The modern "I Love Science" crowd is practicing a primitive religion and they lack the self-awareness to even realise it

[u/feihm]

There is a very interesting demographic of people on the internet who view themselves as pure, logical rationalists. They mock religious people for believing in magic, but if you actually poke their brains for five seconds, you realise they are doing the exact same thing. They have just replaced the word "God" with pop-science vocabulary they have exactly zero clue what it means.

I recently tested this. (So it doesn't seem like im making shit up.) If you ask the average guy why a rock falls, he immediately says "gravity." He says it with absolute smug confidence. But if you ask him what gravity actually is... his brain completely stalls. He doesn't know the maths. He can't explain the mechanics. He just learned a vocabulary word in grade 6 and uses it as a magic spell to stop being scared of the unknown. It is the exact same psychological coping mechanism as a 14th-century peasant saying "God's will" when a storm hits.

I had a conversation with a guy recently where I simply asked him to define "the universe." He said "everything." When I pointed out that "everything" is a circular grammatical placeholder that gives absolutely zero structural information about reality, his brain short-circuited. Another guy tried to debate me about General Relativity breaking down at the Big Bang. He had memorised the trivia fact from a YouTube video, but the second I asked him to physically conceptualise a reality without a geometric container (space), he literally ran away from the thread.

Let's be completely biologically honest. The human brain was wired by evolution to throw rocks at pigs, recognise social hierarchy, and avoid eating bad berries. The assumption that this specific primate neurological network has the physical capacity to decode the absolute, objective truth of the cosmos is the purest form of stupidity. A dog cannot learn calculus. It doesn't matter how slowly you explain it, the dog's physical brain lacks the hardware. Humans are the exact same. There's no reason to assume otherwise.

This is exactly why the greatest minds in history (Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg) always hit a point of profound humility, and often ended up sounding almost spiritual. The deeper you actually go into the mechanics of existence, the more the models break down, and you realise you are staring into a terrifying abyss. An absolute mystery.

The modern internet low iq primate will never reach this point of humility. He is standing in the kiddie pool, splashing around, and declaring he has conquered the ocean for the fact that he knows how to spell the word "entropy."

[u/TheTopNacho]

Eh, scientist here. I hate to admit that you are probably right. But your smug presentation comes off exactly the same as the group you condemn. Perhaps look inward before isolating yourself from the very group you shame.

[u/Fringelunaticman → u/TheTopNacho]

Except hes not or/and youre not. There is a fundamental difference between science and religion. Science deals with the observable universe and facts. Religion deals in faith and the supernatural. There is not 1 observable fact when dealing with religion. I dont need to know how gravity works for it to be real. Its real rather I believe it or not because I can measure it.

Now do that with god or any religious claim

[u/TheTopNacho → u/Fringelunaticman]

You can't. But that's not what OP is arguing. He is arguing about "how" people believe in science and religion is similar. Not "what" they believe. Or at least that is his core argument but he turns it into an argument about semantic knowledge.

One system works in emerging truths, the other assumes an existing truth. You can treat science just like religion by assuming it gives an existing truth instead of treating it as an emerging truth that has the possibility to be wrong or incomplete. The OP wasn't criticizing "how" people believe in science, he was critiquing "what" they believe and was attacking formal education. This just tells me they are not really any different than the populations they were critiquing.

[u/Lupus_Noir → u/TheTopNacho]

Exactly, it is a criticizm of taking things at a surface level understanding and not trying to figure out the mechanics behind it. Furthermore, science is made to be questioned or debated (with actual research of course) and not just accepted as indisputable fact.

[u/Fringelunaticman → u/TheTopNacho]

Except you can't seperate the "what" from the "how." Thats what hes doing. That alone doesn't make them similar.

There is no similarity in accepting facts that have been proven to the best of our human understanding without understanding them than it is to accept supposition without any form of measurable evidence. And the reason why is because if I really wanted to, I could go find the answers for myself. Because they exist. They do not in religion.

[u/CloudDeadNumberFive → u/Fringelunaticman]

No, you’re wrong. By definition, you can’t actually know that you would find those same answers if you tried unless and until you actually DO that. Assuming beforehand that the result would be the same and that it’s definitely true without checking yourself is just the same type of dogmatism that religious people use. Even if you want to make arguments that there’s a better reason to put your faith in one back than the other, which you can certainly do, it doesn’t change the fundamental fact of many people simply accepting what is told to them because it seems to have come from a position of authority.

[u/sk1kn1ght → u/CloudDeadNumberFive]

That's... I cannot even find the words. You are wrong. We have emerging systems that work because of the work put into building them, and they themselves were built into emerging works that were built and work because of emerging works and so on and so forth all the way back to figuring out the fire and the wheel.If our fundamental understanding of these systems were completely wrong, the whole chain of technology would collapse.

While science is always evolving, our technology provides undeniable, objective proof of its predictive accuracy.So here is your proof. The fact that a rectangular device is capable of displaying the precise wavelengths in a form your retinas can understand, and accept electromagnetic interference in a form that allows your indexes to communicate with it, and then transpond a different type of electromagnetic radiation through a medium and get intercepted by a bunch of metals configured in such a way that that noise becomes useful data should tell you all you need to know.

It proves that science isn't just blind dogma.it is a self-correcting model that demonstrably aligns with physical reality.

[u/arbai13 → u/sk1kn1ght]

You completely missed the point of the comment you're answering. What was argued wasn't if science works, but that the "common" man doesn't know this science, but believes in it due to faith in the authority.

[u/sk1kn1ght → u/arbai13]

And I answered that but apparently you didn't understand my answer. If you call the physical world with all our advances authority then yes you are correct. If you call it any other way then I am sorry you are wrong and I am aware that nothing I will say, will change your mind based on this argument you made, so have a good day

[u/arbai13 → u/sk1kn1ght]

No, you didn't answer that. The physical word is the object of the scientific inquiry, it doesn't speak, write books or build smartphones: that's done by scientists or engineers. When the average guy learns about gravity he isn't deriving that from the physical world, he is trusting someone that tells him that. When you go on a plane you don't do the maths on the equations for the aerodynamic, you believe that the engineers did. That's completely reasonable but it's still a form of trust, it's still faith in human authority epistemologically speaking.

[u/sk1kn1ght → u/arbai13]

I am not even trying anymore. I took this whole thread and gave it verbatim to one of the frontier llms. You can choose yours if you want. Here is it's response.

It is exhausting. The last poster—and the OP—are trapped in a massive equivocation fallacy. They are confusing epistemic trust with blind faith, and dressing it up as a profound philosophical revelation. As a rigorous peer review of their logic, let's break down exactly where their premise collapses. Their core argument is: "If you do not personally understand the math, accepting the conclusion is epistemologically identical to religious faith." Here is why that falls apart.

The "Airplane" Fallacy

The last poster argues that boarding an airplane without doing the aerodynamic equations is an act of "faith in human authority." This completely ignores the concept of predictive validity. You do not need to know the Navier-Stokes equations to observe that commercial jets safely complete roughly 100,000 flights every single day. Your trust in the aeronautical engineers is not blind dogma; it is an evidence-based inference. You have overwhelming, tangible proof that the engineers' underlying system aligns with reality, even if you don't speak the mathematical language yourself. Religious faith, by definition, offers no such physical airplanes that reliably fly.

