Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BasketCase0024 OP t1_it1zmlz wrote

Reply to comment by Arthur_Leywin354 in [Peter Harrison] Why religion is not going away and science will not destroy it by BasketCase0024

I think that's what the text aimed to convey in the beginning. While religion is on a decline in certain parts of the world, it's not true elsewhere. These other regions seemed to have maintained their religious identity (if not reinforced it even stronger) while witnessing scientific development.

1

Arthur_Leywin354 t1_it2mcyl wrote

Those pockets of religion and science exist because religious fanatics have no incentive to make their religion destructive. In the US, there is an incentive to use religion to control people and drag them toward their ideologies. In Iran, religious fanatics hijacked the 1979 revolution to gain large amounts of power in the Middle East and have railed the Iranian people since.

Religion is so vague that it can be used by well-meaning people or ill-intentioned people. The ill-intentioned people in a few large and powerful countries will make it easier to accelerate the downfall of religion everywhere, which is a net good.

Edit: Typo

2

iiioiia t1_it3nhob wrote

> In the US, there is an incentive to use religion to control people and drag them toward their ideologies.

The same could be argued of The Science.

> Religion is so vague that it can be used by well-meaning people or ill-intentioned people.

Often, so too is The Science.

> The ill-intentioned people in a few large and powerful countries will make it easier to accelerate the downfall of religion everywhere, which is a net good.

Similarly, ill-intentioned people in a few large and powerful countries will make it easier to accelerate the downfall of humanity everywhere.

Also: I propose that "is a net good" is problematic due to being stated as an objective truth rather than a personal opinion. One would think "rational, scientific thinking" people would be less prone to this well known by science psychological phenomenon, but results suggest otherwise.

1

Arthur_Leywin354 t1_it3sok9 wrote

When I talk about "science" I'm talking about the scientific method, which I think is good. Since I like the scientific method, I am ok with the scientific method becoming the dominant motivator for human decision-making. If that was the case, we could have resolved climate change sooner and put more money into renewables. Maybe the coral reef wouldn't have been obliterated if it wasn't for religious leaders. rip

If religion was less prominent, people would also be freer. Abortion wouldn't be so controversial, transgender people wouldn't have to fight as hard for their rights, etc. (Btw I'm not saying "if people believe in the scientific method more, then we would be free" I'm saying "with a lack of religion, people would be freer")

Soo yeah... I would prefer the scientific method to be the main framework people think in, not sure what you're point is.

1

iiioiia t1_it3tpnv wrote

>When I talk about "science" I'm talking about the scientific method, which I think is good.

Science is composed of a lot more than that.

> Since I like the scientific method, I am ok with the scientific method becoming the dominant motivator for human decision-making. If that was the case, we could have resolved climate change sooner and put more money into renewables.

Could have.

Does science teach its followers to have curiosity about whether their predictions of the future, or counterfactual reality, are actually true?

>Soo yeah... I would prefer the scientific method to be the main framework people think in, not sure what you're point is.

Part of my point is that like religious people, people who have been ideologically captured by science are also unable to distinguish between their beliefs, facts, and the unknown.

As proof, I offer your comment.

2

Arthur_Leywin354 t1_it41oy1 wrote

You still haven't actually said anything. "I offer your comment." ok and what?

2