<p>I think that would be a better discussion/argument - to do a cost benefit analysis of religion, though it would be impossible. But I think I could say that it would receive as many arguments as this thread.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if you were to do an analysis of science, I think it is evident that science has made us advance as a society. (Disregarding thoughts such as oh people are better off without technology, etc.) </p>
<p>This basically sums up my PERSONAL opinion. be honest I am more fascinated by how people raised differently think very differently, and how hard it is to change someone’s view on things, especially a topic like this.</p>
<p>I am almost prepared to assert that science as we know it may never have existed without religion, since the primary motivation for education in eras past was to become a literate member of the clergy. Religion and early philosophy went hand in hand and were approached from similar world views. Then we developed natural philosophy, which evolved into pure Science.</p>
<p>***People love religion because it answers all of their questions! Even though these answers are mostly false, it provides assurance and meaning in our lives.
(Ex. it answers their questions of who made the world, where did we come from etc. mostly all the answers are something to do with God)</p>
<p>***Science on the other hand leaves us with many unanswered questions (like what existed before the Big Bang?) and that is why many people do not trust “science” though they would not be alive without it.</p>
<p>That’s a really interesting idea. I’d be interested to read more on that if you could find anything that talks more in depths about it. </p>
<p>The only aspect that I believe at the moment personally for sure where religion trumps science is in terms of danger to society. I believe religion is on the decline in terms of negative things sprung from it, (I do realize there are still wars based on religious differences), but compared to science, I am afraid to say that with the advancement of science, I cannot say I feel more and more safe in the world. I can’t find the article right now but I can if someone wants to read it, but basically this guy studies different apocalyptic scenarios. For example, maybe or maybe not in our lifetime, what if we were so technologically advanced to the point that one person thinking the wrong way is able to create something that could annihilate the world? I think that one person being able to destroy the world is going to come first before the world has the ability to stop that person from doing so.</p>
<p>^^I think that a single individual destroying the world using science is highly unlikely. I think it would take a lot of highly covert, well-funded people thinking “the wrong way” to do such a thing.</p>
<p>Ok maybe a single person is a bit extreme. But let’s say today’s terrorist group 60 years from now…no idea what they would be capable of. I still hold my belief in that I think “being able to destroy the world is going to come first before the world has the ability to stop that person[group] from doing so.”</p>
<p>I take issue to this statement. As I sit here I am actually hard pressed to think of a single war which was based solely (or even primarily) on religious reasons.</p>
<p>The only examples that jump into my mind are some of the wars described in the Old Testament, where God uses one nation as his tool to punish another.</p>
<p>Even most of those probably had a socioeconomic element as well.</p>
<p>Well, I suppose it is theoretically possible for a group of irrational people to destroy the world, I still find it highly unlikely that any number of completely irrational individuals would band together in a covert and organized manner with the goal of utterly destroying the world and the resources to do it.</p>
<p>Many of history’s wars have been portrayed as religious struggles by the people running them. For example, the Crusades and the Catholic/Protestant wars.</p>
<p>I do agree, though, that in general institutionalized religion is a bad thing. That’s why I do not identify with any particular Christian denomination.</p>
<p>^^ Because when people start taking the definition of right and wrong from the clergy instead of the Bible, there’s a good chance that the truth will be twisted.</p>
<p>Excuse you. Suddenly, the Bible is arbitrarily the source of morality, whereas the “clergy” are not?</p>
<p>The Bible came about as a result of institutional religion that believed that they were capable of determining which books were guided by the Holy Spirit because they themselves were guided by the Holy Spirit.</p>
<p>By accepting the Bible, you are accepting the judgments of the clergy, unless you would conceded that the Bible is entirely man-made, in which case you are accepting the judgments of man, but for a different reason.</p>
<p>It is worth noting that at least in Christianity, institutional religion is the only form that is long-lasting.</p>
<p>The Bible(s) has/have been compiled and transcribed by clergy, and many interpretations of it have been created and spread by clergy and theologians. Also, Christianity/Judaism are not the only institutionalized religions.</p>
<p>If a couple people in certain military positions went off the deep end they could start armageddon before anyone knew what was happening. It’s to be hoped that they screen these people well… But you can never be completly sure a person is trustworthy.</p>