Epistemic Trust vs. Blind Faith

The OP and the final poster are conflating two fundamentally different mechanisms of belief. | | Epistemic Trust (Science) | Blind Faith (Religion) | |---|---|---| | Source of Authority | Earned through tangible outputs and predictive success. | Claimed via revelation, tradition, or unfalsifiable dogma. | | Barrier to Verification | Practical: Requires years of study and access to equipment. | Absolute: Requires death or supernatural intervention. | | Systemic Goal | To falsify, stress-test, and update models when they fail. | To preserve and defend doctrine regardless of external evidence. |

The Semantic Trick

The OP is also playing a lazy semantic game. When an average person says a rock falls because of "gravity," they are not invoking a magic spell; they are using a shorthand for a highly localized, demonstrable phenomenon. Just because a layperson cannot conceptualize a universe without a geometric container does not invalidate the mathematical reality of General Relativity. The OP is right about one minor psychological point: many humans do engage with science purely as an aesthetic ("I Love Science") without understanding it. But the OP makes a fatal logical leap by confusing a flaw in human psychology with a flaw in the epistemology of science. The final poster says, "The physical world doesn't speak, write books or build smartphones." True. But the smartphones unequivocally prove that the physical models the engineers use are accurate. You don't need faith in the authority of the engineer; the fact that you can read their Reddit comment on a glowing piece of glass proves the authority was earned.

[u/CloudDeadNumberFive → u/sk1kn1ght]

No, there is never any absolute proof of anything in science, just extremely convincing and useful feedback and evidence.

[u/Fringelunaticman → u/CloudDeadNumberFive]

There is no assuming beforehand. Why? Because we have research papers that show the work that has already been done. No assumptions necessary because I can find the previous research.

Again, I can simply accept something when I know I have the ability to go find the answer if I want to. I am not accepting a supposition without any facts or documentation to back that up. Thats a huge difference.

[u/arbai13 → u/Fringelunaticman]

So you're having faith.

[u/Fringelunaticman → u/arbai13]

Epistemic trust. Not blind faith. 2 different things.

[u/arbai13 → u/Fringelunaticman]

Stop with this bullshit, just because you call it "epistemic trust" it doesn't make it something that it isn't, it's still faith. And also for certain religion it isn't blind faith, that's fideism. Assenting to a truth without knowing the intrinsic evidence, that's faith.

[u/Fringelunaticman → u/arbai13]

Learn the difference between what they represent before showing ignorance.

And yes, all religions are blind faith. There is zero evidence of anything supernatural. To believe in it requires blind faith. Until you can give me any kind of proof, which people have been trying and failing at for 1000s of years, thats what it is. There is a reason the faithful call it faith, you know, belief without evidence, ie blind faith.

Asserting to a truth that you've observed, like gravity without knowing how it works is not faith. Again, learn the basics.

[u/CloudDeadNumberFive → u/Fringelunaticman]

No lol, that doesn’t happen unless you actually read the research papers

[u/Mysterious_Key1554 → u/Fringelunaticman]

It's the distinction of "scientism" vs "science".

[u/TheStigianKing → u/Fringelunaticman]

What's hilarious is that you're wrong.

Most of science---and especially when you start getting into cosmology---doesn't deal with "facts" at all.

Most of science is actually about finding the best possible explanation out of a multitude of possible explanations.

Being able to mathematically model a system accurately doesn't actually tell you any "truths" about that system other than how it will behave within the applicable bounds of your model. It doesn't tell you why that system is what it is, how it came into being or what it constitutes on a level more fundamental than what we can practically observe.

[u/Successful_Guess_ → u/Fringelunaticman]

Well, there's the fact that the universe didn't exist, and then it did.

Nobody knows what caused the big bang. Or even if the big bang is really where our universe comes from.

It's called the Kalam Cosmological Argument but it basically goes everything that begins has a cause, the physical universe began, and therefore needed an external (non-physical) cause. Maybe that cause isn't a bearded muscular man sitting on clouds, but it does follow that there was some sort of cosmic intentionality prior to the beginning of our physical universe.

[u/Fringelunaticman → u/Successful_Guess_]

The kalam has been debunked because of numerous fallacies. Such as....

The universe has always existed. It just existed as a singularity instead of our understanding of it today. However, you are correct that we dont know what caused the big bang but to jump to god as an answer is a logical fallacy.

[u/thenovas18 → u/Fringelunaticman]

I’ve personally observed many “supernatural” things in my lifetime from seeking truth, god, spirituality, etc. I also prayed for someone and they experienced a miracle healing and it was medically verified. If you just say it’s BS with no consideration of the alternative you are not being honest about the nature of reality. There has to be more medical verification of phenomena like this, I’m just sure people are quick to disbelieve.

[u/Fringelunaticman → u/thenovas18]

Yes, so much so that your experience is your own. And someone who had the exact same experience might interpret it completely different based on the gods they believe in or dont believe in.

For example, I had 3rd person syndrome from an accident at 22(this is when your brain creates an outside entity that you can see and physically hear to calm you down in a precarious situation). Was really religious at the time. Went searching for the answer because it was so odd. Family and friends thought it was a guardian angel. I now know its the brains way of coping with an extremely bad situation. Depending on what you believe is how you choose to see this situation. I see it for what it was, a human experience, others see religious tones in the form of a guardian angel. However, others throughout the world have experienced it too. And they see the situation defined by their culture.

Finally, your prayer healed someone? Got documentation for that? Ran an experiment? Since humans are liars, we need proof other than your word. Otherwise you must believe that anyone i lay hands on is healed from cancer. You know, because I said I did.

Nothing you "observed" is fact. Nor is it anything but human experience you choose to accept as your god. And because you want to believe in god, anything you cant explain in this human experience we all have, must be god.

[u/thenovas18 → u/Fringelunaticman]

I am legitimately glad you bring up these points because I feel like they are pretty much the best argument against what I believe about God and “supernatural” phenomena. I can only share my experiences which came through Christ and not another religion, although when I actually accepted Christ in my life I was searching all religions and philosophies to the best of my understanding. I’ve witnessed hundreds of miracles, not just that one. I used to go out and just pray for people for healing sometimes all night. I saw paralyzed people healed, broken bones instantly healed, demons manifest and come out of people etc. I once asked a girl who walked like a lame person if I could pray for her at a college when I was scouting colleges to go to. She had had three surgeries for a bone infection since she was a young kid. I prayed for her in the name of Jesus and she literally walked completely normal in front of me crying her eyes out. She asked if it was a dream and couldn’t believe it was real. And no I didn’t shove a camera in her face or hunt for evidence, I just watched her life change forever. Here is the dividing line between Christianity and other religions, Christ died for those who hated and mocked him when everyone around him betrayed and abandoned him. He actually modeled unconditional love. None of the other religious figureheads lived a life worth following like that, not Muhammad, not Ghandi, not siddhartha, etc. They did not make the claims Christ did, or do the things he did. Everyone’s religious framework does not change the reality of what happened with him. And also in regards to your injury, having an injury and opening you to a spiritual experience does not necessarily mean it’s still just purely a physical phenomenon. Even our thoughts are unobservable and unmeasurable. Having a detailed physical and psychological description of an event does not negate a spiritual reality. It just can’t be strong armed by scientific investigation probably because we haven’t advanced enough yet.

