377
'Faith in Jesus, Not Scientists': Minnesota GOP Lawmaker Dismisses Climate Change Concerns
(www.ibtimes.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
377 points (98.5% liked)
News
36867 readers
3523 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I never understood why people claim to not have "faith" in Science. Science doesn't want anyone's faith. It wants facts, it wants proof, it wants repeatability.
Religion and Science should not be in conflict. Science gives us powerful tools to explain the Universe, but cannot explain what cannot be observed. If you believe in a higher power, there is plenty of room for that higher power to operate outside of what Science can tell us.
People who claim to not have "faith" in Science are just ignorant. Science will keep going, though, no matter what they believe.
Organized religion conditions people not to think but to view everything through the lens of their dogmas. Faith (unquestioned acceptance of prescribed believes) being nr 1. May never occur to them that the scientific method does not require said unquestioned acceptance.
Religion and science is in conflict because they're antithetical to each other.
Science demands that all you "believe in", all your statements, derivations, conclusions, explanations, be based on fact - and if the supporting information changes, so do your statements/derivations/conclusions/explanations. Essentially, you write the book based on observations, and if the observed things change, so does the book.
Religion is the other way around. All your observations, all your conclusions, etc., must bow to the book first. Anything that doesn't fit the book is the work of the devil, thus bad.
There's no place for inconsistencies, for reiteration of the book (let alone rewriting - unless it's officially approved ofc), it is the ultimate source of truth, unchanging and ever-existing.
Of course you then get denominations that consider the Bible not the word of God but the human-transcribed (thus faulty) version of the word, therefore are much more flexible on how things are interpreted, but that still doesn't allow science to co-exist with religion when the latter can be utilised to invalidate a fact-based system.
WHY DIDN'T GOD GIVE US MICROWAVE OVENS? THEY MUST NOT WORK AFTER ALL.
"There's no place for inconsistencies, for reiteration of the book (let alone rewriting - unless it's officially approved ofc)"
So who the fuck is the official source confirming that the NIV is as consistent as the NEB, KJV, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other versions of the Bible?
Cause the different versions alone bring about a shit ton of inconsistencies.
What I meant by that is that inconsistencies between reality and the book are not accepted.
If the Bible says the sky is green, then it's green, and if it's blue, well, that's the work of the devil and shouldn't be. Regardless what scientific explanation there is.
You are absolutely insane if you think religion is consistent and science isn't.
See my other reply - by "inconsistencies" I meant between reality and scripture. Scripture always comes first in religion, even if reality is proving it wrong.
See e.g. religious types claiming being gay is a sin and unnatural, because the Bible says so, meanwhile nature proves them wrong daily with homosexuality being actively observed in hundreds of species...
This kind inconsistency is what I was referring to.
Religion and Science conflict because they make irreconcilably different claims about reality, and have fundamentally different epistemologies.
They disagree as to what truth is and how it can be determined.
Religious people who cannot find the 'faith' to 'believe' in Science are people who have been brainwashed into religious extremism, which shapes their entire worldview and acts as their default mode of understanding reality.
These are people who would rather kill all the Scientists as heretics, as they have often done throughout history.
Their answer would be that Science will not go on if they... destroy all non-religious education, throw the Scientists into jail, or just kill them.
Historically it‘s exactly that incompatibility of both concepts that created a tension from which certain progress has been born. It‘s fundamental to our evolution as societies. It‘s only times when extremism takes over that either becomes destructive. And it doesn‘t really matter on which side you look - Religion only has a longer record of precedent.
Much of the hatred we saw throught the 19th and 20th centuries though was based on a fundamentally materialist framework. Nazis really thought they were up to something, they could scientifically prove their point and offer the „pragmatic“ solution. To themselves they were utilitarian. Racist ideology does the same. In hindsight it‘s all a big fuss - a net of false assumptions, flawed methodology and manifestation of biases. For the people living during the time it was science.
You see, my point is: It‘s not so much about religion or science, it‘s about trying to control narratives - to utilize them, to weaponize them against deviants. Science has learnt from that - at least a big part of it - even some religious institutions learnt from it. But that doesn‘t stop people from doing what they feel is their nature.
science is just a method of observation. the reason why they hate it so much is because it keeps messing with their idiot garbage superstitions. they need collective ignorance to survive
Science still requires faith of a sort.
The Royal Society in London, a scientific institution since the 1600s, official motto is "On no one's word". One of the fundamental ideas of science is that everything should be reproducible. You literally don't need to take anything on faith.
Presuming you have all the instruments you need, an unlimited budget and the time to repeat everyone’s studies, yes.
If only there was a review system in place where people with similar systems could confirm others findings... Maybe their peers...
Your faith in your peers is yours!
As far as everyone not having the expertise to independently verify every claim, true. But you could independently verify it with enough time and will to do so, unlike with religion.
Yes.
Only what you aren’t capable of reasoning on your own. I can’t reason astrophysics, so I take what astrophysicists say on faith. I can reason some physics, though, and I have to either accept that there’s a giant conspiracy with upper level physics, or that the people who study it know what they’re talking about. Each takes a kind of faith, but the latter requires much less.
Yes, although science requires some empirical measurements too, so unless that’s a gaschromatograph in your pocket and you’re not just happy to see me, quite a bit of faith is implicit in our understanding of the world. Deserved, but faith nonetheless.
I mean, I can get a gas chromatograph, then test it however many times I need to, to prove to myself that it’s accurate, then use it to test whatever I’m suspicious of. I don’t feel the need personally, but if a person wants to, they can. It’s honestly not even as expensive as I would have expected- plenty of options under €1000.
And for more advanced science, the same applies- it would require a lot more faith to believe that everyone with more than two college chemistry classes is lying about the nature of the world than that they’re not.
But yes, you need faith in either direction. Just a lot less of it if science is real.
Yep. Which is all I’m saying to several people’s apparent shock and horror.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I didn’t downvote you, but I think it’s more that that’s true for everything. What if everyone in the world has conspired and I’m secretly the subject of the Truman show? It takes faith to believe that any of the news that I watch is real, and faith to believe that a car accident I pass on the highway wasn’t staged to get a reaction from me. Believing in that giant conspiracy would take orders of magnitude more faith than believing that huge numbers of unassociated people are not intentionally deceiving you though, so comparatively, you don’t need faith. Because faith is required for “knowing” literally anything other than that you exist, saying something requires no faith is obviously hyperbolic.