Science Vs Religion -Which has done more harm than good ?

[pianolearner]

Try and keep emotion and bias out of the argument. I am interested in your objective view.

There have been and continue to be many wars and acts of terrorism in the name of religion, but without the bombs and guns that science developed, would so many people be dying? Does religion provide the reason and science provide the means?  At the same time, science finds cures to diseases and religion encourages us to be kind to one another. So, on-Balance, which has done more harm than good?

[counterpoint]

Science is a religion too 

[soliloquy]

I have a better one:  apples vs. oranges.

[thalbergmad]

Does religion provide the reason and science provide the means? 

I agree with this, whether it be crossbows or Nuclear Bombs. There have been millions of people killed in the name of religion and science provides us with ways in which to do it more effectively, but of course it takes human beings to use it in this fashion.

Science is not harmful in itself, it is the way in which it is used. It can be used to kill or cure. Science does find cures to diseases and tries to undo Gods mistakes and still some parts of the Church try to hold it back and stop research. 700 years ago, the Church would just burn scientists who gave a view contrary their own, but thankfully nowadays they do not have the power even if they did have the desire.

So my answer is religion. It has been harmful, will continue to be and probably will always be.

Thal

[term]

I have a better one:  apples vs. oranges.

Science is a religion too

*thumbsup*

Science is no better than religion. It replaces one stupidity with the other, with the word stupidity here being totally arbitrary. It replaces one dogma with another.
those who belive in science will once wake up and see that what they actually do is to *believe*, not to know. Maybe it helps people to see the similarities between religion and science, not the difference, to understand things better.
Do not make the mistake to be as presumptouos as to say that your belief is the only truth. I refer to my signature for further questions. 

Edit: I'm sorry..the topic...

Which has done more harm than good

My answer is, they can both do equally good and and harm. But until know, science.

[prometheus]

what?


Science is an objective and effective method to gain knowledge of this world and has been unimaginable successful.

Religion is a primitive superstition.



Even opening this threat is offensive. Religion has had 0.0 success and a lot of damage. Science by definition can't be harmful at all. Yeah, old theories get destroyed. But only because they ended up being bad.

Each failure of science is a triumph of science.

[counterpoint]

Each failure of science is a triumph of science.

Yes, that's exactly the method of scientists.

They say, they tell you the absolute truth.

Few years later, they say: April fool - it was all wrong. But now we will tell you the absolute real truth! 

That thing repeats for century and century...

[klavierkonzerte]

700 years ago, the Church would just burn scientists who gave a view contrary their own, but thankfully nowadays they do not have the power even if they did have the desire.

So my answer is religion. It has been harmful, will continue to be and probably will always be.

extreemism in religious people is the harmfull thing not the religion itself
if followers of a certain religious belife are bad doesn't mean that the religion it self is bad
and those religion crazed people are by no mean a representaion or judggin criteria about religion.

cheers...

[pianolearner]

It is not about which is better or about the truth. It is about which has done more harm than good. Simple.

Science is responsible for Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. Things that can potentially end the human race.

These things are not lies or theories, they work. This is a FACT.

[thalbergmad]

Science is responsible for Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. Things that can potentially end the human race.

Indeed, but it will probably be a religious fanatic that finally pushes the button.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

extreemism in religious people is the harmfull thing not the religion itself

Regretfully the extremists are usually the one with the power. This is when the religion virus is at its most dangerous. If it did not exist, we would not have fanatics. With each advance of science, the need for God becomes less and less as we are able to explain the world and universe around us.

I agree with the "primitive superstition" description as written by Prometheus.

Thal

[counterpoint]

Science is responsible for Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. Things that can potentially end the human race.

These things are not lies or theories, they work. This is a FACT.

Yes, that's true. And in addition to this, many of the scientific inventions, which are claimed to make people healthier and feel well, are bad for health too. Every year there die more than 100.000 people (in the USA) caused by "side-effects" of their medical treatment.

https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Health_Concerns/Pharmageddon/pharmageddon.htm

[thalbergmad]

Many more would die if it were not for the advance in medicine, hygiene and knowledge of bacteria.

Take away the cures developed in the last Century and then see how many Americans die then.

Thal

[prometheus]

Science is responsible for Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. Things that can potentially end the human race.

Science did not invent these. Science discovered that that these destructive powers and processes are part of our reality.

Nuclear power is an effect of the physics that rule our universe.

