There are many possible points of comparison, but here are some objective criteria of how science is superior to religion in terms of improving the lives, health, and welfare of humanity on a very basic level and all around the world.
Sanitation & Cleanliness:
What has religion done in the past millennia to improve sanitation and cleanliness? Little to nothing. Science, however, has informed us of the ways in which disease can be spread through improperly handled water and poor hygiene. Science has also provided the tools to make water safer to drink and to clean up both ourselves and our surroundings to greatly reduce the risk of disease. Countless people have been saved from sickness and death through this information.
Fighting Disease:
Disease in general is not something which religion has helped fight; on the contrary, myths about the origins of disease have only made things worse. Science, however, has identified the bacteria and viruses which cause disease, how they work, how to fight them, and more. Through evolutionary theory we know that the fight against pathogens is endless because they will constantly evolve, but science gives us the tools to continue the fight with.
Religion does not and often inhibits the effort.
Human Longevity:
Humans today live much longer on average than they used to, with the longest lives occurring in the industrialized West. This is not a coincidence: it is due to the use of science to fight disease, improve hygiene, and most importantly to improve the chances of survival in childhood.
People are living longer because they use science to better understand and manipulate the world around them. Religion has not contributed to this.
Communication & Community:
People today can communicate with each other across vast distances in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. This facilitates not only the transmission of useful information, but also the development of new and dynamic human communities. All of this is possible through the use of science to create new technology. Religion has made great use of these abilities, but has contributed nothing to their basic development.
Food Production & Distribution:
People need to eat to survive, and while religion might encourage giving food to those who need it most, it does nothing to help grow more of it and more efficiently. Humans have used basic scientific tools to improve food production for millennia, but in recent times that has increased geometrically through the use of chemical analysis, satellite records, and even genetic manipulation. Science makes it possible to feed more people more efficiently with less land.
New Materials:
Everything we make must be made from some raw material. In the past the options were limited; today, however, there is a wealth of materials that are lighter, stronger, and often better than what was available before.
Religion did not create plastics, carbon fiber, or even steel. Science and the scientific method allow people to develop new materials for new tasks, making it possible to do so much that we take for granted today.
Understanding Sexuality & Reproduction:
Science has provided invaluable insights into how human sexuality and reproduction work. We understand not only how and why things function, but also how and why they fail to function. This makes it possible to correct for errors and for people who previously were unable to have children to now successfully do so. Religion not only has not contributed to this, but in the past it has inhibited our understanding through myths and fables.
Understanding Our Real Place in the Universe:
It should go without saying that we cannot improve our position if we don't know what that position really is.
Science has provided tremendous information about our place in nature, about our planet's place in the solar system, and about our galaxy's place in the universe. There is much to learn, but what we know already has been put to great use. Religion has only ever offered myths, all of which have proven to be wrong and misleading.
Humanity Needs More Science, Not More Religion:
It can be argued that there is much more to life than improved sanitation, improved hygiene, fighting disease, increased food production, new materials for building things, improved communication, and so forth. On the other hand, there isn't nearly as much life without those things — and those who are alive will have to endure more hardship and suffering as well. The ability of science to improve the very basic necessities of life is without question. The fact that religion doesn't even come close is also without question.
Why does such an extreme difference exist? Science's success depends upon the scientific method and upon methodological naturalism. The scientific method ensures that new ideas are thoroughly tested and vetted before being accepted. Methodological naturalism ensures that science conforms to the boundaries of the natural world rather than the boundaries of wishful thinking.
Religions neither incorporate nor value either of these methods. The diversity of religion prevents us making many generalizations about all religions, but I am unaware of any that develop and test their claims on the scientific method or rely upon methodological naturalism when examining the world.
This doesn't require the conclusion that religion is valueless because not everything in life can, does, or needs to incorporate the principles of science to be worth anything. What we can conclude, however, is that in the past couple of centuries science has done far more to improve the basic living and survival standards of humanity than religion has in the past several millennia. Religious leaders like to claim that we need more religion in order to solve our problems, but with most problems we could probably benefit from more science instead.
