultures on many, many occasions, and probably have suggested others read it as many times.

              • fkn@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                After reading another thread you are commenting on, I am inclined to give you a second chance at your post. Go ahead and re-read that absolutely garbage second paragraph and try again.

                  • fkn@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Now your points make sense. I generally agree with the stance you have presented. I also think that most critically thinking people would also be able to get this position as well.

                    That said, when looking at the flow of thread responses here I can see why people are annoyed and your comments are generally downvoted. The initial responses, while consistent with your more thorough presentation, can be construed as a false equivalence argument (which is where the bad faith argumentation accusation I made comes from). Generally, dealing with religious trolls who use nearly identical arguments, who also gish gallop and such drives people insane.

                    Disagreements in the scientific community and disagreements in religious communities are not the same. Suggesting that they are equal reeks of religious trolling trying to discredit the scientific method.