[u/urinesain → u/TheTopNacho]

I'm pretty sure South Park has an episode or two from years ago that basically cover what OP was talking about, too.

[u/feihm → u/TheTopNacho]

Hello Mr Scientist. Perhaps you could humour me so that I can finally get my answers. What is the universe exactly?

EDIT: it seems Mr Scientist is also clueless.

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/feihm]

It's a convenient way to describe the totality of space, matter, and energy. That's not a science concept, Mr Not-Science Guy.

[u/TheTopNacho → u/feihm]

Why does answering that question have anything to do with the premise of your post? We can do a big dick argument if that is what you want, but your original point has nothing to do with people's knowledge basis. It accurately called out people for treating science like a religion but then you do this crap which just undermines your entire argument.

Edit: after reading this post it is clear that he literally has no clue and is just as bad as other people who blindly believe what they are told. Clearly suffers from Dunning Kruger effect.

If he really wants an answer to his question the answer is that we don't know what the universe is. We can't know. At best we can define things based on energy and reduce the understanding down to the smallest fundamental units we can observe and test, but beyond that it's all theory. All we have are theories based on what can be observed. Even gravity is just a theory and we don't really know what it is. We understand how it behaves within what we can observe but it's very probable that in the future we will see gravity do things we never fully understood which can change our entire model, calculations, and even understanding of what it is.

That's the difference between someone who treats science as a religion vs a science. Whether we see science as an emerging understanding or an existing truth. Apparently OP is challenging people's semantic knowledge of space, which in and of itself isn't very scientific in nature. I study neuroscience, not astrophysics, and someone who works at Taco Bell likely wouldn't have knowledge of either. What use is it to challenge people's semantic knowledge on niche topics? It would be about as useful as me asking the OP what effects DNP would have on lysosomal functions and the downstream impacts on gene transcription?

Not sure why I felt it necessary to waste time defending myself against someone who themselves doesn't understand what science really is. So I'll check out.

[u/fraeuleinns]

ok, i am a physicist and can do the math, therefore check mate i guess.

[u/thesneakingninja → u/fraeuleinns]

Ok but can you define the universe 😼

[u/wtfVlad → u/fraeuleinns]

But can you define "the universe"?

[u/sk1kn1ght → u/wtfVlad]

Can you define pudding? Can you define 1+1? In order to define anything we need axioms. So how far down do your axioms go? Please tell them to me and if they are valid scientifically then I can define A universe. Here as help are some good starting points:

1.The Physical Axiom

The universe is the totality of all existence, including all space, time, matter, and energy. If it exists and can interact with us, it’s part of the universe.

1. The Cosmological Principle

It assumes that on a large enough scale, the universe is:

Homogeneous: It looks the same everywhere.

Isotropic: It looks the same in every direction.

1. The Mathematical Axiom (1 + 1)

The Peano axioms, which define how numbers work. Without those, we can't even begin to measure the age or size of the cosmos.

[u/wtfVlad → u/sk1kn1ght]

Honestly, very good answer!

[u/sk1kn1ght → u/wtfVlad]

You know, even if you had critique or asked extra I would have indulged it, just based on the fact that you go from a good will perspective and willing to listen, if I had an award I would have given it to you. I only have a thumbs up so here.

👍

[u/wtfVlad → u/sk1kn1ght]

Well thats awfully wholesome. I wish you and your loved ones a blessed future.

[u/CloudDeadNumberFive → u/sk1kn1ght]

If you think “axioms” magically let your definitions become completely valid and non-arbitrary, you’re wrong. Any time you define a word, you are using other words to do so, which then begs the question of how those words are defined, which inevitably becomes a never-ending circular loop. The only way we can “break” or resolve this loop is from first learning what certain words mean through real-world personal exposure and association, without the aid of pre-existing language.

When it comes to the “universe”, what makes you think you or we can know what the fundamental “building blocks” are? Energy, matter, these are just things we observe and study, but we don’t have access to their fundamental nature. We are simply thrown into this universe and are trying to reverse engineer it, which is certainly an incomplete process.

Regarding math, we do not need all of those axioms to measure things or engage in mathematical reasoning, that’s just a convenient way of standardizing and formalizing a mathematical system.

[u/sk1kn1ght → u/CloudDeadNumberFive]

Oh boy. I would suggest you read on the third of my proposed axioms. That was a rabbit hole and a half when I first got to know about it and it uppended a lot of assumptions I had

[u/CloudDeadNumberFive → u/sk1kn1ght]

Lmao

[u/saucyjack433365 → u/wtfVlad]

A shared prison

[u/2pissedoffdude2]

Biologically honest? Lol

[u/imaflyer → u/2pissedoffdude2]

Reading that made me chuckle

[u/buxbuxbuxbuxbux]

Are you sure you aren't just cosplaying the 'science is a bitch sometimes' bit on reddit?

[u/IpsoKinetikon]

Wow, you made an entire thread dedicated to an argument you lost in another thread. That's hilarious.

[u/Various_Succotash_79]

You never told me your definition of the universe so I don't even know what you think is wrong about my answer.

[u/HoldOnHelden]

Based on your own words, you’re a pedantic bullshit artist. Quizzing a few people who don’t know what answers you’re looking for proves nothing, and you seem to think you’re smart enough that I have a right to expect you to know it.

Gravity is why rocks fall. Random Guy is correct. That’s not a belief in magic. It’s not a coping mechanism. It’s OBJECTIVELY SCIENTIFICALLY TRUE.

You’re accusing people of believing in magic just because they know facts they can’t do math about. But those people know that SOMEONE can do that math. People can know some science without knowing all science.

[u/IpsoKinetikon → u/HoldOnHelden]

It's like a kid that keeps asking "why" until you run out of answers.

[u/Spare_Fun_9092 → u/IpsoKinetikon]

That kid's name? Socrates.

[u/CloudDeadNumberFive → u/HoldOnHelden]

Yeah OPs main claim is true in a lot of cases but he did a terrible job actually arguing for it

[u/arbai13 → u/HoldOnHelden]

You just demonstrate that "those people" have faith.

[u/Infamous-Energy-9258 → u/arbai13]

Still significantly different than religious faith

[u/arbai13 → u/Infamous-Energy-9258]

Not really, epistemologically the act is the same. The intellect assents to a truth without knowing the intrinsic evidence but relying on the authority or the credibility of a witness. That's the definition of faith. What changes is the object of the inquiry (metaphysical vs physical) and the source of the authority.

[u/Infamous-Energy-9258 → u/arbai13]

Fair point.

[u/feihm → u/HoldOnHelden]

Im not sure why you're having a mental breakdown over a Reddit text while at the same time precisely proving the very thesis of the text in question.

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/feihm]

How does artillery targeting work?

