413
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Russia’s science and higher education ministry has dismissed the head of a prestigious genetics institute who sparked controversy by contending that humans once lived for centuries and that the shorter lives of modern humans are due to their ancestors’ sins, state news agency RIA-Novosti said Thursday.

Although the report did not give a reason for the firing of Alexander Kudryavtsev, the influential Russian Orthodox Church called it religious discrimination.

Kudryavtsev, who headed the Russian Academy of Science’s Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, made a presentation at a conference in 2023 in which he said people had lived for some 900 years prior to the era of the Biblical Flood and that “original, ancestral and personal sins” caused genetic diseases that shortened lifespans.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FrostKing@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

Its definitely not true that science and religion have to contradict each other. Take Christianity—you can easily believe in scientific methods to discover the way the world works, while believing that 'God' is the Creator of those things.

[-] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

The thing that gets me is this whole god thing has never in hundreds of years shown or done anything of biblical proportions and we are supposed to just believe it? Prove to me it's real. I love how the defense for this is how you need to believe for it to be real but I'm sorry that's not how that works. If you tell me you have a quarter in your pocket I'm but never show me it why would I believe you?

Why should we have to prove nonexistence when they can't prove existence? If there is no proof, I simply can't believe it.

But that's me.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

Yup. And having a quarter in a pocket is a perfectly reasonable thing that is not only possible, but happens all the time. And even then, there's no real reason to believe it.

Now do the same thing for a claim of the supernatural.

[-] SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

So what imperial evidence would answer your questioning without you trying to debunk that? I mean if God literally spoke to you, would you accept that or were you just hallucinating?

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

I don't know. Given that your skydaddy is all knowing shouldn't it know? Shouldn't it be sitting in heaven now thinking "oh man this one is searching for me and not finding. Let me do the one thing that would convince him". You know exactly like the road to Damascus Experience or Thomas putting his hands on Jesus?

[-] SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Well, I didn't ask what God would do to prove himself. I asked is there anything that would change your mind or is it made up and there's nothing that would get you to change your beliefs? I have to ask because I'm not all knowing, I rely on conversation to get info.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Right but it shouldn't be up to us. If there is an all knowing being it knows the answer to this question and it chooses otherwise. I assume you are Christian if not I am sorry for my wrong assumption. Why doesn't the all knowing being of the universe not do whatever it would take to convince people that it exists to save all those billions from hell, when it knows exactly what is required?

It did it for Paul, it did it for the doubters around Gallie, it did it for Thomas. Why play favorites? Especially as an all knowing being it knows what will happen if it does?

Almost as if none of this bullshit happened and James was running a cult.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Ok let's take Christianity.

We are told a man came back to life violating what we know from biology. We are told the man had to die because original sin which was an event caused in the Garden of Eden, which breaks everything we know about evolution and the history of our world. We are told that 3 = 1 which breaks logic and math. We are told that women are to remain silent and yet the success of a country depends on the degree that women are able to be treated like equals. We are told that anyone who is LGBT+ is a bad person and yet the evidence doesn't support that at all. We are told that Pontius Pilot decided to put down a revolution by stupidly only killing the leader and then let the rest of the group operate under his nose for decades which breaks what we know about history, Roman culture, and freaken common sense.

We are told that the followers of Jesus could heal at a touch, that Paul could drift thru jail walls, that the Romans would allow a privileged burial for a criminal, that demons inhibit buddies, that food can magically appear, that water can become wine by prayer, that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, that leprosy can be cured with prayer, that there is another dimension full of human minds without human brains to power them, that two Jewish women would prepare a male body for burial, that a wealthy guy would randomly give away a section of his family estate for burial to a criminal, that the secret police of the Pharisees would break their own rules they had with Rome and have the local king do their dirty work, that 12 people would abandon their families to follow a cult leader just because he asked nicely...

List goes on and on. Christianity is not compatible with everything we know to be true.

[-] trebuchet@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yes but that's hardly the entirely of Christian belief. What about the part about living until 900 before?

Well, I suppose one way to reconcile those things is that God created genetic diseases at that point to punish us for our sin.

[-] Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

The big difference is that many religious beliefs can't be tested. They are just believed in faith. In science, nothing is believed. It's all evidence based and tested. A scientist doesn't have to reconcile their religious beliefs with their scientific ways because their beliefs are outside the realm of the scientific method. They accept that they don't have a way to measure or test those things.

[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Beliefs can't, but those beliefs generally come from somewhere, and those books tend to be full of testable claims.

And those tests generally fail, meaning we can only assume those sources are not really literally true. And if they're not true, you're really just making stuff up as you go along and assuming things are true as you see fit.

Now, there's nothing wrong with making stuff up, I do it all the time for table top gaming. But I don't base my worldview on the stuff I just imagine into being

Deism isn't incompatible with science, but any god who does stuff can be tested. Since I've never seen a single paper published showing any evidence for any god, I can only assume that either no gods exist, or they don't do anything. For me, those are basically the same thing.

[-] Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There are things in those books that are demonstrably true, but that doesn't necessarily prove everything in them just as those things that are demonstrably false don't necessarily disprove everything in them.

It's just a matter of not being able to observe, measure, or physically test a god's existence. From an objective standpoint, believing whether a god exists or not is still just a belief.

I'm only trying to show how a scientific person could compartmentalize their beliefs from their studies and to that end, I think we agree that they aren't incompatible. What someone chooses to believe after that is up to them, because as you point out, there's no peer reviewed published evidence one way or another.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Right we have found human remains and see no evidence of this.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago

Why is it acceptable to make such a huge leap to "[...] Therefore there must be a god (and it's this specific one)" without any evidence? How does that comport with scientific thought?

Why would it be acceptable to believe such an extraordinary claim for this one specific thing, and yet require adherence to the scientific method for literally any other claim they evaluate?

That inconsistency is concerning to me, and that's why I don't trust scientists who are religious.

this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
413 points (96.4% liked)

World News

39364 readers
3006 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS