What logical fallacy? The fact that the US is a very religious study doesn’t change the fact that they have scientists that are religious. If religion was anti-science then you wouldn’t have scientists that are religious, regardless of how religious the country is.
You’re the one committing the fallacy. How religious the the country is has no barring on the argument presented.
You presented the world of US science as the whole world of science. You pretended just because in America, 50% of scientists are religious, that would mean 50% of scientists in the entire world are religious, which is far from the truth.
And you still refuse to accept that this renders your whole argument baseless.
So stop wasting my time.
You presented the argument that “religion has to be anti-science”. Finding a non-insignificant number of scientists that are religious disproves that. It does not matter where they came from, but here’s another study that polls 8 different countries:
The lowest % that identifies with some religious affiliation is France at 30%. That’s significantly more than the 0% one would expect from your statement “Religion has to be anti-science” because if it was all religion that was anti-science you wouldn’t find any overlap at all.
Edit: This is my fault. I’m trying to use studies and science to discredit someone’s firmly held personal beliefs. Something I just said is a waste of time.
You committed a logical fallacy, were called out on it and now you try to pretend it didn’t happen. Talking to you is futile.
What logical fallacy? The fact that the US is a very religious study doesn’t change the fact that they have scientists that are religious. If religion was anti-science then you wouldn’t have scientists that are religious, regardless of how religious the country is.
You’re the one committing the fallacy. How religious the the country is has no barring on the argument presented.
You presented the world of US science as the whole world of science. You pretended just because in America, 50% of scientists are religious, that would mean 50% of scientists in the entire world are religious, which is far from the truth. And you still refuse to accept that this renders your whole argument baseless. So stop wasting my time.
You presented the argument that “religion has to be anti-science”. Finding a non-insignificant number of scientists that are religious disproves that. It does not matter where they came from, but here’s another study that polls 8 different countries:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023116664353
The lowest % that identifies with some religious affiliation is France at 30%. That’s significantly more than the 0% one would expect from your statement “Religion has to be anti-science” because if it was all religion that was anti-science you wouldn’t find any overlap at all.
Edit: This is my fault. I’m trying to use studies and science to discredit someone’s firmly held personal beliefs. Something I just said is a waste of time.