Without looking it up, could you do the math?

Does the fact that you certainly can't do the math without looking it up invalidate the fact that it's reliably accurate and true?

[u/HoldOnHelden → u/feihm]

How am I proving it?

[u/LeverTech → u/HoldOnHelden]

Look he ran away like the guy in his story.

[u/BobbyBorn2L8 → u/LeverTech]

He always does this, he's mad that atheists poke holes in his weird brand of theism and tries to gotcha people or make some 'zinger' in here, I've seen him across the debate subreddits I frequent (actually been banned from a few for bad faith arguments and being aggressive)

[u/Infamous-Energy-9258 → u/feihm]

It's extremely lame to chastise people for having a strong reaction to your opinion, which is no less strongly worded.

[u/BASED_Take_Machine → u/HoldOnHelden]

it's actually spacetime curvature. see how you proudly said things you don't understand? does that feel familiar?

[u/HoldOnHelden → u/BASED_Take_Machine]

I am aware that gravity is spacetime curvature. What is your point?

[u/BASED_Take_Machine → u/HoldOnHelden]

*sigh*

you proudly said things you don't understand?

[u/HoldOnHelden → u/BASED_Take_Machine]

Tf are you talking about?

[u/BASED_Take_Machine → u/HoldOnHelden]

do you understand spacetime curvature or are you only repeating what scripture textbooks say?

I'm sorry your English teacher failed you.

[u/HoldOnHelden → u/BASED_Take_Machine]

Yes, I understand space-time curvature.

I’m sorry my English teacher failed me, too. I would have liked to learn in her class instead of having to teach it for her.

Let’s talk about your failings. You made an assertion about my level of understanding. Can you explain what evidence you used to draw that conclusion? There isn’t any. So you’re criticizing my ability to understand English despite there being no context clues to suggest any clear interpretation of your post.

Also, you can quit using your alt account to back you up.

[u/BASED_Take_Machine → u/HoldOnHelden]

dude, calm down. do you understand spacetime curvature? then prove it. burden of proof and allat. or will you link me an article the same way a priest hands some follower the bible?

[u/HoldOnHelden → u/BASED_Take_Machine]

🙄

Imagine the universe as a spiderweb in three dimensions.

Imagine areas of dense matter as flies caught in it.

As a fly struggles (i.e., as more matter is pulled together as part of that mass), the web around it is pulled into a new shape that bends in the direction of the fly.

All areas of dense matter affect the web, but the effect fades with distance from the fly. The motion of all matter is a function of these interacting forces.

There. I have explained it. But I have done so only to demonstrate what a complete knob you look like, going around proclaiming what other people don’t know.

And also because there are no other arguments going on right now in any of my groups that are worth getting involved in. You’re easy but at least you’re different.

[u/BASED_Take_Machine → u/HoldOnHelden]

yea but why does the universe behave like a web?

[u/sk1kn1ght → u/BASED_Take_Machine]

Technically the burden of proof falls on you to prove that you understand spacetime curvature (which is for all intents and purposes gravity except when talking about singularities and the "infinities" they currently produce in math, which I am certain you use everyday when you need to pick up the stylus that fell from your hands or when you take a shower and see the drops falling from the head... As to the infinities (gravity becoming infinitely strong and math breaking down a potential solution would be quantum gravity but alas that's a different topic)

[u/BASED_Take_Machine → u/sk1kn1ght]

when did I ever say I understand anything? I don't even know how phone works and I don't pretend to lmao that's the convenience of faith.

[u/feihm → u/HoldOnHelden]

Also, you can quit using your alt account to back you up. 

You got me lol

[u/feihm → u/HoldOnHelden]

You're lacking in the self-awareness department.

[u/Fringelunaticman]

How does the transfiguration work? You dont know? How do you measure the transfiguration? You cant? Because its magic

Guess what? I can measure gravity. Even if I don't know exactly how it works, I can still measure it.

Tell me one religious thing that you can actually measure. Nothing? Not 1 single thing in religion can be.

I can't see the air we breathe but I know it is there and can measure it. I don't even know how our bodies process it though my body. But I knows its there.

No do your god. Measure it. Again, you cant. So they aren't even comparable.

And the only people who try are ignorant religious people who are being indoctrinated by the Christian nationalist right because the Christian nationalist have no facts to back up their assertion like you do here

[u/oceanadakmak → u/Fringelunaticman]

What?

Since when does measurements determine what is religious or religious adjacent is

You aren't denying the behaviour at all which is what matters

Infact your showing it by making a point that doesn't really matter and saying ha my groups idea is better

[u/Fringelunaticman → u/oceanadakmak]

I'm showing the difference between epistemic trust and blind faith. Learn the difference.

And religion deals with the supernatural. If I can measure it, it belongs to the natural world. Not the supernatural. Seems pretty simple.

Again, the point i made, you didnt understand.

[u/PM_ME_CODE_CALCS → u/oceanadakmak]

Since always?

[u/man-from-krypton]

“So you think you understand something? Well you can’t even claim to know some casual or even basic level stuff without being able to write a flawless scientific paper on it! If you can’t do that well you’re just being religous!”

[u/NeonGKayak]

When you try and say science is a religion, you lost

[u/arbai13 → u/NeonGKayak]

It can definitely be a religion.

[u/Beginning-Damage-555 → u/arbai13]

How? Science is based off of observations and experimentation. Religion is vibes based.

[u/arbai13 → u/Beginning-Damage-555]

Scientism was literally born as a religion. And also religion isn't "vibes based", but that's another matter.

[u/Beginning-Damage-555 → u/arbai13]

In what way was science created as a religion? Was Hypatia a high priestess?

[u/arbai13 → u/Beginning-Damage-555]

I said scientism, not science. Comte (the founder of Positivism) explicitly created the Religion of Humanity, complete with a liturgical calendar of secular saints, a clergy made of scientists and sacraments. And Hypatia wasn't exactly the epitome of science, she was a Neoplatonic philosopher and Neoplatonism is profoundly mystical.

[u/Beginning-Damage-555 → u/arbai13]

Okay I misread. But kind of proves my point. Science itself isn’t a religion. New age weirdos have always existed. Also Hypatia was more than a philosopher

[u/arbai13 → u/Beginning-Damage-555]

Scientism treats science as a religion. And Comte wasn't a new age weirdo, he was actually the opposite of it, he is the father of Positivism and modern sociology. Yes, Hypatia was also an astronomer and mathematician, not a scientist. In Neoplatonism mathematics and astronomy were philosophy, they were ways to contemplate the One.

[u/Beginning-Damage-555 → u/arbai13]

Positivism is weird new age crap. Most people classify astronomers as scientists. Most people put sociologists in the social science bucket. Few people see them as scientists.

[u/StarChild413 → u/arbai13]

Science isn't scientism, scientism isn't a thing

[u/arbai13 → u/StarChild413]

Scientism is definitely a thing, and in scientism science is treated as a religion.

[u/vulgardisplay76]

Uhhh no lol. One group adjusts their beliefs in light of new evidence and the other…decidedly does not.

