By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

Trunkin said:
Obviously Science, right? I don't know of any product of religious belief that is capable of ending all life on the planet.

Science doesn't make you fly airplanes into buildings, arf.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
JWeinCom said:
It seems that science is being equated with either progress, technology, or knowledge...

Moreover though, it's kind of a silly question to be honest. We know that either can be used for good or bad means, and that neither alone is sufficient to kill on a large scale.

The more relevant question would be which has a greater net benefit to the world. Science can be used to kill, but there are countless benefits of science (or technology) that cannot be gained through any other means. For example medicine, antiseptics, locomotion, long range communications, videogames, potato chips that taste like tacos, a drastic decrease in poverty and hunger, a drastic increase in life expectancy and quality of life, and so on. So, even if science is potentially dangerous, it is worth keeping and fixing, because we have no other way to get the benefits.

On the other hand, there is, to my knowledge, no benefit that we can get through religion that we can not achieve through other means. There's no benefit that requires religion to balance out the dangers, so it's not useful to keep it.

"We know that either can be used for good or bad means, and that neither alone is sufficient to kill on a large scale."

nuclear war or accidents cannot kill on a large scale?

 

"Science can be used to kill, but there are countless benefits of science (or technology) that cannot be gained through any other means."

as i asked someone else, what is the point of those benefits if due to global warming we all drown when the ice caps melt?

The point is quality of life.  We're all (individually and as a species) going to die eventually.  That does not mean that quality of life isn't important.  Personally, if it was a choice between humanity living for 1,000 more years with a high quality of life, or for a million more but in the condition of cavemen, I'd take 1,000.



withdreday said:

Religion on the other hand, religion has it issued, but nothing else teaches peopls morals, caring about the less fortunate, etc and nearly all laws are based on religious text, so one is to wonder if humanity would have advanced this far with out it.

If religion would teach morals then there wouldn't be no religious extremists.

Fact is, people don't learn morals from Religion... Otherwise Atheists would be pushing immoral values.
Rather... Morals are learned from life experience, it's called Empathy.

For example... I would hate to chop someones leg off with a chainsaw, because I would hate it done to myself.

WolfpackN64 said:

I'm not mixing them up. I'm stating there OUGHT TO BE morality in science. Disconnecting science from possible problems by shoving them in other fields is disingenious. You could say a problem created by a scientist is economic in origin. But that's a weak argument. Most societal elements (including religion) are influenced by this sphere. This also counts for the scientific sphere.

There is "morality" in science (If you can call it that). It's called Pseudoscience. - It's how people use "science" to reinforce their belief the world is flat or other stances that better align to their religious doctrine.

Science doesn't give a shit about politics... It doesn't care about religion, It never cared for how a countries economy is run, it doesn't even care if you exist or not.
Science is about knowledge and the gathering of knowledge and the demonstration of that knowledge.

o_O.Q said:

 

there are many instances of irreversible harm being down to people or the environment as a consequence of our technology

the coral reefs marine biodiversity lost from increasing sea levels

the biodiversity lost from rainforests

the damage caused by various nuclear accidents and tests throughout history such as chernobyl or fukushima

and the list goes on and on and on with many different things i don't know of


Technology is a subset of science. And Science is the only thing we can leverage to clean all that up and learn.

No one has claimed that Science has dropped the ball during history, but through Science we do learn from our past mistakes.

But if it's a body count you are clinging too... Religion is still the cause for war even in 2018.


o_O.Q said:

you can't prove that, you can't prove that praying to god does not have positive impacts on the earth

I have "faith" that praying to a God does not have a positive impact upon the Earth. - Ironic you need evidence for my position though, but not your own.
Fact is... There is zero evidence to point to a God even existing, let alone prayer having any effect on the natural world.

I haven't had a theistic debate on this forum just yet, do you wish to follow me down that rabbit hole? ;) I do have a good grasp on Physics.

o_O.Q said:

lay it out for me, i'm all ears

Or hows about no? It was a question, not a statement.


o_O.Q said:

how is it ironic? it could only be ironic if religion caused the problem to begin with... i'd argue that since religion is against technology advancement that its actually quite the opposite

Are you serious? This is why religion is moronic, it's imposing it's religious ideology, holding back solutions to making the world better/fixing world problems...  Then when they are called out on it... They claim had nothing to do with it? That's some circular logic bullshit going on there my dear watson.


o_O.Q said:

true... is this some kind of justification for the damage we've caused to the planet?

