• Revonult@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t consider myself as religious, but this is just such a bad take.

    I too dislike religion, but judging people based on their beliefs and discrediting their views because of it is exactly the problem.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think understanding one’s own biases is not a problem. Ethics in science is currently a problem. Political lobbying affiliations and funding sources for studies should really be prominently displayed as well.

    • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      I disagree. For hundreds of years, illogical religious beliefs have biased science. People should have a right to know if scientists have religious beliefs so they can be weary of their agendas affecting the results. Many religious beliefs are obviously illogical and make no sense and if a scientist believes them, it does illuminate the likelihood of the accuracy of their results.

      For many years “scientists” said homosexuality was caused by “mental illness” and then suddenly they decided it’s not. There were entire scientific programs devoted to racist beliefs that were psuedoscientific and often impacted by religious views justifying racism. Of course religion biases science and is a problem in having unbiased research!

      I don’t think we should outlaw religious people from practicing science, but their views should at least be known so people can scrutinize their work more closely.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        Question… do you realize how fascist this sounds?

        You might mean well, but all you’re doing is changing who’s being discriminated against.

        Not cool.

        • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          4 months ago

          The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition defines fascist as an advocate or adherent of fascism, A reactionary or dictatorial person, An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.

          I’m not saying right now we need to put all religious people to death, I am just tired of their lies infecting science. The idea that the delusional morons who believe their deities float on clouds and their virgins give birth are capable of objective science is preposterous. If such “miracles” exist, then the universe doesn’t follow laws of math. Yes, if we are living in a simulated reality that can be hacked then such miracles could happen, but unless a religious scientist is practicing Kali, I don’t want their religion polluting data with bullshit.

            • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              The yellow badge was part of a racist ideology based on eugenics pseudoscience.

              This is not race or ethnicity based or part of a political movement. However, if you are a conservative Christian who believes that a virgin gave birth, that Sunday bread has supernatural properties, and listen to the Pope and religious sermons on a regular basis, then YES, IT DOES AFFECT YOUR FETAL PAIN STUDY when you clearly are trying to outlaw abortion because your religion wants that.

              My wanting to know the religious bias of someone believing in illogical fairy tale bullshit is not the equivalent of Nazism, who would have put someone like me to death many times over. I don’t want bullshit to taint science. It’s an understandable request. The atheists of the world have been dealing with religious bullshit for so long, it’s fair to want real data.

              If we had the religious bias of scientists clearly known, it would be illuminating in many ways, including scientific equivalency which has become the new moral equivalency.

              Right now you have “one the one hand, these 90 scientists believe we are all going to die from global warming but these 10 scientists think this is a normal trend”

              I would MUCH rather have “on the one hand, these 90 scientists who believe the world is governed by math think we are all going to die from global warming, and these 10 catholic scientists who think a virgin got pregnant and gave birth without sexual fertilization and that jesus will always protect the planet think this is a normal trend”

              this is not a ridiculous or fascist position and religious bullshit has infected climate science, and studying psychology, and led to justifications for racism and homophobia and OFTEN results in scientific conclusions that conveniently seem to at first line up with religion… until more and more data eventually proves it to be bullshit. This is not about discrimination. I want bullshit out of the data set.

              • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                I understand your position and I get what you are going for, but…

                I submit to you Ayn Rand.

                Atheists can be giant pieces of shit, too.

                She used her atheism to argue for the benefit of selfishness and promoted dumbass “great men” theories of humanity. She was not Christian but ascribed to similar belief in the need for bullshit heirarchies with lazy fucking losers stealing the value created by labor sitting at the top.

                Like her daddy before communism. Waaah so sad for daddy’s violently fascist supporting little girl.

                So I don’t think it would solve as much as you think.

                Humans are not rational creatures. We are rationalizing creatures and we can rationalize and justify almost anything to ourselves for any reason, religion isn’t needed for it. Rand and many others are fine examples of it. She rationalized it because she was a rich kid who had her riches taken back by workers and she didn’t like that.

                Humans are bullshitters, removing religion won’t change that.

                Like does anyone think Donald Trump is seriously, actually religious? Anyone? A guy like him would exist with or without religion.

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                And, do you think, that a scientist who happens to be LGBTQ, doing a study on monkey sexuality, is able to be not biased by their worldview?

                That because they seem to agree with you they’re immune from bias and are therefore totally trustworthy?

                How pedantic do you want to get?

                Either the science is good or it’s not. Either the study was conducted to minimize bias, the data is clean, and the conclusions come from verified evidence, or it’s not. We don’t need to know what particular flavor of human someone is- everyone is biased. Most studies are funded by private interest, and opening people up to rampant discrimination isn’t going to change that.

