First, you’ll need to cite your your source because I’m almost sure you’re either not giving us the whole context, or you’re only telling us what you understood from that interaction. Because my interpretation is incredibly different from yours.
Second, you can’t possibly expect me to take you seriously when dismissing something for being a religion after admitting to defending some “one true god”. Like, pick a side, dawg.
Perhaps a couple decades ago, some research published, stated that they were identifying macro-scale evidence that universe is fractal.
New Scientist went to an astrophysicist with that…
who then told them that “the model doesn’t support that evidence”.
New Scientist’s reaction was:
“That isn’t science, that is religion.”
Scientism.
Rejecting-of-contradictory-evidence, axiom+authority-based, protecting-self-consistency-of-view paradigm.
Nobody who chooses, unconsciously or consciously, to be standing within that paradigm, can falsify it.
It is a religion: New Scientis was right.
_ /\ _
First, you’ll need to cite your your source because I’m almost sure you’re either not giving us the whole context, or you’re only telling us what you understood from that interaction. Because my interpretation is incredibly different from yours.
Second, you can’t possibly expect me to take you seriously when dismissing something for being a religion after admitting to defending some “one true god”. Like, pick a side, dawg.