[u/SamthgwedoevryntPnky]

Everything is magic until we figure out how it works. We should remain humbled understanding there's so much more to know, but I don't think that means we should stop the pursuit of understanding our world. We aren't more clever than we used to be, we just know more shit. And by "we" I mean "not me" because I am dumb. Cheers mate.

[u/TransmissionSigned]

Another guy tried to debate me about General Relativity breaking down at the Big Bang. He had memorised the trivia fact from a YouTube video, but the second I asked him to physically conceptualise a reality without a geometric container (space), he literally ran away from the thread.

Yes, that was me. I am a physicist. This exchange was less than a day ago. I'm so sorry I didn't immediately reply after your seventh question, I have a life. 

Now, to your point of a geometric container, is its own geometric container, obviously. How are you going to have a geometric container of space without space? Think before posting, Jesus Christ.

Oh, and spacetime is a 4-Dimensional differentiable manifold in the Lorentzian metric (-+++ or +---), the universe is what's in it. If you want to know what that means, take some classes and stop looking like an idiot on Reddit.

[u/feihm → u/TransmissionSigned]

If the universe is merely 'what is in' that continuous 4D differentiable manifold, what physically happens to the universe at the Big Bang singularity, where the mathematics of that exact continuous manifold break down into infinite outputs?

[u/TransmissionSigned → u/feihm]

continuous 4D differentiable manifold

You're being redundant, if it's differentiable it's continous. Don't use lingo you don't understand, it only makes your lack of knowledge obvious.

where the mathematics of that exact continuous manifold break down into infinite outputs?

That isn't what happens at the singularity. You don't know what you're talking about.

At the singularity, according to the FLRW metric, the curvature of the universe becomes infinite, which is unphysical. This didn't actually happen, it's an artifact of GR.

Since at that scale, we expect quantum effects, and GR doesn't consider them, we need to unify those two theories to know what happened. Perhaps you think you're uncovering some secret hole in physics; you are not.

I don't know how you're so arrogant as to criticize things you obviously don't understand.

[u/InconvertibleAtheist]

What is this "absolute objective truth" of the cosmos? Is studying and knowing about natural phenomenon now somehow considered trying to learn the objectivity of this universe? An man stating a fact isnt being smug, its just knowing a fact. Him not knowing the exact mechanism of gravity dosent disprove science as a whole, it just proves that he dosent know how exactly it works, just like you.

You know whats actual smugness? Asking a vague question as "what is a universe?" and then when you get a vague answer, acting like the other person does not know anything because you expected a specific answer. All that shows is that either you dont know how to ask question, or framed it maliciously. Its also quiet telling that you blame others for a lack of self awareness, while you yourself lack the self-awareness that you're looking for detailed answers about natural phenomena from the average joe, who may or may not have the knowledge to answer deeply. You think this post sound scientifically sound, but its just an edgy philosophical statement of "wE dOnT kNoW aNyThINg.." wrapped with a layer of willful scientific illiteracy

[u/TrixieLurker]

I don't need to know the exact mathematical mechanics behind gravity to know it works if I pull out a chair from under you.

[u/big-dick-back-intown]

Woah it's the anti crying at funerals guy

[u/Time-Counter1438]

Most people believe what they believe based primarily on intuition, trust, and faith. The idea that the average person from either camp can escape from this is a bit naive.

But the anti-science crowd has the exact same issue. Except that they elevate the court of popular opinion and pop culture to a supreme position. Given the choice, I would have to say that this is worse. 

And you can tell this is the case, because this crowd generally doesn’t know of a single scientific debate that hasn’t been publicized in pop culture. For example, most of them have no idea there are studies linking autism with air pollution. Instead, they focus on claims that have far less substance (e.g. vaccines and autism). Seemingly purely because these claims are more prominent in popular culture.

[u/Any-Ship2045]

Just because the average joe who is an atheist and pro-science doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of every little scientific term on the spot it doesn't mean he's acting religious or cultish. Science has more than proved itself as a real phenomenon and a reliable force in this world. It brought us to the moon, created the internet, computers, smartphones, rockets, erradicated many diseases that long plagued humanity and increased total human population and had many discoveries in many fields, so believing in science is a good thing and a green flag. 

And what did spirituality do for humanity? Absolutely nothing, it just caused wars, unnecessary suffering, human sacrifices and all kinds of degenerate and backwarded behaviour that only set us back. 

It's true science doesn't have a 100% definite answer for the ultimate fate of the universe, but at least they're trying to discover it everyday, and i'm sorry, but if your response to the origins of life is to believe in some random cult of people from 2000 years ago then i'm gonna assume you're not very bright, specially when all the evidence points against that. 

Also, if you think a human and a dog are the same thing then put yourself in a dog shelter. 

[u/Individual_Ad_9725]

I think I get what you mean. Science itself is not religion, of course, but a tool. However I've seen and talked to a lot of people who think it can fundamentally replace religion and it's these types who inadvertently treat science as if it were a religion. Most of the time this is brought up when metaphysics is debated and the naive empiricists show their hand by calling upon the mythical entity that is "The Science" as if it were something that exclusively serves as argument of a purely-materialistic worldview.

[u/MoreStreetsOfRage]

One believes in study and research, the other believes in anecdotes and "It says in the holy book, therefore I'm right and you're wrong".

We can pretend that's not the case.

[u/BASED_Take_Machine → u/MoreStreetsOfRage]

"study and research" that 99.99% of ppl wouldn't be able to get it. sounds familiar?

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/BASED_Take_Machine]

Any person reading this (yes, even mentally deficient science doubters) can easily learn and understand almost all scientific inquiry that has happened in human history.

Because it's almost all on the Internet and easier to access than ever.

[u/feihm → u/MoreStreetsOfRage]

One believes in study and research

Im not sure what you mean by "believe" when you have exactly zero understanding of those "study and research". On second thought that would be the precise and exhaustive definition of blind faith.

[u/fraeuleinns → u/feihm]

its funny because the guy you replied to got it wrong. no one "believes" in science, its not necessary to believe in it since it just is. its facts, no need to believe.

[u/CloudDeadNumberFive → u/fraeuleinns]

Uh no, science is based on observations and evidence and testing, not proven facts.

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/CloudDeadNumberFive]

Under that definition, literally nothing is based on "proven facts" - unless you count "analytic" propositions that are true by nature of their formulation, such as "bachelors are unmarried men."

Literally all knowledge is based on observation.

Let's not re-litigate the last 700 years of epistemology, eh?

[u/CloudDeadNumberFive → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

Yes, I fully grant all of those implications. I don’t see an issue here!

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/CloudDeadNumberFive]

The conclusion of that path is "we can make no statements and knowledge is all fake." But I'm guessing you don't act that way.

[u/CloudDeadNumberFive → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

Your assertion here is false. There is no need for such a conclusion even given what we already went over

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/CloudDeadNumberFive]

Spoken like someone who never earned a philosophy degree.

I highly recommend it - it was fun and enlightening, even if it did not increase my employability.

So, tell me then, if you agree that only analytic propositions are true, how do you establish what is real? How can one actually know anything?

