5
If anyone wants more like this, Cody Johnston did a really short and concise breakdown of why Peterson is both made and full of shit on his YouTube Showdy(aka Some More News)
Don't look at the timestamps!
There's another more recent one that just breaks down his performance on surrounded to show how he's playing calvinball with debate
It really is as short as it could have been.
I agree with him, but he's wrong imo on a few of things so far, I'll keep editing.
- You do have faith in science, they're called theories.
- Also, religious texts are updated in Judaism in the Talmud, it's constantly being updated.
- Every time a new form of Christianity comes along, you're getting a revised version of the text and basis behind it.
- He's proving that texts change by using the King James version, since there are older versions that are known like the Sanai Bible.
Edit: I appreciate that he's showing how to break down the arguments, that's great for people who don't understand that process. Especially the poisoning the well, which is most of Jordon's arguments in general.
Religious faith is equatable to blind unwavering belief and trust.
That is absolutely NOT equivalent to a scientific theory that resulted from the scientific method of analysis and discovery
Just because you choose to be lazy and accept theory as it stands, doesn't mean everyone else has to. Faith is something different to that.
I disagree, we all have faith that there are things in science we don't understand and that also that certain things exist until proven wrong. You have to to do the process of science. I love this guy, but I think he hasn't thought this through completely.
Edit: I really like his spread sheet to formulate the logic being shown. It's amazing. He makes quite a few jumps though, imo.
I think the difference is that scientific theory exists even when nobody believes or is even aware of it, while religious faith is dependent on people believing it.
If humanity lost all knowledge, but didn't go extinct, we'd eventually reconstruct chemistry, but the doctrine of the trinity would be lost forever.
On earth, the trinity would still exist because it's based on nature. Most religions have it in their doctrine in some form.
Ok, so i have faith that someone understands this thing so I don't have to? Fair.
You don't have to. You can go read and reproduce the studies if you want.
Yeah, it seems like there's a pretty big gap between faith that something is knowable, and faith in something unknowable.
Like the big bang?
Sort of. We don't know that there are other life forms in the universe, but there is a strong probability there is. We have faith that we'll find out some day, but we don't know right now. To some religious people, they have a faith that there is probably a god and they go with the odds. That was actually taught in religion at the school I went to. So, to me, I have faith that there is an unknown source to everything, but fuck if I know if we're all the crumbs on an alien's foot, if there is a pasta god out there or we all made up this world in our own heads so we are god. That is faith that the world started somehow, we just don't know how. We have glimpses of the process, but we are still making interpretations of it.
that certain things exist until proven wrong
Mind sharing an example of this? Do you mean dark matter/energy?
Yes, like ether was kind of a place holder. It goes in and out of favor. I don't know that much about dark matter but I grew up right next to fermilab. They were successful in their experiments, but that took a bunch of faith that it would work. Same *with the cern and the hadron collider. Astronomy is probably the biggest area that you have to have faith in, because there aren't a lot of ways to test it. I suspect that religious people also test their religion in the same way, no matter what they say or do on the outside.
No, faith is not involved in science. At all. Unless you're a terrible scientist.
The ENTIRE POINT (well, an extremely important axiom of good experimentation) of a good experiment is it has to be falsifiable. Faith means nothing to an experiment. Faith has no home in science. They didn't have faith that experiments would work. They had proof that experiments would test something valid, and had questions that should be falsifiable or provable by the data they'd collect.
If you run an experiment where the results cannot be proven one way or the other, it is a bad experiment. Period.
Your insistence on wedging the word 'faith' in to experimentation is only indicative of your utter lack of understanding of the very core axioms of science itself.
Science looks for truth that DOES NOT REQUIRE human involvement what so ever. At all. Faith is a belief. An emotion. The ENTIRE POINT of science is to remove the fallible human elements. It requires NO faith.
In fact, it demands a lack of faith. Experiments HAVE to be falsifiable and reproducible for clearly explained and understood trains of logic proved by previous experiments.
Much like mathematical proofs, if your "proof" is constructed in any part on assumption, "faith", or unclear or disconnected evidence, it is not considered true. It's EXACTLY WHY gravity is only a theory even though it's effects are totally undeniable. It is NOT because of faith, but exactly because science requires ZERO faith.
Again, big bang theory.
Yes, theory. It is NOT scientific fact. It is only supported because there is much evidence to support its occurence, NOT because scientists have "faith" in it. There is DATA behind it.
Also, there is new data that brings its occurence in to (some) question, and scientists are looking in to it, as opposed to idiots who would merely "have faith" that it occurred and not further examine it.
Again, your insistence on using "faith" only proves how little you understand of science or its products. In fact, it makes me doubt you even understand what the word "faith" even means...
Why are you so angry and judgemental about this. You need to have faith in a theory to explore it, yes? If you didn't, you would let it go. I'm saying faith and theories are similar, if not the same.
There is a difference between confidence and expectation and faith. The scientific method has 5 steps.
- Question
- Research
- Hypothesis
- Experiment
- Conclusion
Yes, as a general rule, scientists believe a certain outcome will occur. This isn't faith, though, this is an expectation based on their knowledge and the research they've done to design the experiment. They then go on to ignore their beliefs and test it anyway. They do this because they don't operate on faith, they operate on proof. And if the outcome isn't something they expect, which has certainly happened, they then try to find out why, design new experiments, and perform further studies until they have confidence that they have a good understanding of what they're studying.
If they were operating on faith, they could skip all those steps and just go on what they believe, like with Aristotle believing women had fewer teeth. This leads into other related components of the scientific method: verification and repeatability. A good experiment can be repeated by another scientist and get the same results. And why would they repeat the test? Certainly not due to faith!
No. No one needs faith to understand where knowledge is lacking. You speak as if you've never had a question to answer in your life. Genuinely, a pathetic experience of the unknown.
You're getting a lot of pushback here, and I'm not sure if you truly don't understand why or if you are trolling/being disingenuous on purpose. Webster's definition of faith:
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
"lost faith in the company's president"
b(1) : fidelity to one's promises
b(2) : sincerity of intentions
"acted in good faith"
2
a(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
a(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
"clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return"
b(2) : complete trust
3
something that is believed especially with strong conviction especially : a system of religious beliefs
"the Protestant faith"
None of these definitions of faith fit science. Scientific theory is not faith in the slightest. Scientific theories cannot exist without evidence and observation. Faith has no such requirement.
b(2) : sincerity of intentions
this one
That refers to duty or people, a scientific theory is neither of those.
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2025
5 points (100.0% liked)
Videos
18228 readers
32 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
- AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS