444

submitted 7 months ago by poplargrove@lemmy.world to c/196

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

I haven't checked it out and I'd be open to review the evidence in its favor, the reason behind my comment was this:

Unfortunately, y’all atheists don’t believe in magic (...) You won’t mix science and religion, so you can’t innovate as much

By definition, if something is observed to behave according to logical laws, it is not supernatural, and therefore not magic. Religion by definition requires faith, and if you're using faith specifically for your scientific endeavors, you're doing science wrong.

[-] exocrinous@startrek.website 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

I'm going to be charitable and assume that you're describing faith as something that may be studied by science, which I have no issues with.

If you think faith is required at any point of the methodology of the scientific method, you should go back to middle school.

[-] SphereofWreckening@ttrpg.network 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

No it isn't lol. You can tangibly observe, experiment, and interact with the placebo effect/pharmaceuticals. There is a literal method that is used to prove things like the placebo effect.

Faith (from the religious understanding) is for that which can't be proven, thus antithetical to science. And before I hear something bogus like "faith in the method": that method has proven itself millions of times over with physical tangible proof.

Hell if you Google the definition of faith the second one is literally "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."