No?

o_O.Q said:

 

ok that was a bad example but the point i was making is that in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence

Name one.

o_O.Q said:

wait, hang on for a second, i just noticed something, do you think people exist that do not have empathy?

With the amount of priests that have had sexual abuse allegations leveraged against them, clearly religion isn't a path to being moral/having empathy either.

Morals and Empathy is born out of life experience... Pain, suffering, joy, happiness and not wanting to treat others the way you wish to be treated, religion isn't a requirement for any of that... Which is why extremely Atheist nations tend to still have a great track record of human rights.


o_O.Q said:
well that's not really true though, scientists aren't robots...

Some literally are though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Scientist

Kerotan said:
SpokenTruth said:

We would all be dead from plagues and bacterial infections long ago.

Would we? We seemed to do all right for millions of years without science. If anything we are making these diseases more dangerous the more advanced we get. 

Diseases evolve, they would have evolved and gotten more dangerous regardless of scientific advancement.

o_O.Q said:

many people believe in the big bang even though its just a proposition... its quite alright to say that its just a proposition... but people don't really behave like that's the case with these things


False. The Big Bang is not just a proposition.
There is literally evidence for it's happening... Such as the Cosmic Microwave Background or CMB for short.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

The Big Bang is also built on models from the theory of general relativity, the same theory that allows our GPS satellites to function in space.

What is a proposition is... God. There is zero evidence or models supporting the assertion that a God even exists.

o_O.Q said:

for example

https://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/news/print/hemonc-today/%7B630731c4-d1a3-4d77-94b9-8a2850da4f0e%7D/bloodletting-an-early-treatment-used-by-barbers-surgeons

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53pi.html

http://art-bin.com/art/hanson_en.html


That's not evidence that the Scientific Community uses faith.
That is just evidence that the Science wasn't fully understood.

bdbdbd said:

I only pointed this out, because in a debates like this, you often see "theory" interpreted as "hypothesis".

Indeed.
There are actually two types of theories.
You have the standard theory which is just an "idea".

Then you have a Scientific Theory which is almost the complete opposite, which is an explanation of a working model based on empirical evidence.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Chrizum said:
kljesta64 said:

religion or not you live your everyday life by those belief systems.. its called the law. you have to obey it.

theres no way religion is a threat these days..unless you live 800years in the past where everyone is slaughtering each other and think the messiah is coming.

Apparently you haven't heard about Christian genocide around the world, mostly in Africa. Nor about Islamic terrorist attacks...

so thats more of a threat to 'humanity' than a 1000 atomic bombs going off all at once ? science is a tool for the extremists and you dont have to be a christian or muslim or whatever to use it.



Tsubasa Ozora

Keiner kann ihn bremsen, keiner macht ihm was vor. Immer der richtige Schuss, immer zur richtigen Zeit. Superfussball, Fairer Fussball. Er ist unser Torschützenkönig und Held.

Oneeee-Chan!!! said:

Capitalism is worst threat to humanity.

Good answer.



Around the Network
kljesta64 said:
Chrizum said:

Apparently you haven't heard about Christian genocide around the world, mostly in Africa. Nor about Islamic terrorist attacks...

so thats more of a threat to 'humanity' than a 1000 atomic bombs going off all at once ? science is a tool for the extremists and you dont have to be a christian or muslim or whatever to use it.

I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth. But you go ahead and tell the people that are getting slaughtered like pigs by religious extremists that religion isn't a threat to them.



Chrizum said:
kljesta64 said:

so thats more of a threat to 'humanity' than a 1000 atomic bombs going off all at once ? science is a tool for the extremists and you dont have to be a christian or muslim or whatever to use it.

I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth. But you go ahead and tell the people that are getting slaughtered like pigs by religious extremists that religion isn't a threat to them.

it's better if you go and tell them that there are normal religious people and maybe they'll spare you because they'll think you're just a nut.

