this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2025
612 points (98.6% liked)
The Shitpost Office
548 readers
202 users here now
Welcome to The Shitpost Office
Shitposts processed from 9 to 5, with occasional overtime on weekends.
Rule 1: Be Civil, Not Sinister
Treat others like fellow employees, not enemies in the breakroom.
- No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
- Respect people’s time and space. We’re here to laugh, not to loathe
Rule 2: No Prohibited Postage
Some packages are simply undeliverable. That means:
- No spam or scams
- No porn or sexually explicit content
- No illegal content
- NSFW content must be properly tagged
If you see anything that violates these rules, please report it so we can return it to sender. Otherwise? Have fun, be silly, and enjoy the chaos. The office runs best when everyone’s laughing.... or retching over the stench, at least.
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Quick reminder that Islam doesn't have an anti science tradition. The fundamentalism goes back to contact with colonial Christians (not that all of Christianity is bad either)
I would say all religions are fundamentally anti-science given a core part is believing in something so improbable and childish with no scientific evidence.
Idk man even the most hardcore religious-studies teachers I had when I lived in Iraq were obsessed with promoting STEM fields.
Also certain apartments and such routinely gave "teacher benefits" in form of discounts like how some US veterans get.
Religion is always negotiable. Some have a "God of the gap" with a shrinking gap, others have an abstract understanding of God to a degree where it's unfalsifiable and therefore beyond scientific questions
Both are reached through faulty reasoning, and not a good thing for a scientist.
There are truth beyond scientific truth. Being aware of which is which is a good thing
Hell, Islam is the reason most of the knowledge from Roman or earlier times survived. While Christians were regressing in intellectualism, Islam was thriving.
Still, I would argue, to an extent, all religion is anti intellectual. They have some pieces that you aren't allowed to question. That limits the scope of research.
They're only pro-whatever that doesn't contradict their existing beliefs. That's not pro-science, that's a facade.
So Newton was anti science, too? Because his whole motivation was to understand God's creation
By modern standards and in a modern context, he would be if he clinged to his beliefs despite the evidence.
It doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to contribute to science. Many scientists have anti-scientific beliefs but they have the discipline to leave them at the door.
Is it really anti-scientific if they can leave it at the door?
Many believers find deep truth in sacred texts that are neither scientific nor historical. Genesis for example is about our place in the world, both individual and as humankind, and not about a temporal origin. And even believing in a creation doesn't hinder you from exploring it scientifically. We all accept the big bang theory today. At first, it was rejected because it sounded to Christian. Is that attitude scientific?
The exodus never happened but identifying as the people that was freed from slavery and therefore never want to be nor have slaves or kings ever again, can be meaningful, even tho that's not necessarily in the bible. You can be aware that the bible contradicts itself and has to be negotiated with and still get a lot out of it while understanding that other people get very different things out of it.
Yes, because the belief doesn't disappear when they suspend it to do their jobs. They can surely contribute in theory, but in practice, many have only compartmentalized to the extent of their ability, and yet still go home and do all these things that contradict science head-on. They're very well aware of that and simply don't care. Sometimes it stains their work, and that's quite unscientific, because compartmentalizing can only get you so far when you have a deep-seated belief and are only performing.
It's also a bit different because it's not a Newton level of genius in that case, with fundamental contributions helping to seed a field, but educated people who nevertheless promote bunk like anti-GMO stances, and woo like chiropractic, who get their papers published with all kinds of unscientific ideas. They're performing the science on paper but not in spirit, and many of them do contribute productively, but let's face it, unscientific beliefs leave their stink and stain.
It doesn't matter what people get out of a religious text as a story because that's hardly a universal truth when it's a subjective experience, and it's a bit orthogonal to what we're talking about.
Regardless, do you really think Islam would support something so contradictory to its central thesis, like abiogenesis? Of course not, they'd try to link it back to Allah in some shape or form. I've seen it happen. It doesn't matter what Islam says when religion and science are fundamentally irreconcilable.
Having a reason to go looking for answers is not the same thing as deliberately cherry picking evidence you can shoehorn into your narrative and ignoring everything else...