Of course the knowledge science gains can be used for bad reason as well, but this is down to human choice, and more knowledge can only help us make better choices in the long run. Ignorance and superstition have has their turn, it's been a long run, time to put them aside now.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Agriculture! I know of some local Amish people who still plow their fields because they say it is recommended by god in the bible. All of their neighbors uses no-till techniques which save soil from erosion. Plowing is why we had the Dust Bowl in the 1920"s and 1930's.
An example of a claim that can be empirically tested, and evidence shown to demonstrate whether it is environmentally sustainable, yet it is hard to imagine the Amish changing their minds about the bible if it is contradicted by sound scientific evidence. Try convincing the catholic Church that population control is vital in a world with an exponentially increasing population and finite resources. or that the best way to achieve this has been demonstrated to be sex education and contraception.
And science doesn't ask for 10% of your income to spend on legal defense for paedophile scientists.
You don`t say why science can`t deal with man`s concept of sin, or the remedy of it; All you mention is how in a couple of century how it made us more comfortable in hygiene and food conservation but no where do you sight man`s downward spiral when it comes to morals. All the murders the rapes the theft the con games in and out of government. So what good is science after all if it makes us more comfortable and live longer while where coming apart inside. That`s where a place for religion comes in; I say that you can have both without forsaking and disregarding religion. the how and Why are also big questions to address that so far science has not addressed.
Violence worldwide is greatly reduced from Medieval times.
Indeed you re correct sir, even allowing for two world wars, the chance of meeting a violent death in the 20th and 21st centuries has been evidenced to be far less likely than at any point in recorded human history, and by large bodies of research.
Here's a good book covering the topic:
The Better Angels Of Our Natures.
By Steven Pinker
You mean the bible's concept of "sin". Fortunately, science is also solving the ills of society. Instead of just observing a despicable act and throwing the blanket of "it is sin" on the topic, science can peel back the layers to comprehend why it happened, be it brain chemistry, societal, or one of countless reasons. Once the causes are identified, a proper plan can be drawn up and implemented, with very high odds of success.
My wife is a psychologist who works with children. When a child is acting out, she is capable of identifying and solving the issue, and the net result is that the child has resolved an internal issue, and is better placed to live a happy, productive, and healthy life. My wife has also worked for religious organizations, and all they do is ask for prayer and tell the child that if they repeat, Jesus will cry. Of course, one method works long term, the other may only be good enough to shut the child up so they can put it to bed.
As far as crime and corruption, need I point out that the great majority of such acts are committed by those who profess to being religious?
If you desire to introduce the concept that only religion provides morals, I suggest you start a new thread instead of attempting to derail this one, which is about science.
I refuse to discuss "sin" as it's a mythical supernatural concept that no one can demonstrate evidence for. If he wants to discuss why human behaviour is sometimes pernicious, and what we can do to improve things then fine. In the context of this thread that will be how science has and can farther help us to improve our morals. Though given he denies reality and scientific facts in favour of bronze age superstitions, I'm not sure there's much to be gained beyond another sententious lecture from him on the superiority of bronze age patriarchal laws over equal rights and scientific facts to better inform our moral decisions.
@Agnostic believer: "but no where do you sight man`s downward spiral when it comes to morals."
Surely you jest. There have been enormous improvements in morality. I've even heard a rumor that popes have stopped hiring out nuns as prostitutes and castrating choirboys.
As far as other crimes go, you have to be aware that higher reporting rates don't necessarily mean higher crime rates.
And how do you explain the fact that Japan, which is largely secular, has a far lower crime rate than Christian America and Catholic Latin America?
"You don`t say why science can`t deal with man`s concept of sin, or the remedy of it;"
The same reason it can't deal with unicorns and mermaids, and since it's a mythical human creation that has no basis in reality that evidence can be demonstrated to support it has no more remedy than unicorns or mermaids, and of course needs none.
"All you mention is how in a couple of century how it made us more comfortable in hygiene and food conservation"
That's a lie. Though you'd need to explain why that is not a laudable achievement on it's own before I can respond further.