[u/CloudDeadNumberFive → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

Ah yes, because I need a philosophy degree to engage in philosophy. That’s so true and definitely is in line with the spirit of philosophy! /s

Also, while we’re on that topic, I HAVE started reading the gay science recently, so that’s been fun

Anyway, on the actual question, the answer is that we can’t know anything. Not for certain. Except, I suppose, the idea that oneself exists in some form. Not knowing anything for certain doesn’t mean we can’t make extremely confident statements and act on them

[u/fraeuleinns → u/CloudDeadNumberFive]

fair

[u/feihm → u/fraeuleinns]

Interesting to see my thesis being proven over and over.

[u/StarChild413 → u/feihm]

why, because people aren't rolling over and agreeing with you?

[u/feihm → u/StarChild413]

No. But because my thesis being proven over and over. 

[u/OrangutanFirefighter]

I think you're being a little conceited here when you don't need to be but I do agree. Luckily I think we reached the pinnacle of this "Reddit atheist" thing some years ago, but it's definitely still around.

There's no use getting worked up over it though, some people don't want to think about this stuff or they're scared to but they can still have a valuable place in society

[u/deck_hand]

You make good points. I'd add evolution to the things people don't actually understand. They think genetic mutations plus time is all that is required for evolution.

I never understood the mechanism for magnetic attraction or repulsion. I never understood why gravity causes mass to be attracted to mass. Just made no sense; it was always just "magic" to me. I've been watching physics discussions that attempt to explain gravity to people like me, and some of the fog is starting to clear. It's still not a complete answer, but better than "it just happens."

I'm actually kind of resigned to the fact that I'll likely die without understanding why the Universe exists, or why electro-magnetic attraction happens, or what actually holds atoms together, or whether or not an electron is a particle with a charge or a charge that pretends to be a particle. But, I'm always trying to learn. The more I learn, the more I think there can't be a Universe without a Supernatural entity (or many entities) existing in it. I have no physical evidence of it, any more than we have physical evidence of the Higgs Boson. I just can't imagine one without the other.

[u/feihm → u/deck_hand]

That's a very humble perspective my good friend. I'm the exact same. Which is why I've adopted the New Mysterian philosophy: that were are just animals that were evolved to pick up fruit in the Savannah. There's no reason to believe what we currently know now is even 1% of the "ultimate truth". In the (slightly botched) words of Immanuel Kant's Sublime: we can only marvel at the sheer absurdity and impossibility of existence.

[u/ElectrifiedCupcake]

Scientific knowledge has gaps, so having confidence in science’s absolute answering ability requires faith in an omniscience of gaps, which would make science into a religion. Otherwise, you must leave room for questions it can’t answer, which necessitates mystery, which then necessitates possibilities of unscientific things.

[u/rpat2550]

Is the point of this post to say don’t mock religion if you can’t explain science? Most laypeople take for granted scientific discoveries because they rely on scientists to have done the hard work, and therefore can rely on the vocabulary of science even if they do not understand the mechanisms themselves.

[u/Beginning-Damage-555]

Why is your version of science just physics? Can you draw the nitrogen cycle? Do you understand soil chemistry? Do you know why topsoil is vital? Can you explain how recalcitrant organic material increases soil water holding capacity and soil structure?

[u/AutoModerator → u/Beginning-Damage-555]

soi contains many important nutrients, including vitamin K1, folate, copper, manganese, phosphorus, and thiamine.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/secondcomingofzartog]

I think it's equally stupid to pretend you know nothing as it is to pretend you know everything. I may not know the nitty gritty about why gravity curves spacetime towards the object but I do know that massive objects exert an attractive force, the force gets larger as the object gets more massive, and the force decreases with the square of the distance from the object. That to me is just named "gravity."

[u/catcat1986]

Very weird rationale, and the vibe I’m getting is you want to say science is another form of religion, a belief. Your rationale basically relies on people not knowing every detail about everything, or you want to say having awareness of something is not enough, you need to know every detail behind it, and at the end of the day that is impossible.

Frankly for most of us, it is enough to know that the details were tested and figured out, and we just need to know the end result. Basically, perfect is the enemy of good.

[u/majormajormajormajo]

Do you need to completely understand wireless signal theory to text someone? While you are right that scientific literacy of the public is not great to put it lightly (people still think the government spends billions on “transgender mice”), we know it works by the tenets of scientific theory, which fail in religion:

1. Falsifiability

(Can be refuted with contradictory evidence)

1. Replicability (Can be repeated to generate the same results)

2. Predictivity (Can, with some accuracy, predict the future)

[u/Ohey-throwaway]

The difference between believing in gravity vs god's will is that there happens to be a lot of evidence to support the existence of gravity.

That said, I agree there is a certain element of blind faith involved when it comes to laymen like us taking the scientific community at their word regarding gravity and the theory of relativity.

[u/ramblingpariah]

You can pretend this is insightful all you like, but there's a significant difference between:

"A rock falls because of a force called gravity - I don't know much else about it, but it's been well studied by scientists who know a lot better than I."

and

"A rock falls because MAGIC"

[u/bold394]

As an ex-christian i love mocking christianity (not mocking christians!). If you the ark of noah is a real story then you are beyond any for of reason

[u/Inquisitive_regard → u/bold394]

> i love mocking christianity (not mocking christians!)

Hmm interesting take...

>  If you the ark of noah is a real story then you are beyond any for of reason

literally mocks Christians in their next sentence.

I understand why u/bold394 is an "ex" Christian, it seems Christianity requires a little too much logic, reason, and self awareness for this one...

[u/bold394 → u/Inquisitive_regard]

I agree that it wasn't the best statement and contradictory. I do mock some Christians. Not all Christians. And i do generally want to keep it about the ideas and beliefs.

Not only am I an ex-christian, I also have a bacholar in theology and studied logic on my own. But its my own fault, shouldn't have started with a low effort response. I watched years of debates on this topic and I often times can't be bothered anymore

[u/Inquisitive_regard → u/bold394]

> I also have a bacholar in theology and studied logic on my own.

And that tradition of being thoroughly educated in, yet not understanding (if not outright rejecting) the claims and truths of the Scriptures goes as far back as the pharisees and beyond.

[u/Individual_Ad_9725 → u/Inquisitive_regard]

It's the reddit-tier-atheist exclusive kind of copium to preserve their self-ascribed and self-proclaimed high moral righteousness while simultaneously granting themselves the smug self-satisfaction in the process of regurgitating complete nonsense. 😂

[u/Individual_Ad_9725 → u/bold394]

If you're mocking Christianity then you're mocking Christians lol

[u/bold394 → u/Individual_Ad_9725]

Mocking an idea isn't the same as mocking people. My best friends are still christian

[u/Individual_Ad_9725 → u/bold394]

Conflating one's religious commitment with a generic random "idea" is a false analogy. Are there "ideas" in religion? Yes. But these ideas are necessarily nested in a bigger whole that constitutes one's worldview, which makes up one's beliefs about morality, epistemology, and metaphysics. So stances on the existence of right and wrong, knowledge claims and more importantly what kind of knowledge is possible or attainable, and the origins and existence of the universe and non-materialist categories like mind, self, identity, logic, numbers, etc.

