• fisk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The biggest difference, however, is that you can test a scientific interpretation, repeat a study, etc. You can be proven wrong or validated as right.

    As it turns out, not all the time. In fact, not even all that frequently. Popper criticized the idea of verification, Kuhn criticized the idea of falsification, and neither idea solves the demarcation (between science and non-science) problem. For a quick reference that won’t require a number of books, try this.

    You see, it really doesn’t make any sense…

    It doesn’t make sense to you based on what your ideas of legitimate knowledge are - and you’re making some major generalizations about how religion operates. For some religions there is a monotheistic deity, and for some of those religions the word of that deity is immutable law. But even in those cases, there is significant debate over what exactly constitutes the “word of God” - I mean, it’s why there’s so many different sects and factions (and even those argue internally). Just like in science, there are different interpretations of our observed world, and some interpretations become more dominant than others - and not always because they best align with our observations of the physical world.

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it actually makes no sense that a relgion can simultaneously believe that the earth is 6000 years old AND that it’s billions of years old based on how they interpret canon.

      I was raised Catholic, and still can’t believe the absolute absurdity that grownups are telling themselves with absolute convict that they know the true word of the lord. It’s as sad as it is hilarious.

      it’s why there’s so many different sects and factions

      No, the OP explains that, and it’s because these religions are all bullshit and based on bullshit. Of the hundreds of Christian denominations, which is right? One of them? All of them? Some of them? None of them?

      If there is disagreement about things that should be crystal clear, who’s right? And who gives them the authority to “be right”? To them, only god knows the Truth, so any reinterpretation would be false by default.

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

        No, it actually makes no sense that a relgion can simultaneously believe that the earth is 6000 years old AND that it’s billions of years old based on how they interpret canon.

        Again, to you. That makes sense to the people who do believe that. It’s just simply that you have - literally - different ways of making sense.

        The OP on this thread only says “That’s a 100% true observations. Most religions can’t even agree with themselves.” and I’m (being a giant pain in the ass and) responding specifically to your emphasis that it is this disagreement that invalidates religious thought. I still hold that there’s no issue with disagreement within or among religious groups, in terms of the validity of their worldviews.

        Religions have come up with ways of determining who is “right” under various conditions of dispute, just as science and other fields (like law), have. I am by no means a Catholic scholar, but I am very much under the impression that the religious texts Christianity are based on require translation efforts, and that those translation efforts can lose meaning in translation, not just between languages but between historical contexts - like many other historical texts. As such, they require study and interpretation - something that even those most fervent and uneducated of followers seem to understand.

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

          What evidence is there for the fundamental assertion within Christianity that the Christian god exists in the first place? What room is there for questioning that assertion? And don’t give me that “intelligent design” bullshit either. That argument has been debunked a thousand times already. ~Strawberry

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

            What evidence is there for the fundamental assertion within Christianity that the Christian god exists in the first place?

            None, as far as I’m aware! I’m not defending the religion.

            What room is there for questioning that assertion?

            In some factions, plenty. In others, not so much. I’ve met plenty of Christian folks that don’t believe in intelligent design, and it’s not like they’re immediately ejected from the church - and this appears to even be true among Catholic leadership. It’s a controversy.

            And don’t give me that “intelligent design” bullshit

            I think you have the wrong idea about me, which is understandable, given how annoying I’m being.