 

ps

i didnt put words in your mouth thats what i got from your post.



Tsubasa Ozora

Keiner kann ihn bremsen, keiner macht ihm was vor. Immer der richtige Schuss, immer zur richtigen Zeit. Superfussball, Fairer Fussball. Er ist unser Torschützenkönig und Held.

o_O.Q said:
SvennoJ said:

Would you rather go back to the time of the small pox, bubonic plague, spanish flu etc to keep the population in check?

And get rid of the internet, cars, central air, guaranteed food/water supply and go back to living as hunters/gatherers. Not that that's sustainable with 7 billion people. It's science that proposes solutions for more sustainable living, it's belief or rather disbelief in science that stops people listening... Money >>>> Science and religion. The greed for money is the biggest threat to humanity.

i'm not taking a position here, i just listed some disagreements i had with your post

"It's science that proposes solutions for more sustainable living"

in some ways yes and in other ways no

"Money >>>> Science and religion. The greed for money is the biggest threat to humanity."

i think many people work as hard as they do to gather resources/money... if you took that away i'm pretty sure most people wouldn't be motivated to work as hard as they do

Perhaps people don't need to work as hard as they do. Yet the dream is to become the one with the private jet and a garage full of gas guzzling monsters. Or a bit less ambitious, a nice house in the suburbs which requires a long daily polluting commute. Science made that possible. It's also proposing cleaner ways, yet those are more costly and thus not cool.

Both religion and science offer sustaining ways of life anyway. You can build your own house in Alaska off the grid and use solar power and any other technologies to become completely independent. Or you can become Amish and set the clock back to before the industrial revolution.

Neither are a solution for 7 billion people. A holy war can cull the population with science. Or people can smarten up and start using greener tech to preserve their long term lifestyle. Or we can just wait and see what happens. Religion certainly won't save us, science has a better chance. A small one. Short term profits are more important.

Biggest threat to humanity is apathy!



Now that I think about it... isn't any long-standing, widely accepted belief technically a religion? The belief that we should live long, healthy lives is a religion, is it not? The believe that war is bad and we should be at peace is a religion. The belief that science is important is a religion.

I think we all live by some form of religion, even if we don't want to admit it.



Pemalite said:
withdreday said:

Religion on the other hand, religion has it issued, but nothing else teaches peopls morals, caring about the less fortunate, etc and nearly all laws are based on religious text, so one is to wonder if humanity would have advanced this far with out it.

If religion would teach morals then there wouldn't be no religious extremists.

Fact is, people don't learn morals from Religion... Otherwise Atheists would be pushing immoral values.
Rather... Morals are learned from life experience, it's called Empathy.

For example... I would hate to chop someones leg off with a chainsaw, because I would hate it done to myself.

WolfpackN64 said:

I'm not mixing them up. I'm stating there OUGHT TO BE morality in science. Disconnecting science from possible problems by shoving them in other fields is disingenious. You could say a problem created by a scientist is economic in origin. But that's a weak argument. Most societal elements (including religion) are influenced by this sphere. This also counts for the scientific sphere.

There is "morality" in science (If you can call it that). It's called Pseudoscience. - It's how people use "science" to reinforce their belief the world is flat or other stances that better align to their religious doctrine.

Science doesn't give a shit about politics... It doesn't care about religion, It never cared for how a countries economy is run, it doesn't even care if you exist or not.
Science is about knowledge and the gathering of knowledge and the demonstration of that knowledge.

o_O.Q said:

 

there are many instances of irreversible harm being down to people or the environment as a consequence of our technology

the coral reefs marine biodiversity lost from increasing sea levels

the biodiversity lost from rainforests

the damage caused by various nuclear accidents and tests throughout history such as chernobyl or fukushima

and the list goes on and on and on with many different things i don't know of


Technology is a subset of science. And Science is the only thing we can leverage to clean all that up and learn.

No one has claimed that Science has dropped the ball during history, but through Science we do learn from our past mistakes.

