• teft@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There seems to be an innate need for religion.

    For whom? Because I sure as shit don’t have any need to believe in fairy tales.

    • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the biggest issue is religious people that can only view things through the lense of their own perspective equate any belief system with religion. And since we, as humans, categorize everything, everyone has a “belief system,” even if you believe in absolutely nothing (nihilism).

      So “atheism” is considered a religion, believing in the scientific method is a religion, and believing in the inherent and equal rights of people is a religion.

      • money_loo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        So much this.

        My little brother is religious AF and I’m an atheist, and that whole tidbit was one of the more frustrating things to argue against.

        He’d INSIST that if I didn’t have faith in God, I must have faith in something, because it’s human nature to believe.

        It’s like, naw bro, maybe that’s just YOUR nature, but it’s like he just couldn’t think outside that type of thing.

        • III@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          it’s human nature to believe

          This is why children never ask questions like “why”. Not ever, not even a little bit. They just believe they understand and never even inquire.

    • Lonnie123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thats just what people say when people want to categorize some idea as a religion. “wokeness” or even atheism itself is called a “religion” because it makes the religious feel better about believing in their own beliefs for which there is no basis.

    • ByteWizard@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      For whom?

      Generally the uneducated or low-iq who simply can’t be educated. They don’t understand science so to them it might as well be another religion. In that case why not pick the religion that gives them a nice afterlife? Something they can fall back on and blame when they make poor decision after poor decision.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      On the most fundamental level: For everyone. That’s because every world-view bogs down to a logical system and all logical systems are grounded in circular reasoning, paradox, or assumptions not provable in that system.

      People believe in all kinds of things, e.g. that the judge who’s sentencing you to prison is more than a human in fancy clothes. Or that the social reality that gives them that power doesn’t exist. Both stances are, ultimately, insane, and so are we all.

      EDIT: ITT: Cargo cultists not understanding what science is (a process) and isn’t (proof of anything).

      • teft@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        all logical systems are grounded in circular reasoning, paradox, or assumptions not provable in that system.

        That’s a hell of an assertion you have there. We have mathematical papers that prove 1+1=2. What logical system are you saying is grounded in circular reasoning, paradox, or assumptions? Because modern peer reviewed science sure isn’t.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          We have mathematical papers that prove 1+1=2

          They postulate systems in which that is entailed. Generally, as we’re speaking about maths, with assumptions (axioms) not provable in that system, mathematicians don’t like basing things on circular or paradox stuff but ultimately that’s a matter of taste, not what the system can express.

          What logical system are you saying is grounded in circular reasoning, paradox, or assumptions?

          All. Show me a proof of implication without using either, I’m waiting.

          Because modern peer reviewed science sure isn’t.

          It is based on the scientific method which can be understood as an algorithm which via Curry-Howard and Church is a logic which, well, see above. The universe might just as well be a Holtzmann brain and in exactly 15 seconds after you read this it’s going to switch to a different dream, and you’ll never know.


          Now you may not like that we ultimately have nothing to stand on but that’s your problem, not that of the universe. Or science. Don’t shoot the messenger.

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

        Is science a process or a world-view? That fact you apparently can’t tell the difference is the problem here.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a process. Belief in it from a practical purpose is a world-view and also very sensible as that process being useful matches experience; it is a healthy adaptation of oneself to the surrounding circumstances. Belief in it from a “science knows truth and is the only source of truth” is, first of all, unscientific, secondly, a cargo cult. Science doesn’t tell you shit about whether you should stick your dick in crazy and if it did it wouldn’t tell you the same as your genes which is what you’re going to listen to anyway, and find some rationalisation to dismiss that particular piece of science. And that’s fine. We’re all human.