"but no where do you sight man`s downward spiral when it comes to morals. "
Nowhere is one word, and it's cite not site ffs, and the second claim is another lie, I'm disinclined to keep responding with expansive rebuttals to your mendacious claims when you don't attempt to evidence them, and ignore my responses. So from now on they get Hitchens's razor.
"All the murders the rapes the theft the con games in and out of government. "
That's gibberish sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say?
"So what good is science after all if it makes us more comfortable and live longer while where coming apart inside."
I already said what good it is, as have others, and your claim is another lie, Hitchens's razor applied.
"That`s where a place for religion comes in; "
On the back of an unevidenced lie, that seems apropos to me, so for once we agree, though for different reasons obviously.
"I say that you can have both without forsaking and disregarding religion. "
have both what? I donlt believe in a deity so have no use for religion, and I fail to see what you claim has to do with the OP, also that's a lie, Hitchens's razor applied.
" the how and Why are also big questions to address that so far science has not addressed."
A new sentence starts with a capital letter, and I have no idea what "how and why" you are referring to, but since you yet again offer no attempt to evidence your last claim...it's a lie, Hitchens's razor applied.
Seriously you need to grasp this is a debate forum, not a revivalist tent and you're not in a pulpit. Reading your endless proselytising is tedious in the extreme, and it is not remotely debate.
But humanity is plagued by other vises. Science ends at ones death for that given individual but in the case of Christianity life goes on according to how you lived your life. Science couldn`t prevent that person from dying I t may be good and profitable for the medicine companies and technology companies but tell me at what expense to humanity`s soul;
And of course, can you provide proof that for religion, life continues once the body has stopped working? Actuall proof?
In the dark ages when religion permeated every fabric of society, the average life expectancy was shocking. The average life expectancy for a male child born in the UK between 1276 and 1300 was 31.3 years. Guess what, science happened and that shocking number has more than doubled.
I’d agree with most of the OP’s points. Communication, Growing food, Curing diseases. All great! That’s coz all these fall under science. None of them deal with ethics, morality, philosophy, etc.
It’s like saying the Hunger Games (the book) is a better book than a book about Organic Chemisty because I’m entertained by the first book.
I disagree, donlt you think more knowledge is advantageous for making decisions about what is moral? science is just a tool box for gathering knowledge, it doesn't make us more moral on it's own of course that's overly simplistic, but it helps us make more informed decisions. Also the thread OP is ways in which science is superior to religion, not that science IS superior to religion, science helps us understand reality, religion just insists reality isn't all there is.
Well I definitely disagree with your saying that science is superior to religion a discipline which is only a couple of centuries old compared to say Christianity and Judaism which is thousands of years. when you look at the doctors of the church and what they wrote down for us, and then the music and the arts the paintings the sculpture etc etc science can`t compare; And scientist were Christians years ago, they just say over 50 years have come to this silly notion that there is no need to recognize a God who made all of this. Really arrogant and obnoxious .science will never help humanity solve its problems; morally and spiritually we are descending into the sewer.
@Agnostic Believer: "scientist were Christians years ago"
Years ago it wasn't safe not to be Christian. You could lose your job, or in some countries, your liberty or even your life.
Your comment that science is a couple of centuries old is puzzling. Have you never heard of Archimedes, Hero of Alexandria, and all of the Chinese inventors of things like gunpowder, stirrups, clocks and other things? The first caveman who learned to make fire was a scientist.
Religion is certainly old, but its net contribution to progress over the past several millennia has been deeply negative.
Science has been practiced for many thousands of years, but only recently (in the last 500 years) has science become more structured. But in today's world, with better communication and laws that allow us free speech, more and more people are listening and thinking. And guess what, it is gaining traction, getting larger and larger each year. Maybe there is something in it. Just like discovering a new way to do laundry.
Christianity was an impediment to science. Back when Christianity had a strangled hold on the population, it was called the dark ages for a good reason. Many previous discoveries were destroyed or abandoned, many areas denied, heck, surgeons feared cutting into the abdomen in fear they would discover that men did not have that missing rib.