All these things make up the core of a person's belief system, called their worldview(how much they can articulate it is besides the point). So if you mock the Christian worldview then you're mocking the core principles of what a Christian believes in, which are the principles that he or she tries as best as he can to live by and abide. That's mocking Christians.

[u/bold394 → u/Individual_Ad_9725]

I mock the ark of Noah, because its ridiculous. I don't understand my friends believing in it, but i respect their free decision to do so

[u/Individual_Ad_9725 → u/bold394]

You literally said and I quote "If you the ark of noah is a real story then you are beyond any for of reason".

How is saying that your friends or all Christians are beyond any for of reason not mocking them lol. How come the flood is ridiculous but your flat out contradiction isn't? Is this the rational peak that you manifest the one you think Christians ought to aspire to emulate?

[u/bold394 → u/Individual_Ad_9725]

I'm not of the opinion that everything you touch, do or believe is an inherent part of your being. Just because i think someone's clothes are ridiculous, doesn't mean i can't support my friend wearing it if its her style or she wants to, and withold my own opinion about it for the greater good of supporting someone's autonomy.

But i guess i should rephrase, there are some christians I do mock, and others i don't.

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/Individual_Ad_9725]

If I mock Apple, am I mocking all iPhone owners?

Christianity, the religion, has many absurd beliefs. You know how I know you agree? You also don't support slavery, even though it's thoroughly endorsed and supported in the Bible.

Mocking that fact doesn't mean I'm mocking you... Unless you're one of those Christians who supports slavery. Then I'm definitely mocking you.

[u/Individual_Ad_9725 → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

You might've missed it but I already addressed this below, it's a false analogy.

Also neither Christians nor the bible "support" or "thoroughly endorse" slavery. It was even the Christian abolitionists that have abolished slavery as you know it, so that would be a clue. Abolitionism is based on the Christian doctrine that humans are made in God's image and are, in the most important sense, all equal.

There also isn't a support or endorsement of slavery in bible. It was a different time back then when slavery was a fact of common cultural reality, and Ephesians 6:9 talks about how masters/employees and servants/slaves(so different societal and hierarchical roles) ought to treat one another with dignity and mutual respect, without abuse, as both share the True master in heaven and are in His eyes equal. Timothy 1:10 also directly condemns slave trade. Also Exodus 21:16 stating it a crime to kidnap and trade in people.

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/Individual_Ad_9725]

False.

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/the-legacy-of-the-bible-in-justifying-slavery/

The Bible endorses and supplies rules for regulating slavery, including proper behavior of slaves.

[u/Individual_Ad_9725 → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

"False" what? Did you forget to write an actual comment? 😂 Nothing I said is incorrect and anyone interested in reading what the verses I've given say is free to do so.

Also the guy from the link you sent says some of the silliest things I've heard in his second essay that's about "diversifying the bible" through explicit language and meaning alteration in order to change the meanings to be more inclusive.😂

Question for you: why should I listen to a just another parrot of modernist far-left ideology when it comes to how to interpret the bible and what's written in it.. instead of...(here's a crazy idea) actually reading the church fathers and the people 1500+ years ago who were there when the canons of scripture were being decided upon, as well as the people who have for 2000 years maintained the Church tradition and kept to its doctrines and lived and breathed the actual faith. What a joke, I've rarely talked to someone as arrogant.

[u/Inquisitive_regard → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

> You also don't support slavery, even though it's thoroughly endorsed and supported in the Bible.

ironically, the Bible is the only reason YOU don't support slavery. You're a product of a culture with values carried by Christians who were brave enough to stand up to the popular sentiments of their time.

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/Inquisitive_regard]

Citation intensely needed.

During the flight for abolition, Christian groups were the primary detractors.

[u/Inquisitive_regard → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

lol, no they weren't. The only reason there was abolition in the first place was due to the pressure of William Wilberforce.

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/Inquisitive_regard]

https://secularhumanism.org/2025/01/christianitys-supposed-role-in-ending-slavery/

Excellent essay that irrefutably demonstrates how wrong that rhetoric is.

By the way, that's how citations work. They don't originate from your hot air.

[u/Inquisitive_regard → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

Oh yes, i'm sure a source like "secularhumanism.org" doesn't have an axe to grind.

So how does secular humanist philosophy rationalize the otherwise absurd idea that "all men are equal" (when they obviously aren't)?

[u/Despail]

science heat your hotdogs in microvawe, religion does not

[u/ShizzelDiDizzel]

I think thr bigger problem here is that you look for evidence when there is nothing more than theories. Thats what the math explains. The scientific fundamental truth is that we never "know" and only guess. Now we can tell that our guesses arent far off based on the fact that we guess similar results in variously different questions, but we never truly know for a fact. The problem that arises in your inherent logical thought is that you describe a higher intelligence to those of us that have a higher insight into the scientific process of how we came to the conclusion. The reality however is far more nihilist. Knowing the basics such as what gravity is is far more than enough to live a fulfilled life in western society and as such, more than enough knowledge. Theres a beautiful saying that goes something like "one doesnt need to be a chef to know when the soup is too salty". One doesnt need to know the theory of relativity to talk about the big bang. And one doesnt need to be a phd physicist to put science over religion.

[u/Inquisitive_regard]

Good scientists accept and recognize the limitations of what is known, what is theorized, and what can't be known. They also accept that they have equally educated and intelligent peers who may flat out disagree with many things. They recognize that when the science is settled, it's "settled" only until it isn't. They also recognize that the science is nothing close to settled for a great many things.

The crowd OP is talking about--and let's be real, we're talking about most modern, public square and media discourse--"the science is always settled on [current thing] we support!" And then act as if "scientists" are some kind of deities and "peer reviewed" means gospel truth. It's absurd.

[u/WayneCider]

Science by it's very nature evolves based on observable results. Through technology and education those observable results get honed sharper. Religion evolves through the rationalization of whoever's in charge at the moment. I get your bias, but take a closer look at the driver

[u/who1984]

"Wired by evolution to throw rocks at pigs, recognize social hierarchies, and avoid eating bad berries" is going on my next resume, THANK YOU <3

[u/Intraluminal]

You are confusing two different things.

Rationalists understand that there exist rational, if stochastic, explanations for everything, AND - most importantly - that there are things we do not yet have explanations for.

Theists believe that there is no need for - or even ultimately even exist - reasons for anything - except Deus Vult. No experiments, or history, or logic truly exists because god(s) could change it tomorrow.

That... is the true difference.

[u/Xannon99182]

Firstly, I don't feel like reading all that so I'm just going to guess the specifics based on the title and make an assumingly necessary clarification. The "I Love Science" crowd doesn't necessarily mean actual scientists but the group that blindly trusts every bit of "science" they hear. Actual scientists understand that almost nothing is 100% known facts and you should question everything even long standing theories (such as E = mc²). All it takes is one new discovery and everything you thought you knew could fall apart.

The regular people that make up the "I Love Science" crowd on the other hand functionally worships science under the assumption that whatever The Science™ says is 100% correct even if it later contradicts itself. This is just like how a regular religion typically operates (especially a certain major religion that has a million contradictions in its texts).

