• teft@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    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.

    • ByteWizard@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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
      0
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      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
        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
          0
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          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.