I am currently learning about the history of astronomy, and there is a common theme where inquisitive and great minds were stifled, censored, or even murdered by Christianity. Galileo Galilei was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."
Just because people have accepted something for a long period of time, that does not make it true. The ancient Egyptian religions began around 3100 BC, approximately 5,000 years ago. So by your logic, Osris, Anubis, and Horus exist.
What is really obnoxious and arrogant is claiming something that has never come close to meeting the burden of proof, and insisting we all follow this belief system.
"when you look at the doctors of the church and what they wrote down for us, "
If it's still of any use to modern medicine then it is science by definition, and not religion, religion offers nothing to help us understand disease, or how to cure it, whilst science in a very short time has cured and even eradicated diseases that plagued humanity for millennia.
"and then the music and the arts the paintings the sculpture etc etc science can`t compare;"
Who was comparing science to art or music? another straw man argument. Besides music and art are not dependant on theism, that's axiomatic.
"And scientist were Christians years ago,"
Almost everyone was a theist of some sort in the past, so what? Science has nothing to do with what a person believes, only with what they can demonstrate evidence for.
"they just say over 50 years have come to this silly notion that there is no need to recognize a God who made all of this. "
That's a lie, Hitchens's razor applied.
"Really arrogant and obnoxious ."
The claim to know what a deity wants, and to endlessly lecture others on how they ought to live as you think they should is indeed both of those things, especially when it involved prejudice and bigotry.
".science will never help humanity solve its problems; morally and spiritually we are descending into the sewer."
Another lie, Hitchens's razor applied, and a particularly idiotic one given the list of problems already listed in this thread that science has helped us solve. Religion didn't eradicate smallpox, science did, perhaps you think human suffering is not a problem? Science can help us make more informed moral decision, that's axiomatic. Science cannot do anything with fiction like "spiritually" anymore than it can comment on unicorn husbandry. Your last claim is another lie, Hitchens's razor applied. Though your contributions suggest your arguments are already in the sewer. Do try and contribute something of value. beyond this endless tedious sententious preaching.
"If it's still of any use to modern medicine then it is science by definition, and not religion, religion offers nothing to help us understand disease"
religion will just say, lets pray to that for god will heal thy body from disease. if science is like that? i guess we still have plagues, leprosy and polio and humanity will be extinct from this time being. if someone is healed from it, we'll all say, its a miracle!!
prayer does nothing but just wastes your time.
and faith will make you think if it fails you. no doubt about that.
You still like most humanist don`t talk about the moral bankruptcy the world is in. That`s because science doesn`t have a clue how to stop the slide downward morally .it may gives some conveniences but the world is starving from within. In the soul the spirit of people is dead. Science is an naturalist discipline it can`t consider the soul of the individual; Because it doesn`t accept the claim that humanity have souls .Since they don`t recognize that extremely important point, they are plain naturalist. What you see is what you get with the state of naturalism .They don`t take into an account of the supernatural here there only one dimensional advocates .That what is wrong with science.
"You still like most humanist don`t talk about the moral bankruptcy the world is in."
It's not in moral bankruptcy - Hitchens's razor slash....though I'd be remiss to not point out that it's a world that is overwhelmingly religious, and always has been, So if it's in a mess...
"That`s because science doesn`t have a clue how to stop the slide downward morally ."
Morals are not sliding downward, slash, and science does have a clue slash slash, Hitchens's razor applied.
"Science is an naturalist discipline it can`t consider the soul of the individual;"
No indeed, nor does it (science) consider unicorns, nor mermaids, nor garden fairies, nor any other fictional non-existent thing.
" Because it (science) doesn`t accept the claim that humanity have souls "
No sir it does not, nor does science accept that mermaids exist, nor unicorns either, hardly a coincidence you have inadvertently placed your beliefs in the same category as other fictions and myths.
".Since they don`t recognize that extremely important point, they are plain naturalist."
