The Misuse of Science and Religion

[steveorino 7]

As a defense for the exclusion of religion and how the world would be a better place without I often read about the misuse of Power (in the name of religion), Salem witch trials, Inquisition, crusades, Jihad, etc.

If the world would be a better place because people misuse religion or do harm in the name of religion, would the world be a better place without science?

Much harm has come into our world in the name of scientific progress, ie polution, extinction of animals, to say nothing of barbaric scientific procedures perform on patients such as lobotmiesperformed on mental patients, and the autrocities done in the concentration camps by Nazi scientists!

steveOrino

[billvon 2,434]

>If the world would be a better place because people misuse religion
>or do harm in the name of religion, would the world be a better place
>without science?

Philosophical implications aside, it is interesting to note that you are asking this question on a computer-based worldwide information network that's the culmination of a lot of science over the years.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

You don't see me praying to the moon goddess before going hunting with a stick.

[ExAFO 0]

Religion w/o science=Taliban run Afghanistan

Science w/o Religion=Soviet Union.

"I'll take "Somewhere in the middle" for $400, Alex!!"

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Religion w/o science=Taliban run Afghanistan

Science w/o Religion=Soviet Union.

"I'll take "Somewhere in the middle" for $400, Alex!!"

The Soviet Union wasn't necessarily a country based on science. Stalin killed a lot of scientists.

[Zipp0 1]

If science one day provides proof for the existence of God, will this question be moot?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

As a defense for the exclusion of religion and how the world would be a better place without I often read about the misuse of Power (in the name of religion), Salem witch trials, Inquisition, crusades, Jihad, etc.

If the world would be a better place because people misuse religion or do harm in the name of religion, would the world be a better place without science?

Much harm has come into our world in the name of scientific progress, ie polution, extinction of animals, to say nothing of barbaric scientific procedures perform on patients such as lobotmiesperformed on mental patients, and the autrocities done in the concentration camps by Nazi scientists!

I'll give you the Nazi scientists, but how do scientists cause pollution, or cause extinctions (more than any other member of an industrial society)? Surely surgeons perform lobotomies, not scientists?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

how do scientists cause pollution

I don't think it was a Miracle of the Almighty that resulted in the internal combustion engine. Nor do I think it is the pursuit of religion that is causing global warming or Amazon deforestation.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[willard 0]

Though scientists themselves may not be directly responsible for most pollution, extinction, etc., they did provide the means by which mankind has caused his share. If it were not for scientists would we have a problem with nuclear waste?

[DZJ 0]

Quote

If the world would be a better place because people misuse religion or do harm in the name of religion, would the world be a better place without science?

Define 'better', then we can begin.

[unformed 0]

It is not science, but human nature (greed and desire) which has made man take what the planet has offered without trying to replenish the sources.

If it were not for science, we'd still be living like monkeys, and with a life expectancy of somewhere near 25-30 years.

Through science, a lot of harm has been done, however, far more good has resulted. Furthermore, as we learn more, and as we begin to care about the future of our planet, we can begin to control our use, to start replenishing the earth's supplies, and overall stop causing as much pollution, waste, etc, as we have in the past.

This ad space for sale.

[dorbie 0]

Hmm... I read your post and all I see is a devoutly religious person ironically and inadvertently highlighting yet another danger of the muddled thought processes of the deeply religious.

Christianity has already heralded one dark age, let's not go for two.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

I'll give you the Nazi scientists, but how do scientists cause pollution, or cause extinctions (more than any other member of an industrial society)? Surely surgeons perform lobotomies, not scientists?

I was thinking more along the lines of scientific progress that includes industrialization.

I wan't speaking of scientist, per say, but of progress like nuclear energy, etc.

steveOrino

[mikempb 0]

Im seeing more and more ( ex.on the science channel )that scientist are drawing conlusions that prove God exists rather than the opposite. Just yest. I watched one such show saying when you break down a strand of DNA and find all the sub structures their conclusion is that a programer ( creator) is more likely at hand rather than something that happened at random.

[DZJ 0]

I'd have said that industrialisation was at least as much an economic phenomenon as a scientific one. So perhaps the root cause is actually money, or wealth, or greed, or human nature as mentioned earlier, rather than science.

