Well exactly. The only reason we have vaccines is because of disease.
Throw the baby out with the bathwater
Submitted 3 weeks ago by Forester@pawb.social to [deleted]
https://pawb.social/pictrs/image/c939cab5-dc05-4577-8642-77fdad2f68a5.png
Comments
serpineslair@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Forester@pawb.social 3 weeks ago
One of the earliest documented cases of variolation involved a Buddhist nun (bhikkhuni) between 1022 and 1063 CE. She ground smallpox scabs into a fine powder and administered it through the nostrils of an uninfected person to promote immunity.
s@piefed.world 3 weeks ago
Isolated moments of reason are not due to institutions of unreason. Rather, they are in spite of them.
pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
What does that have to do with religion
daannii@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Buddism, which is an agnostic religion, does currently and historically promote science And scholar work.
They might literally be the only religion to do this.
db2@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Maybe if you guys hadn’t pooped in the bathwater for centuries it might be worth saving. But as usual it’s everyone else’s fault, isn’t it.
Forester@pawb.social 3 weeks ago
You might need to check your reading comprehension.
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Right? Who saves bathtubs?
hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Science is for things we can prove, religion is for things we want to believe.
Why not use science when possible and religion when needed?
Everyone is free to believe in the funny old man controlling us and still accept that atoms exist.
These things are not mutually exclusive. And if they are to you, that’s probably because you’re a dick about it.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Not to get too reddit athiest about it, but the main problem I’d have with even innocent spiritualism is that it’s a bad habit, basically. If somebody believes something that isn’t empirical, you can’t use empiricism to bring them out of that pit. And the more they train that muscle, the stronger it is, you know?
It creates a bunch of mental sweater-snags that either prevent people from believing obviously true things, or that allow them to be yoinked by snake oil salesmen into wackier and wackier positions.
hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I empathize with that argument because it is reminiscent of family, but I still think some people need spirituality for their mental health. Turns out, when you think the world is less chaotic and more sorted out, it’s less exhausting to think about.
I get that it’s dangerous but especially in territories stricken with poverty you get swaths of people turning to religion, and I genuinely believe that’s because everyone wants to cling to something. And at some point I really do believe to live and let live. Specifically, when we don’t know for certain, why not let people speculate?
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
Also speaking for the US, aspects of the civil rights movement and other positive political movements have at times been critically dependent on religious organization… and I have no interests in defending organized religion, I don’t consider myself religious but the reality is much more complex than “religion dumb science smart”.
For one, the concept of evolution and then genetics absolutely supercharged racism and honestly Science had little capability to mitigate it. The 20th century may have gone very differently if Scientific leaders had immediately resoundingly rejected eugenics at an ideological level rather than attempt to differentiate what they studied from "race ““science”” in the details. In otherwords, Science was incapable of equipping the followers of its ideology with the systematic tools to resist fascism and oppression whereas you can easily demonstrate various different religious groups that were instrumental in resisting fascism and oppression.
Religion isn’t the point, from a scientific perspective religion is relevant because people imbue it with belief and that should be respected for the reality that creates, the point isn’t that god exists or doesn’t honestly I think no question could be more boring to a true scientist who would know such questions by definition cannot be answered. A true scientist is also driven by a love for the universe that is around them, and ultimately that isn’t too different than someone who is truly religious at the core of the human experience of it.
Organized religions are always two things, the religion itself and the political structure of the religion and in many cases those political structures can be very hostile to Science, but I do not believe inherently so and I do not believe it is a lack of Scientific thinking that allows the political structures of religion to become hostile towards Science since Science cannot even prevent the internal structures it is built upon from becoming hostile to itself.
It is funny that the more you talk about “science” and the more you talk about “religion” the more universally relevant yet irrelevant the words become, the reality always escapes a single word like that…
notreallyhere@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
yes, but satanism specifically
srasmus@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
Science is only antithetical to religion if you define religion as only “blind superstition” or science as more than “a system of identifying expected outcomes of experiments”.
Zwiebel@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Science doesn’t touch any “why” questions at all so you’re perfectly free to believe in some god who made things be the way they are. Now some of the shit in the bible though…
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
LOL, “anthetical”
Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Religious people (especially monotheistic religions, not sure about pantheistic ones like Hinduism) have more reason to study science than non religious people. Everyone can get practical value from studying the world, but religious people also study science to learn more about God.
yistdaj@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
This is an interesting one, and I feel like there are many nuanced conversations to be had about this. I talk mostly about Christianity below, because that is what I have most experience with.
For one, most of the Christian churches that founded universities are considered rather theologically liberal now, sometimes to the point where its adherents question the basis of what I would consider Christianity. While those that haven’t are usually rather conservative. Interestingly, it is conservative churches that are growing right now, while liberal ones appear to be shrinking.
I have personally seen conservative Christians claim that not just religion, but specifically Christianity invented science, and also presuppose that modern science will come round to their belief in an approximately 6000 year old Earth eventually. Whenever scientists stop rejecting the obvious truth. These conservative Christians seem to expect science to only ever confirm their ideas, and if it doesn’t, the science is being read wrong. I can’t claim they aren’t religious, and I can’t claim this isn’t their religion.
But I do acknowledge that many religions have a history promoting scientific thought, that it can be compatible. Religious institutions encouraged people to value knowledge, and used to be a major source of funding to the sciences. From what I’ve heard, religion technically isn’t about belief at all, but ritual and community. I think those are both positive things that we don’t see as much in our society today.
I think there is something in the history of science greater at play than just religion by itself, but that religion may play a role in. The question becomes then: how crucial a role?
halvar@lemy.lol 1 week ago
Obviously a lot of the science back in the day was done by the clergy, but even as someone religious I call bait.
s@piefed.world 3 weeks ago
The only reason we have the Emancipation Proclamation is because of institutionalized slavery
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
How come you get upvotes and op gets downs?
s@piefed.world 3 weeks ago
Because OP used bad logic to promote an idea and I deftly satirized that by using the same bad logic in a way which clearly and humorously shows it to be fallacious