• MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    No, that’s the thing. It IS still relevant and fully correct for what it meant to do. Just because someone invented better preservation techniques doesn’t magically make shellfish or pork less FBI prone than other food. That is and will always be true.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s not science, though.

      They didn’t arrive at “don’t eat spoiled seafood” or “because the bacteria will make you sick”.

      They arrived at “don’t eat any seafood, ever” and “because magic sky daddy says so and will punish you if you disobey”

      • 2484345508@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Well, think about all those people who heard “rotten foot will make you sick” and said “don’t tell me how to live my life!”

        Kinda makes sense to threaten that kind of person with fire.

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

          What about the ones who heard “not ALL seafood will make you sick, here’s how you can tell which i-” and set THAT person on fire?

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        You yourself called it “outdated science”, so please do not play the semantics game.

        You are completely waxing over that EVERYTHING in religion gets boiled down to, “skydaddy says so”. That does not and will never mean that is the actual etymology of the rule…

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

          You yourself called it “outdated science”

          My mistake. My second pass at it was much more accurate.

          You are completely waxing over that EVERYTHING in religion gefs boiled down to, “skydaddy says so”

          Nope, I’m deliberately alluding to that fact and how it makes religion inherently unscientific. Sorry for being too subtle.

          That does not and will never mean that is the actual etymology of the rule

          We don’t have any proof that scientific experiments were conducted and thoroughly studied to reach the conclusion either. Science is as much about the methods as the result.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Nobody disagrees that religion is not up to modern scientific standards.

            That wasn’t the point. At all. The point is that modern science still says they were on to something. The premise is right answer, wrong reason, so if religion isn’t science … you’re simply agreeing with the whole reason those rules were mentioned in this discussion: (sortof) right answer, wrong reasons.

            I’m positive it wasn’t simply, “god says so”, but probably because everyone noticed people who ate them got sick more often, and attributed ills befalling them as a message from God. It happens all the time in religion. It still stems from something real, just misattributed to God, as usual.

            In either case, the rules are still valid examples of, “something modern science (sort of) agrees with”.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              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
                4
                ·
                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”.