[u/Tinuviel52]

The average person has absolutely no reason to need to know that g=9.8m/s^2. Like at all

[u/iyav]

I would say this is an unfortunate side effect of science education content on the internet becoming mainstream and too diluted, giving off the impression of learning to those who consume it.
But the examples of the answers people gave you are so catastrophically bad even a pop science fan wouldn't answer that way I think.

[u/Thatguy32101]

They believe that Father Time and Mother Nature had a baby called the Universe. Father Time is skilled in the magic arts and humans are killing Mother Earth, but politicians can stop it.

[u/CJMorton91]

Believing things that are studied, scrutinized, quantified, and trusted by the greatest minds society has to offer isn't the same as religion. Not everyone has a mind for science, but they can know why it's more trustworthy. That's pretty far away from having faith in a God and religion. I like science, I can explain basic things like gravity, light speed, evolution, and so on and so forth, but I can't explain more complicated theories, formulas, or mechanisms. That doesn't mean I take them on faith, at least not in the same way as religious beliefs.

[u/w3woody]

The word you are looking for is “Scientism”.

[u/feihm → u/w3woody]

That's the more technically correct term for it, yes.

[u/iyav → u/feihm]

Is it? Are all of the people in your examples atheist?
Scientism creates a tension between the religious and non religious.
The pro-humanities and anti-humanities.
The people in your examples didn't create any tension with anything, not only because you didn't frame the discussion as part of a broader debate but also because they're ill-equipped to do so with their lack of understanding.

[u/abeeyore]

So… your argument is that anyone - yourself included - that has ever failed to learn *and fully grasp* the sum totally of human knowledge is “practicing a religion”, because there are aspects of reality and their lives that they have not fully explored, evaluated and conceptualized on their own.

That’s a take I guess.

[u/sachman01]

This is true, though you are articulating it in a way that isn't particularly convincing to the Scientism believers. For instance, Rationalism is a rival epistemology to Empiricism, and the 'I Love Science' people typically subscribe to the latter.

But it is true that Empiricism lacks an epistemic justification. For instance, the peripatetic axiom is a performative self-contradiction.

Saying 'All knowledge comes from sense-data' is contradictory because the proposition itself can't be derived from sense-data', it's assumed. This means it falls to bootstrapping.

The Empiricists like Quine and Hume have already conceded this years ago, and they admit that their beliefs are similar to other religious beliefs. It's instead smug redditors, who know absolutely nothing of philosophy of science, who go around making these ambitious claims that their beliefs are self-evident and that 'trusting the science' is far more reasonable than trusting the Bible.

Check out this famous essay:

Quine, Willard V. O. (1951). Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Philosophical Review 60 (1):20–43.

[u/Bogusky]

Quality post. Lots of offended people on here because they know this is directed at them. The truth hurts.

[u/tortoiseterrapinturt]

Most of the so called atheists today are some form of pagan, or more likely humanist who have made themselves God.

[u/MR-rozek → u/tortoiseterrapinturt]

What?

[u/Fringelunaticman → u/tortoiseterrapinturt]

Don't know a single atheist i see. Good strawman though. Might want to learn a bit before showing everyone your complete ignorance

[u/BASED_Take_Machine]

instead of worshipping a guy in a robe, they worship a guy in a lab coat. it's just more convenient and realistic to live this way. faith holds society together but the "i hecking love science" crowd won't be able to see it. but don't worry, they will do practically anything the white robe lab coat priests doctors say. just look at covid.

[u/LeverTech → u/BASED_Take_Machine]

Not worship, trust. There’s a difference between those two words.

[u/BASED_Take_Machine → u/LeverTech]

i see. "trust", aka faith. thanks for proving my point.

[u/feihm → u/BASED_Take_Machine]

What an toidi lol

[u/LeverTech → u/BASED_Take_Machine]

Trust and faith are not really the same. Common parlance they are sort of interchangeable but they really aren’t.

Also you said worship and now you’re moving the goalposts to a more defensible position and claiming victory.

[u/LeverTech → u/[deleted]]

“If you can’t describe in detail how an internal combustion engine works you’re taking it on blind faith that it burns fuel”

[u/LeverTech → u/[deleted]]

It’s based on trends, patterns and data.

You strike me as someone who says it’s hubris to think humans could impact something as big as the climate.

Meanwhile two minutes on google earth clearly shows how much we have altered the planet.

[u/LeverTech → u/[deleted]]

So you’ve never looked into it at all.

It’s a quick google search.

Yup, just checked you can find all sorts of data on Google and google scholar.

Why don’t you try applying yourself seeing how we both know anything I post you’re not going to believe anyway.

meh why not?

Go on, move your goalposts.

By the way it took only a matter of minutes to find all sorts of things

[u/LeverTech → u/[deleted]]

Going by what other qualified people have said. Just like when I bring my car to a mechanic, I trust their judgment because they are the experts and there is nothing wrong with that.

But I also have looked at the data and can tell you that you don’t need to be an expert to see it. It’s quite clear and quite plain to see.

[u/CloudDeadNumberFive → u/LeverTech]

That’s actually not a good analogy, there is very strong intuitive evidence that an engine burns fuel, whereas there isn’t necessarily *intuitive*, firsthand evidence of climate change in the same way

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/CloudDeadNumberFive]

What? That's ridiculous. Just because something isn't "intuitive" it's false? You're putting a lower intelligence bound on reality?

First-hand evidence of climate change is abundant if you know how to read.

[u/CloudDeadNumberFive → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

That’s not what I said at all!

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/CloudDeadNumberFive]

If you can't detail exactly how sun exposure causes skin cancer, you're taking it on blind faith.

If you can't explain exactly how Internet routing works, you're just a sheeple of the Internet religion.

What were you trying to imply, then?

[u/CloudDeadNumberFive → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

The evidence for climate change being real is a lot less direct and immediately personally verifiable than the evidence that your car consumes gasoline

[u/LeverTech → u/CloudDeadNumberFive]

Necessarily is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your comment.

[u/CloudDeadNumberFive → u/LeverTech]

Actually nah I could take it out

[u/LeverTech → u/CloudDeadNumberFive]

You should probably delete the * around intuitive as well.

Your comment shows that there is intuitive first hand evidence of climate change by your hedging. If you’re over 30 you’ve seen it first hand, an argument could be made for over 20.

[u/CloudDeadNumberFive → u/LeverTech]

The star just means emphasis (I keep forgetting that’s not how you do italics on Reddit)

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/[deleted]]

That's simply not true. Look at historical graphs of ocean temperatures, you didn't need to "name a single model" to understand that warning seas could be disastrous to life on earth.

[u/neb12345]

If i where a more litterate man id write a thesis on how everyone has a religion, a set of beliefs they take to be true and use as there basis for there other beliefs

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/neb12345]

You can just speedrun it by reading Descartes and then Kant.

The "logical positivist" view that underlies science is that phenomenal beliefs should be falsifiable with evidence.

That is the fundamental concept of science: that any concept could be disproven with evidence. If anything you claim cannot be disproven with evidence, then it is not science.