But if it's a body count you are clinging too... Religion is still the cause for war even in 2018.


o_O.Q said:

you can't prove that, you can't prove that praying to god does not have positive impacts on the earth

I have "faith" that praying to a God does not have a positive impact upon the Earth. - Ironic you need evidence for my position though, but not your own.
Fact is... There is zero evidence to point to a God even existing, let alone prayer having any effect on the natural world.

I haven't had a theistic debate on this forum just yet, do you wish to follow me down that rabbit hole? ;) I do have a good grasp on Physics.

o_O.Q said:

lay it out for me, i'm all ears

Or hows about no? It was a question, not a statement.


o_O.Q said:

how is it ironic? it could only be ironic if religion caused the problem to begin with... i'd argue that since religion is against technology advancement that its actually quite the opposite

Are you serious? This is why religion is moronic, it's imposing it's religious ideology, holding back solutions to making the world better/fixing world problems...  Then when they are called out on it... They claim had nothing to do with it? That's some circular logic bullshit going on there my dear watson.


o_O.Q said:

true... is this some kind of justification for the damage we've caused to the planet?

No?

o_O.Q said:

 

ok that was a bad example but the point i was making is that in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence

Name one.

o_O.Q said:

wait, hang on for a second, i just noticed something, do you think people exist that do not have empathy?

With the amount of priests that have had sexual abuse allegations leveraged against them, clearly religion isn't a path to being moral/having empathy either.

Morals and Empathy is born out of life experience... Pain, suffering, joy, happiness and not wanting to treat others the way you wish to be treated, religion isn't a requirement for any of that... Which is why extremely Atheist nations tend to still have a great track record of human rights.


o_O.Q said:
well that's not really true though, scientists aren't robots...

Some literally are though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Scientist

Kerotan said:

Would we? We seemed to do all right for millions of years without science. If anything we are making these diseases more dangerous the more advanced we get. 

Diseases evolve, they would have evolved and gotten more dangerous regardless of scientific advancement.

o_O.Q said:

many people believe in the big bang even though its just a proposition... its quite alright to say that its just a proposition... but people don't really behave like that's the case with these things


False. The Big Bang is not just a proposition.
There is literally evidence for it's happening... Such as the Cosmic Microwave Background or CMB for short.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

The Big Bang is also built on models from the theory of general relativity, the same theory that allows our GPS satellites to function in space.

What is a proposition is... God. There is zero evidence or models supporting the assertion that a God even exists.

o_O.Q said:

for example

https://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/news/print/hemonc-today/%7B630731c4-d1a3-4d77-94b9-8a2850da4f0e%7D/bloodletting-an-early-treatment-used-by-barbers-surgeons

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53pi.html

http://art-bin.com/art/hanson_en.html


That's not evidence that the Scientific Community uses faith.
That is just evidence that the Science wasn't fully understood.

bdbdbd said:

I only pointed this out, because in a debates like this, you often see "theory" interpreted as "hypothesis".

Indeed.
There are actually two types of theories.
You have the standard theory which is just an "idea".

Then you have a Scientific Theory which is almost the complete opposite, which is an explanation of a working model based on empirical evidence.

"Religion is still the cause for war even in 2018."

religion caused the united states to bomb syria? which religion?

 

"Fact is... There is zero evidence to point to a God even existing, let alone prayer having any effect on the natural world."

why don't you try to pray for yourself and see if it has any impact on your condition?

 

"Are you serious? This is why religion is moronic, it's imposing it's religious ideology, holding back solutions to making the world better/fixing world problems...  Then when they are called out on it... They claim had nothing to do with it? That's some circular logic bullshit going on there my dear watson."

the point i made is that climate change is caused as a result of science in terms of the current global warming trends... had religion been allowed to suppress science, then it would not have happened... do you disagree with that?

 

" Which is why extremely Atheist nations tend to still have a great track record of human rights."

like the soviet union? and maoist china? beyond them i can't name another atheist nation... can you give an example? because the two i listed would be terrible examples

 

"The Big Bang is not just a proposition.

There is literally evidence for it's happening"

the big bang is still considered a theory which is another way of saying proposition

 

"That's not evidence that the Scientific Community uses faith.

That is just evidence that the Science wasn't fully understood."

they had faith that the evidence presented in these cases was accurate and as a result they used harmful procedures or pushed lies... how can you really deny that?