• MiddleWeigh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think science and “god” are mutually exclusive in any way. I’m not religious. And I don’t see a face. But I can appreciate the grandness, the order and disorder, and also see something I’d call divine. If science, if everything as a whole, just being, isn’t “god” I don’t know what is.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We already have a word for everything. The word is ‘everything.’ No need to redefine what ‘god’ means to make it fit into the grandeur of the universe. It isn’t necessary at all.

        • jeanofthedead@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m an atheist, and it’s mostly a joke. The image becomes pareidolia for me, and I’m sure I’m not alone. Just because we have a scientific name for everything doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy comedic wordplay and poetic imagery.

        • MiddleWeigh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hmm. I don’t really like to use the term god, just for that reason. But “redefining god” is a weird idea to me, as everyone’s idea of it is probably different. My “god” is everything, and I call it whatever I want, but usually I don’t call it anything in particular. I’m just trying to state that that person’s view of this picture seeming “godly” is not off the mark at all imo.

          I guess my real issue, obviously it’s not with you, is with the modern connotation of “god” as a sky fairy, when that’s not been my experience with it at all.

          I don’t think there’s anything wrong with talking about god, especially in this sense, and I don’t see the need to interject that this god is actually science, when it’s the same thing.