this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
423 points (96.5% liked)

World News

39406 readers
2549 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Russia’s science and higher education ministry has dismissed the head of a prestigious genetics institute who sparked controversy by contending that humans once lived for centuries and that the shorter lives of modern humans are due to their ancestors’ sins, state news agency RIA-Novosti said Thursday.

Although the report did not give a reason for the firing of Alexander Kudryavtsev, the influential Russian Orthodox Church called it religious discrimination.

Kudryavtsev, who headed the Russian Academy of Science’s Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, made a presentation at a conference in 2023 in which he said people had lived for some 900 years prior to the era of the Biblical Flood and that “original, ancestral and personal sins” caused genetic diseases that shortened lifespans.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The big difference is that many religious beliefs can't be tested. They are just believed in faith. In science, nothing is believed. It's all evidence based and tested. A scientist doesn't have to reconcile their religious beliefs with their scientific ways because their beliefs are outside the realm of the scientific method. They accept that they don't have a way to measure or test those things.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Beliefs can't, but those beliefs generally come from somewhere, and those books tend to be full of testable claims.

And those tests generally fail, meaning we can only assume those sources are not really literally true. And if they're not true, you're really just making stuff up as you go along and assuming things are true as you see fit.

Now, there's nothing wrong with making stuff up, I do it all the time for table top gaming. But I don't base my worldview on the stuff I just imagine into being

Deism isn't incompatible with science, but any god who does stuff can be tested. Since I've never seen a single paper published showing any evidence for any god, I can only assume that either no gods exist, or they don't do anything. For me, those are basically the same thing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There are things in those books that are demonstrably true, but that doesn't necessarily prove everything in them just as those things that are demonstrably false don't necessarily disprove everything in them.

It's just a matter of not being able to observe, measure, or physically test a god's existence. From an objective standpoint, believing whether a god exists or not is still just a belief.

I'm only trying to show how a scientific person could compartmentalize their beliefs from their studies and to that end, I think we agree that they aren't incompatible. What someone chooses to believe after that is up to them, because as you point out, there's no peer reviewed published evidence one way or another.