Biological weapons are all evolved organisms bred by humans to be even more deadly.

As for chemical weapons, they are the most artificial. But discovering all this knowledge is something different from creating or even using nuclear weapons.

I am against nuclear weapons. All of them. Get rid of all of them. But I recognize science is useful.


Just because science has allowed us to build nuclear weapons which religious fanatics then want to use doesn't mean something is wrong with science.

Either something is wrong with reality or something is wrong with humans.



Not so long ago the life expectancy of humans doubled within 50 or so years. We all know many people that would have been dead if it wasn't for medical treatment. We are all extremely dependent on technology.



Now I still am not convinced if technology is a good thing for humans. But if giving humans technology is a bad thing then it isn't because something is wrong with science.

[term]

Indeed, but it will probably be a religious fanatic that finally pushes the button.

Thal

Don't be too sure abou that, and while i assume you are not 100% serious with this, you're very much a child of the time. 700 years ago they burned the scientists, if we would not have laws against it, *guarantee* they would burn the christians today.


Counterpoint showed very well how, on a different level, science as well as religion proclaims truth after truth which turns out to be false again.
We are indeed at a turn of the tides. Before the 20th century, the official thing was more or less that religion is truth, there is a god, spirits exist etc...the whole package. This belief gradually eroded in the last century. [Edit: centuries.] It turns into the contrary now and i *assume* (not know) that this is the way it will go on until "the end", whatever it is. If science and materialism are reason, than religion and spirituality are sensation. (read about reason vs. sensation, the old philosophers and the greeks wrote about that duality, which has the same source as good & evil, etc). If humans evolved out of primitive apes *** around all day and barely able to utter more than a grunt, they will evolve into something like a machine like brain and die out. Sounds crazy. It is easily observable that literally every development of any given system (such as a species) begins at one extreme, permanently fluctuates around a point and ends in another extreme, which turns out to be very similar to the starting point except the simple fact that it is the opposite. Fractal like, you find the duality of the system reflected in its elements: Men and women, science and religion, leaders and servants, good and evil. You as well find it's oneness: One human who has two sides in him, one society which essentially has only upper and lower class; but you as well find an infinity of aspects and perspectives in the system's elements, because that is the underlying principle of all. No human is like any other.
Before 1900, i would have said because of inquisition etc religion did the most harm to people. Now it is the other way round. *pray* that i am not right 

btw: I will stop with this ramble, i promise. I had to write that. Think about me whatever you want

[prometheus]

extreemism in religious people is the harmfull thing not the religion itself

Religion itself is harmful. Not only do monotheistic religions promote extremism by saying that god demands a lot of attention/faith/submission/obedience. But also because they claim that the world is split in half in black and white and that their god represents the white side.

Religion promotes irrationality, blind faith and accepting authority without questioning.

if followers of a certain religious belife are bad doesn't mean that the religion it self is bad

If a Christian is a bad person because they say homosexuals are evil people or mentally sick people then these people are bad because they hold views that are part of their religion.

[mike_lang]

Religion promotes irrationality, blind faith and accepting authority without questioning.

Would you care to bring a new, less tired anti-religion argument to the table?

Thanks,
ML

[prometheus]

Nope. I rather use the best arguments.


You may think this argument does not apply to you, and you can very well be correct, but clearly, both historically and even presently, religion is very much subject to this argument.

[thalbergmad]

Before 1900, i would have said because of inquisition etc religion did the most harm to people. Now it is the other way round. *pray* that i am not right 

It might well be end up being that way and i too pray you are not right.

I am only grateful that the Church does not have the power it once did and our school children (In UK) cannot be force fed with religion as an entirely positive thing. That is a giant step forward.

Thal

[counterpoint]

Indeed, but it will probably be a religious fanatic that finally pushes the button.

Thal

That's quite likely. Someone like Bush... 

[term]

That's quite likely. Someone like Bush... 

oh nooo...not him. He is just a puppet in the hands of those who gave him their money so that he is where he is. In reward, he will do anything that is asked of him. Poor guy, i pity him, honestly.
In my humble opinion, "the button" is in very secure hands. If it is pushed, it will be pushed by consent and in the name of reason and good. What an irony...

[wotgoplunk]

I have a better one:  apples vs. oranges.

 Muy bien.

[counterpoint]

In my humble opinion, "the button" is in very secure hands. If it is pushed, it will be pushed by consent and in the name of reason and good. What an irony...