I think all in all this is a bit of meaningless question. Neither religion, nor science are inherently good or evil, and I would say history provides plenty of examples of either being used for either end. Surely it ultimately comes down to the individual, or group of people, and to what ends they harness science or religion (or, indeed, both at once).

[steveorino 7]

While i would agree with you my point wasn't to prove God.

Much harm has been done in the name of religion and that is the excuse given by many that the world would be better off w/o it. I just noted harm has been done in the name of science and pose the question would the world be better off w/o scientific progress as well?

steveOrino

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Amazon deforestation.

Jeanne - you don't have to take all these personal attacks.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[steveorino 7]

Quote

I'd have said that industrialisation was at least as much an economic phenomenon as a scientific one. So perhaps the root cause is actually money, or wealth, or greed, or human nature as mentioned earlier, rather than science.

I think all in all this is a bit of meaningless question. Neither religion, nor science are inherently good or evil, and I would say history provides plenty of examples of either being used for either end. Surely it ultimately comes down to the individual, or group of people, and to what ends they harness science or religion (or, indeed, both at once).

I agree. The misuse of Christianity is usually done by those desiring money and power.

steveOrino

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Though scientists themselves may not be directly responsible for most pollution, extinction, etc., they did provide the means by which mankind has caused his share. If it were not for scientists would we have a problem with nuclear waste?

JUST LIKE GUNS - outlaw scientists

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[pirana 0]

Quote

If science one day provides proof for the existence of God, will this question be moot?

Now there is a fun question. Would it even be possible? What would constitute proof?

My take is that things can be conceptually proven using the usual tools of proof. That only proves something CAN exist, not that it does exist.

Can you prove something exists without actually seeing it? Could you prove that automobiles exist without actually showing us one? (I mean without pointing to global warming as the proof?)

The only real proof something exists is if you directly experience it.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Furthermore, as we learn more, and as we begin to care about the future of our planet, we can begin to control our use, to start replenishing the earth's supplies, . . .

Which supplies and by what mechanism?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[DZJ 0]

"The only real proof something exists is if you directly experience it" That strikes me as a rather dodgy philosophical basis. One can experience all sorts of things without the experience proving their existence.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Im seeing more and more ( ex.on the science channel )that scientist are drawing conlusions that prove God exists rather than the opposite. Just yest. I watched one such show saying when you break down a strand of DNA and find all the sub structures their conclusion is that a programer ( creator) is more likely at hand rather than something that happened at random.

What show and who said that? Beware of the bad science on many of the cable channels. Given the periods of time involved, there is absolutely nothing about the evolution of life, including the first organisms that could copy themselves, that can not be explained as having truly random beginnings.

One of the hang-ups for a lot of people in their inability to understand how random events could lead to life is that they look for a clear demarcation between human invented categories. They expect that one moment there was no such thing as life, and the next moment there was this thing that clearly and obviously was "alive" (whatever that means).

Most things in nature exist along imperceivable gradients. The gradient from no life to life is no different.

A very small percentage of scientists (or psuedo-scientists) being so impressed with what they find that they conclude that there must be a creator, and that the creator must be God is a long long ways from proving God exists.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Nightingale 0]

And how many people would have died without antibiotics?

Comparing science and religion is just stupid. They both have positives and negatives, and they both have caused positive and negative effects, but that's pretty much where the similarities end. They're two entirely different things that ultimately have nothing to do with each other. Religion is the the realm of spirituality, and science is the realm of the physical.

[pirana 0]

Quote

"The only real proof something exists is if you directly experience it" That strikes me as a rather dodgy philosophical basis. One can experience all sorts of things without the experience proving their existence.

Not dodgy, just a way of saying we understand things by either experinecing them directly, or by modeling. Just a thought experiment, but think about how many things you believe exist that you have never experienced. We believe an awful lot just by the models in our mind.

Nothing wrong with that. Just good for the humility to remind ourselves that so much of what we know relies on what others have communicated to us. A very small handful of people KNOW what the texture of the Moon's surface is, the rest of us KNOW what we have been told.

Curious about your last sentence. What is it you have experienced, but deny (or doubt) as existing?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley