Arthur_Leywin354

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

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