• Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    The premise is right answer, wrong reason

    Not even that, no. Rotten seafood ≠ all seafood.

    The point is that modern science still says they were on to something

    Nope. Modern science explains things that they didn’t know.

    They arrived at something that wasn’t completely incorrect in the same way as they arrived at “that burning bush talking must be sky daddy rather than my imagination”.

    That’s not “being on to something”. That’s “blind hen can also find corn” territory.

    • knitwitt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Hi! I think your misunderstanding comes from the fact that religion, is not a mechanism for creating new knowledge, it is a collection of shared beliefs between people.

      A better comparison would be faith VS science, or religion VS scientific understanding.

      While most religious beliefs are faith based at their core, it’s easy to speculate that certain religious and cultural stigma arose after repeated observation of the natural world (Alice ate shrimp, Alice falls ill -> eating shrimp is against the will of God). Not as efficient as controlled scientific testing, but it ultimately lands you on the true statement “Eating shrimp is unwise and likely to get you sick”.