It doesn’t make sense to claim religion is by default anti-science when scientists are just as likely to be religious as not. If religion was as anti-Science as you claim then no scientists would be religious.
People who don’t understand science or religion are anti-science, and they use religion as an excuse.
What logical fallacy? The fact that the US is a very religious study doesn’t change the fact that they have scientists that are religious. If religion was anti-science then you wouldn’t have scientists that are religious, regardless of how religious the country is.
You’re the one committing the fallacy. How religious the the country is has no barring on the argument presented.
You presented the world of US science as the whole world of science. You pretended just because in America, 50% of scientists are religious, that would mean 50% of scientists in the entire world are religious, which is far from the truth.
And you still refuse to accept that this renders your whole argument baseless.
So stop wasting my time.
You presented the argument that “religion has to be anti-science”. Finding a non-insignificant number of scientists that are religious disproves that. It does not matter where they came from, but here’s another study that polls 8 different countries:
The lowest % that identifies with some religious affiliation is France at 30%. That’s significantly more than the 0% one would expect from your statement “Religion has to be anti-science” because if it was all religion that was anti-science you wouldn’t find any overlap at all.
Edit: This is my fault. I’m trying to use studies and science to discredit someone’s firmly held personal beliefs. Something I just said is a waste of time.
Again, there are plenty of scientist who follow one religion or another:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
It doesn’t make sense to claim religion is by default anti-science when scientists are just as likely to be religious as not. If religion was as anti-Science as you claim then no scientists would be religious.
People who don’t understand science or religion are anti-science, and they use religion as an excuse.
Citing a study about science in the USA, a very religious country, as if that in any way reflected the world of science as a whole… well, okay then.
Yes, and a lot of Science has historically happened in the USA, a very religious country.
You committed a logical fallacy, were called out on it and now you try to pretend it didn’t happen. Talking to you is futile.
What logical fallacy? The fact that the US is a very religious study doesn’t change the fact that they have scientists that are religious. If religion was anti-science then you wouldn’t have scientists that are religious, regardless of how religious the country is.
You’re the one committing the fallacy. How religious the the country is has no barring on the argument presented.
You presented the world of US science as the whole world of science. You pretended just because in America, 50% of scientists are religious, that would mean 50% of scientists in the entire world are religious, which is far from the truth. And you still refuse to accept that this renders your whole argument baseless. So stop wasting my time.
You presented the argument that “religion has to be anti-science”. Finding a non-insignificant number of scientists that are religious disproves that. It does not matter where they came from, but here’s another study that polls 8 different countries:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023116664353
The lowest % that identifies with some religious affiliation is France at 30%. That’s significantly more than the 0% one would expect from your statement “Religion has to be anti-science” because if it was all religion that was anti-science you wouldn’t find any overlap at all.
Edit: This is my fault. I’m trying to use studies and science to discredit someone’s firmly held personal beliefs. Something I just said is a waste of time.