Forums - General Discussion - Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

On the one hand we have religion, which has resulted in a great deal of conflict through the centuries between religious groups, between religious groups and non-religious groups and finally within religions themselves resulting in the deaths of millions of people througout the centuries

 

On the other hand, however, we have science which has developed every single weapon of destruction used throughout history to cause harm and directly affects our environment causing unwanted effects such as global warming and loss of biodiversity

Atomic bombs, nuclear bombs, tanks, assault rifles, war planes, aircraft carriers, biological weapons... these are all technological devices created by science for one purpose- to end life

The development of these and other weapons and the other peripheral effects i touched briefly on (global warming for example) have arguably lead to the loss of more life than the conflicts of religion have... so which is the greater threat to mankind? discuss



Around the Network

Science can cause wars only directly: I want Oil and Uranium and all

But Religion causes wars



The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?

Science is also the reason we have an average life expectancy over 30 so there's that.



...

Both science and religion have done a lot of good and a lot of harm to humanity at various times. Perhaps it has less to do with these institutions themselves and more to do with the motivations of the individuals leading these institutions?



Torillian said:
Science is also the reason we have an average life expectancy over 30 so there's that.

but does it matter if in a couple centuries or so (by some estimates apparently) we are all flooded out when the ice caps melt completely?

the ice caps melting most people would argue is a direct result of our technological progress not because of a natural phenomenon



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
Torillian said:
Science is also the reason we have an average life expectancy over 30 so there's that.

but does it matter if in a couple centuries or so (by some estimates apparently) we are all flooded out when the ice caps melt completely?

the ice caps melting most people would argue is a direct result of our technological progress not because of a natural phenomenon

And Science is the only reason we know that's happening and that we should try and stop it. 



...

In the modern day, neither is a major threat.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Religion is a science.



Torillian said:
o_O.Q said:

but does it matter if in a couple centuries or so (by some estimates apparently) we are all flooded out when the ice caps melt completely?

the ice caps melting most people would argue is a direct result of our technological progress not because of a natural phenomenon

And Science is the only reason we know that's happening and that we should try and stop it. 

true, but suppose we can't as many scientists appear to believe... then we could lay the blame for the destruction of our world on science couldn't we?



Science in the hands of religious science deniers maybe?