The button is in the president's hand - that's for sure!

In the name of reason and good - you mean, the same good as it was for Hiroshima and Nagasaki...? 

[prometheus]

Most Bush voters long for nuclear war as they see it as the Armageddon.


Bush knows this. And while he is a puppet, he does have some influence. Plus, sometimes the advisers are a lot more scary than the presidents.

[term]

The button is in the president's hand - that's for sure!

I do not deny he has some power. For example...to turn the white house upside down \o/ Is that power? Hell yes  But his agenda? No. I must say, while i generally aviod to speak in absolute terms, i'd absolutely deny that president bush has power over the button in the sense that he and only he is to decide. I'd go farther and say he has little to decide.
But who are we that we know for sure. Let's see if we still live tomorrow, that the only thing of interest to me^^

[wotgoplunk]

No. I must say, while i generally aviod to speak in absolute terms, i'd absolutely deny that president bush has power over the button in the sense that he and only he is to decide. I'd go farther and say he has little to decide.

Our Canadian democratic system gives the PM very little power. I love it

[counterpoint]

The button, here it is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Football

[mike_lang]

"Jimmy Carter once left nuclear launch codes in his suit when it was sent in for dry cleaning."
-Wikipedia

Best,
ML

[maul]

Unbelievable. I can't even glimpse at some of these comments without feeling a great sadness for the current state of the human race. I'll leave it to prometheus to do the dirty work.

[ahinton]

"Jimmy Carter once left nuclear launch codes in his suit when it was sent in for dry cleaning."
-Wikipedia

Best,
ML

I wonder if Elliott Carter ever left anything in his; Wikipedia doesn't reveal this...

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

Science is no better than religion. It replaces one stupidity with the other, with the word stupidity here being totally arbitrary. It replaces one dogma with another.
those who belive in science will once wake up and see that what they actually do is to *believe*, not to know. 

This is the standard position of the American fundamentalist Protestant.  But that does not make it correct, regardless how "strong in the Spirit" you think you are.  This particular religious position has been anti-knowledge and anti-education since the days of the early colonists; there is a lot of speculation as to various causes. 

Science is simply one of a number of methods of discovering the nature of reality.  It is the most efficient and reliable method for doing this.  And that's all.  It doesn't make claims about morality, nature of the supernatural, salvation theology, etc.  It is neither good nor bad, those are silly terms to apply.  It is efficient and effective.  Bit by bit it uncovers the nature of reality that God presumably created.  If it discovers effects that we wish it would not, like nuclear or biological warfare, it is only because God created them first.  If God didn't want us to know, He should have hidden it better.  If God didn't want us to use them, He would have given us commandments. 

Oh, wait.  <g> 

Organized religions have been responsible for enormous good (charity, shared sense of values, etc,) and enormous bad (war, intolerance, hatred, bigotry) and I guess you could try to balance the books, but that would probably cycle over time.

Where religion becomes an obvious net evil is when the requirement for irrationality generalizes.  All religions require us to suspend the rational and accept things for which there is little or not evidence, which make no sense, which in some cases require us to deny the plain evidence of our senses.  Some are more farfetched than others, but with the supernatural and the irrational you have no religion.  That is fine as long as it does not generalize to the rest of life. 

It is plainly obvious on this forum that it DOES generalize for enough people to be a hazard.

[mike_lang]

Where religion becomes an obvious net evil is when the requirement for irrationality generalizes.  All religions require us to suspend the rational and accept things for which there is little or not evidence, which make no sense, which in some cases require us to deny the plain evidence of our senses.

Yes, it is a shame when religion becomes completely irrational - I do not have much patience for this
"I'm saved, my work is done," or "I believe in Jesus Christ and that's all I need/therefore I do not have to know him" business.  It is a waste for reason to fall by the wayside when there is such a wealth of great literature, from the writings of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas to modern day writer G.K. Chesterton to brilliant phenomenologist John Paul II.  Even our current Pope played a large rôle in the compilation and release of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and has written some rather profound theological work himself.  Though I do not equate the "assent of faith" and "blind faith," I do find it rather lamentable that so many Christians throw away reason to "make room for Jesus."

 In my eyes (though perhaps everyone feels this way about his or her own religion), Catholicism is a very moderate religion - conservative in what must be conserved (Sacred Tradition, i.e., doctrine passed down orally from generation to generation), but unafraid to change what can and must be changed (traditions, i.e., the offering of mass in the vernacular rather than in Latin, as well as other changes made by the second Vatican council).