Well no, now you're back to being plain wrong again, but please demonstrate some evidence for anything super-natural, I'm agog with anticipation.
"They don`t take into an account of the supernatural here there only one dimensional advocates "
Nor do they (science) take into account unicorns or mermaids. They are is not fucking abbreviated as there, or fucking their, and why would they take into account anything for which no evidence can be demonstrated?
Science
Noun
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the ****physical and natural*** world through observation and experiment.
It's right there in the definition of the word, if you'd bothered to even do that much basic research, and Google the fucking definition of the word. Despite your moronic claims, it is not the fault of science that science can't find unicorns, mermaids or souls.
"That what is wrong with science."
That's not that (sic), and as illiterate and ill informed as your posts are they're still reaching us because of science, so I'm guessing the irony of that asinine claim is wasted on you, but not everyone else. Religion has the one benefit I suppose that your absurdly stupid claims would have remained relatively unheard of, but for science. Bad science, bad...
How about the Holy Spirit, do you call this by naturalistic means? O r the blessed trinity can you explain it by naturalistic tendencies? there is a lot that naturalism cannot account for. Like conscience.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate that this superstitious belief in a 'holy spirit' is true? What objective evidence can you demonstrate that this superstitious belief in a 'trinity' is true?
"there is a lot that naturalism cannot account for. "
Like unicorns, mermaids, dragons, leprechauns, basically all non-existent things can't be explained by empirical means.
What evidence can you demonstrate that anything other than physical human brains produce a conscience?
You do accept that the natural world exists don't you? Now what evidence can you demonstrate that anything else exists, and for once answer a question and stop your endless moronically vapid preaching.
@Agnostic believer: "O r the blessed trinity can you explain it by naturalistic tendencies? there is a lot that naturalism cannot account for. Like conscience."
You talk as if these things actually exist in the real world and need to be explained. I can't explain the trinity by "naturalistic means" because there's nothing there to explain.
Do you think Christians who believe in the so-called "blessed trinity" are the only ones with a conscience? Conscience is part of the human condition. Buddhists have them. Muslims have them. Atheists have them. Sociopaths don't. Pedophile priests obviously don't. How do you explain that with your so-called "blessed trinity"?
Poverty worldwide has been reduced by more than two-thirds in the last 20 years, which is more than the Church has achieved in the last 2000 years with its "the poor will be with you always" attitude: https://i.imgur.com/6YnX10G.jpg
I know one thing I am grateful for concerning science. When I want to enjoy a nice snack of crackers and wine, at least I KNOW I am eating crackers and drinking wine. With certain religions, I have to be concerned about whether or not I am being a cannibal. (I prefer my crackers medium-rare, by the way.)
You are comparing a dogma to a process. Science is not a thing. The scientific method is a way of making sense out of the world we live in. It requires testing, prediction, repetition, confirmation, and consistency. Religion is a belief system that requires "faith" and "belief" without testing, prediction, repetition, confirmation or consistency. There really is no comparison.
I feel at one with science.
yes you can find a poetic verse in scripture and you can have a sense of community from religion,
but you can get that in science too.
evolution shows us that we are all related via distant primate cousins, that we all need the same things to survive.
and nothing can be found in my opinion within the bible, that can match going to a large telescope and viewing the universe yourself.
once you see something like a nebula/cluster etc., and you understand how far away it is, what it is composed of, how large it is.
it is an unmatched wonder.
at least in my opinion.
Kudos sir, that post was almost poetic in itself. I also agree wholeheartedly. How can anyone find wonder in turgid tales of magic fruit and tales of endless murder and rapine, and the idiocy of virgin births and resurrection, when they have gazed upon the unending vista of the universe and all it's wonders. Or contemplated the vast and unending drama of life religion was unaware of until humans invented microscopes. To claim we have dominion over all life is as stupid as it is risible. Only humans ignorant of microbial life could make such an absurd claim, and then try and pass it off as omniscient in origin.
My apologies for not realising you were a lady. My sentiments remain though.
*Ma'am
Pages