              • Maeve@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Some people can be religious and understand metaphor: some people can be atheist and understand metaphor. Some prime can be religious and interpret religion literally: as can some atheists (eg ” those people believe all the species on earth fit on a boat" when obviously, many religious don’t). I’m reading statements that make good points, either way. Maybe peer review being more stringent would address a lot?

              • pupupipi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                4 months ago

                i’m sorry that you have to live with such anger in your heart, G*D bless your poor soul 🫰🫰

                • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  and let reason one day remove your cognitive short-comings and bestow you with hate for the injustice minorities have had to suffer at the hands of the religious

                • Lilit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Why do religious types always drop this when they really have nothing to say? “Oh I believe in something that is so hateful and has caused many pain but why are you so angry?!!? Omg poor thing! Bless you!.”.This is how I know someone isn’t truly following these things with their heart. They’re following it to feel superior to those who don’t believe or who don’t practice the way they do. I’ve never seen hate like religious hate.

                  • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    they do this when they have nothing to say AND lack power

                    if this religious person had power and knew who I was and where I was, and there was a government of like-minded religious dullards, they would be more than willing to light the first twig

                    It’s only “oh you poor thing” because my logic has over-whelmed their feeble religious brain like a tidal wave subsuming the shore and they are falling back on delusions of “i hope this person receives mercy.,… because they are so EVIL!!! and the sky god knows all!!!”

                    it’s meaningless blather that tells you nothing of the true destructive power of religious idiots

            • Barrymore@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              Not advocating for the other person, but there’s a big difference in what you’re comparing it to. People choose their religion, and they choose their profession. If those 2 things are in direct conflict, like a religious scientist, the audience of their work should be made aware of that conflict.

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Most people are born into their religion, as a matter of culture. Frequently, religion is integral to their culture, and even if they do choose to leave that religion, it likely will leave an indelible mark- good or bad-

                Their purpose is to other-ize religious scientists, exactly like what the yellow star was used to do to Jews by Nazis, (and at other times and places.) I think we all know what Nazis did to those they otherized.

                The rhetoric is absolutely the same kind of justification for forcing it is also the same. When non-Jewish Germans started sympathies with Jews, do you think they admitted it was to encourage discrimination and bigotry, or do you think they said things like “we know it’s difficult, but they do shoddy work and you should know that you need to keep an eye on them.”

                Couching it in the rhetoric of atheist enlightenment doesn’t make it okay. It’s still bigotry, and while the OC might not realize that, meaning to or not, it’s still advancing bigotry.

                • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  when treated with ideals of respect and tolerance, religious people still adhere to the tenants of their religions leading to bigotry and stupidity

                  being tolerant of the religious is like being tolerant of a pack of rabid hyenas. I suppose it’s the kind thing to do to the rabid hyenas, but it may not be the best option for those who are not rabid hyenas

                  the religious burned scientists at the stake. i think having skepticism towards the rational ability of religious scientists is not bigotry when religious irrationality has been shown to have broad and constant historical validity

                  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Yeah. So. To clarify, you’re okay with discriminating against people, so long as they’re the right people?

      • Revonult@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        What field would be the cut off? Is religion going to influence how a metallurgist analyzes microstructure? How about how a chemist developing new polymers? Who gets to decide? If a scientist allows their religion, or any external influence, to influence their work they are a bad scientist. Which is why we have peer review and reproducible results. There is no need to label anyone. If their work is shit there is mechanisms to correct it, which we are seeing in the article.

        People’s relationship with religion is not up to you, just how the opinions of the religious shouldn’t get to dictate the lives LGBT+. They might be in it for community and don’t belive the “fantasy”. If an individual is spouting hate that is one thing, but judging individuals by their religion is the same persecution the religious zelots dish out.

        Edit: some wording

        • Shou@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          As someone who absolutely hates religions and the effects it had on science and animal welfare on the european continent. I 100% agree with you.

          I don’t care for the cut off statement, because who cares about metallury if a faith doesn’t affect it?

          The labelling and lack of privacy is always a bad development. Always. It is the first step needed to prosecute any group. The holocaust museum’s wall paper are chronological steps that the nazi’s took to gain power and strip away human rights. And the wallpaper goes on and on, floor to floor.

          People should be free to believe, but they should be taught not to obfuscate or ignore observations just because of religion. Especially in the fields of medicine and biology. Especially in women’s health.

          • Revonult@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            The cutoff statement was a question for the previous commenter to show that only some science is relevant to religious beliefs and therefore their thinking is flawed.

            • Shou@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              I disagree here. It isn’t a flaw in logic to think it should apply when religion interferes with the research. Just because the person didn’t make a distinction, doesn’t mean it was flawed thinking.

              The flaw is intolerance and breech of privacy. Which we shouldn’t tolerate intolerance and protect every member of society.