| purkjr said: Unfortunately, there is a lot of religion-based terrorism and other problematic behaviour. We have had religion wars, crusades and in modern times shootings and self-bombings.That hurts! However, there were some really problematic periods in history when the damage was done from a strictly atheistic world-view. I just name Pol Pot (Cambodia) and Mao Zedong (China) for example. Both made millions of victims. I don't think the problem is religion (or atheism, for that matter) Both can be used in a damaging way. I've read some people saying they 'belief' in science or 'follow the path of reason' as opposed to religion. That intrigues me in two ways. First of all, this paints a picture of reason vs religion (or faith) But I don't see a opposition between those two. For example, I'm a religious man and also an academic with a cum laude degree. In fact, the most brilliant scientist can be religious people (just google on Francis Collins, for example) Why should religion be opposed to reason? Second, I'm wondering which science or reason do you mean when you claim something like that? I think science is very important, but I'm not believing in it. In fact, science proved that 40% of the scientifical claims made today, will be outdated in the next 20 years. So again: how can I 'believe' in science? Just to be clear: I'm not saying science is not important, I'm just wondering how I can 'believe' in it. |
I don't think anyone is arguing that atheists cannot commit evil. But while many of the things people have mentioned are specifically endorsed or enabled by religion (i.e women not being able to go to school in Afghanistan, Catholic priests raping children) the things you've mentioned were not done to promote atheism and were not specifically enabled by atheism.
As for science, believing in science means that you believe the current findings of science are our current best explanations of what we have found. Some of what we believe will be wrong.
The fact that we can update science is an advantage of a naturalistic world view. As we learn more science gets better, but religion stays static. Which leads to the bizarre reasoning we've seen in this topic as people with modern sensibilities try to justify the morality of their antiquated and often barbaric religions.
All of that said, some findings of science can most definitely be believed. My phone works. We did eradicate smallpox. We have found fossils exactly where we expected. My antidepressants make me antidepressed.
Competitively religion has no such demonstrable results. We know for a fact that science has in fact led to a better understanding of the world. We cannot say the same for religion. Of course religious people have made great contributions but they did so through the scientific method.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 26 June 2025
