gbrunoro

Among other things, it’s interesting to note how science also has its dogmas: if I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I am), there are several "axioms" that cannot be proven but are the foundation for various theories or very important mathematical rules. In short, this is also about acts of faith :D

@stoney: you’re delving into a discussion that doesn’t seem to be within your grasp. When we talk about dogmas, we are not simply referring to something that is not a historical fact or cannot be proven; otherwise, the notion that the Virgin Mary was named Mary and that Joseph was a carpenter would also be dogmas, not to mention all the other countless details from various sacred texts. A dogma is something more complex on a philosophical level and, not coincidentally, is a cultural elaboration that comes after the gospels (in the case of the Christian religion). Moreover, if we want to be honest, the claim that Jesus was the son of God cannot be proven or disproven, since God himself is something that cannot be scientifically proven, etc. etc. The underlying point of my objection remains the same: talking about science in relation to religion makes no sense; it’s the same mistake made when religions criticize science for not confirming what is written in sacred texts... in short, you can’t compare pears and apples! :D

@Chinaski: thank you very much for the clarification. I am well aware that thanks to Darwin, evolutionism has become a fact, although as we study genetics, we progress further in our understanding and many things change compared to Darwin's initial view. I just wanted to understand the difference between the two terms in a simple way.

@stoney: religion has always been a system of social political control, at all levels and in all societies. your last comment is really too superficial; I assure you that if you delve a little into the history of religions, you will realize that it’s not as you say. As for the "social disdain" towards atheists, I believe it is something that is gradually decreasing, fortunately, since it is an absolutely legitimate position and more than shareable.

I never said I was a creationist; I was asking a question. Not by chance, scholars today have heavily reworked and modified Darwin's theory, which, precisely, continues to be called a "theory." If you were more informed, you would know that scientific evolution, especially at the level of genetic studies, has allowed us to move beyond simple Darwinian evolution, although the fundamental importance of Darwin's studies remains established. The bottom line is the respect for freedom of thought, that's all. It's clear that this becomes impossible in the face of monotheistic religions that, necessarily, consider freedom of thought a mistake, but becoming fanatical about science (as someone mentioned above) does not seem like an intelligent solution to me. The key issue is that, for all the peace of mind of everyone, science will never be able to explain EVERYTHING. This is the underlying problem that will allow religions to continue to prosper forever.

@zurk - and did you really think that a civil discussion would be immediately raised to these splendid levels? well done zurk, well done... I believe the central point is the difference between religious and political aspects: in fact, the only religion in the world that is also a fully-fledged political force is Catholicism (I would exclude Anglicanism), since the Vatican is a state and has embassies, ministries, etc. I believe that institutions operate on a spontaneous need of man, which is the religious one, given that throughout all ages and in all civilizations, including modern scientific ones, man has developed a religious sentiment. The risk taken in books like this is to trivialize things that are much more complex in reality.

@morning star: Giordano Bruno was burned not because he was an atheist, but because he upheld a religious vision different from the Christian one. Essentially, he was a heretic, but he was deeply religious. What surprises me is that in many comments, the reasoning is one-sided: religion equals Catholicism. It's true that the Vatican is nearby and always makes its presence known, but it would be wise to broaden our horizons a bit more; otherwise, we’ll get nowhere...

Excuse me, but can someone tell me why we talk about Darwin's theory and not Darwin's law?

:D

Yes, it's all true, but the underlying point you are ignoring is another: science cannot scientifically prove that the divine does not exist. It can only say that its existence is not scientifically proven. That's all. Doubt will therefore remain forever, given that the existence of any God can never be scientifically proven or disproven. Precisely because Science has nothing to do with the divine, if we reason in scientific terms: weren't you taught in elementary school that you can't mix apples and pears? :D