Best,
ML

[counterpoint]

In my eyes (though perhaps everyone feels this way about his or her own religion), Catholicism is a very moderate religion

moderate religion?

A religion, that bans the use of the pill and condoms - even when the couple is married.

A religion, that forces its priest to live in celibate - which nobody can do - and the pope knows it and hence forces them to lie about what is going on in reality. How many children of priests do not have a real father.

A religion, who tells all people sinners, who have a normal sex life without being married.

A religion that practises exorcism.

You say, this is a moderate religion?

Hard to believe for me, that such thing exists in the 21st century.

[term]

This is the standard position of the American fundamentalist Protestant.  But that does not make it correct, regardless how "strong in the Spirit" you think you are.  This particular religious position has been anti-knowledge and anti-education since the days of the early colonists; there is a lot of speculation as to various causes. 

So you should be surprised when i tell you that neither am i religious, nor in any sense spiritual, but that i actually came from the science corner. But i changed my opinion as i found out that science has not more truth for me than any religion, actually, that there are certain religious "theories" which convince me more than a mathematical equation.  (Still, i'm not religious. I just observe)

All religions require us to suspend the rational and accept things for which there is little or not evidence, which make no sense, which in some cases require us to deny the plain evidence of our senses.  Some are more farfetched than others, but with the supernatural and the irrational you have no religion.  That is fine as long as it does not generalize to the rest of life. 

Words like rational and evidence show that you put reason over belief. I see where you come from. But that doesn't mean that is right and that is the truth. I have found no evidence, if you want, that reason is any better than belief. It is suitable for physics, math, analizing things. But it is not for things that transcend materialistic reality. Science is approximation. I have to deny what seems to be scientifically true in order to see something behind all things. To not believe that there is more to everything is materialistic, and that is something i cannot accept, in the same way that i cannot say music is just music, a "series of pitch relations in rhythmical order". It is more.
Ask yourself, where religion actually comes from. Millions/Billions of people over thousands of years believed in something transcendental. The mere fact that this is so says quite a lot about human nature, so who are we to judge that by the limited spirit and beliefs of our time, the 20th/2st century? To say things like it is wrong, inacceptable etc?

Edit: Please note, that i am not talking about religious institutions, but religion as such. There is no denying that the christian church, for example, has it's weaknesses.

[timothy42b]

moderate religion?

I would have to agree with Michael, though I think he is Roman Catholic and I am not.

Catholicism today IS moderate, by comparison with some of the alternatives.  It is moderate compared to fundamentalist Protestantism, to Islam, to Orthodox Judaism, and to LDS. 

It is less moderate than Anglican, Unitarian, etc. 

And while exorcism does apparently remain part of the RCC arsenal, it is rarely used and discouraged.  Belief in demonic possession is a tiny part of an RCC worldview, especially compared to the evangelicals, who can hardly go to the bathroom without encountering one.

[prometheus]

The thing is that there is probably no moderate 'moderate monotheistic religion'.

[ahinton]

The thing is that there is probably no moderate 'moderate monotheistic religion'.

I note your appropriately discreet inclusion of the word "probably" here, since religious moderation and monotheism are arguably not necessaraily mutually incompatible, yet I fear that your suspicion may nevertheless be well founded; one would like to think that even monotheism is not by definition directly representative of immoderate thought and/or behaviour, but there sadly appears to exist no shortage of evidence that is likely to foster doubt as to whether and to what extent the two can be separated in practice.

Even then, however, followers of individual faiths such as Islam or Christianity tend to include what might arguably be seen as a rather alarming degree of contrast of approach and expression as well as of flexibility and tolerance; there is a gulf of difference between the average Christian-respecting Muslim and the fundamentalist crusading Muslim, just as there is between the average devout yet enquiring Roman Catholic and the fundamentalist know-it-all Presbyterian or other Christian evangelist - even on this forum, for example, one has only to consider the diametric differences between ML and Pianistimo to be aware of this factor (though I hasten to add that I do not seek to ascribe the above definitions to either of those fourm members specifically!).

Best,

Alistair

[maul]

counterpoint is the epitome of all that is wrong with the world.

Ignorance and washing of brains... it's a delightful treat.
Distorted sense and thoughtless remains... hits an insightful beat.