If the abuses of religion discredit it do the abuses of science discredit it as well?

There are many times where religion has been abused to justify violence(Crusades, Inquisition, Wars of religion, 9/11, Islamic Terrorism).

But there have been many times when Science has been used and abused to justify violence and oppressive practices as well

-Building of the Atom Bomb which killed 200,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

-Nuclear Arms race fueled by Science in the Cold War which almost led to nuclear annihilation on several occasions(Cuban Missile Crisis, Missile Build up of the 1980's).

-The development of Chemical Weapons which has led to atrocities such as the gasing of the Kurds in Iraq by Saddam Hussein and the Gasing of thousands of Syrians by Bashar Al Assad).

-The depletion of the Earth's natural resources through our Industrial output.

Based on this, the idea that some propose of replacing religion with science as the arbiter of morality and ethics to solve our problems seems very naïve based on modern history. When science is abused the outcomes are much more deadly than when religion is abused.

13 Answers

  • 4 years ago
    Best Answer

    Some religious people or some scientific people committing evil does not discredit either religion or science. It only discredits those who commit the evil acts.

  • 4 years ago

    -Building of the Atom Bomb which killed 200,000 people

    - Science built it, politicians used it. That thinking stuff really throws you doesn't it.

    Nuclear Arms race

    - TOTALLY political, having ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with science.

    Chemical Weapons which has led to atrocities such as the gasing of the Kurds in Iraq by Saddam Hussein

    - And if he had the Republican Guard go in and stab everyone you would complain that the knife makes should be held accountable. How very brain dead.

    through our Industrial output.

    - AND WHO IS DOING THAT - INDUSTRY. You really are an idiot.

    Based on this, the idea that some propose of replacing religion with science as the arbiter of morality

    - right, ALL religions want the death and destruction of EVERYONE they do not like and are looking forward to the TOTAL destruction of earth so their fantasy deities can return. That is REALLY intelligent.

    When science is abused

    - And you PROVE you are an idiot - when science is ABUSED not "used" by scientists.

    the outcomes are much more deadly than when religion is abused.

    - It was science that created armor and the trebouchet that religion used to kill and destroy people. It was science that religion used to torture and murder people during the inquisition. Really, try to read something intelligent and try "thinking".

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    Science is morally neutral, so no. It's just a way to remove human bias from claims and see if they stand up to scrutiny. "Abuses of science" reflect on the mindsets of those trying to justify their atrocities. Discovering that gravity will accelerate people at an objective rate down to the ground is not a justification for pushing someone off a cliff. A position of knowledge is preferable to one of ignorance, as there have always been abusive people, but there has never been as high a standard of living as today, thanks to new discoveries.

    You're confusing an "is" with an "ought." Science is about trying to find out what objectively is. Religion is about painting a picture of what ought to be. Religion deals with morals, purpose, and authority, and views our experience of this world as part of some supernatural war between good and evil. And when those foundational assumptions are based on ancient fantasies, they either hold society back or serve as a redundant coping mechanism.

  • NO!

    Facts and reality and truth are not up for debate! Hence they are not discredited by people who use them for evil purposes, rather it is the people who use them who are discredited.

    Religion on the other hand is a product of human intellectual fault. Hence if you discredit the religion, you remove what is assumed to be an acceptable motive for evil, namely religion.

    Science does not claim to tell you what you should or should not do. It just gives you the facts. Religion tries to do too much.

    • Science replaces religion in terms of understanding facts about the universe. Religion has an atrocious record when it comes to trying to identify facts about the world. A morality based on facts will always be superior to one based on superstition. That's what Harris et al are getting at.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 years ago

    If the head of your religion commands a course of action, and officially absolves all who undertake it from any of the normal moral consequences from doing so, it's not exactly an "abuse" of your religion. It's your religion - period. It may not be how you believe your religion started out, but by that time, it is absolutely what it has become.

    None of the evils you lay at the feet of science were driven by the science, but every single one of the religious evils you mention were driven directly by the religions.

    • skeptik
      Lv 7
      4 years agoReport

      "The Arms Race" has exised for as long as there have been political leaders willing to wage war. Science has been around less than a thousand. Please try again.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    Religion's principal concern is morality, and yet religious people behave in profoundly immoral manners all the time.

    Science's principal concern is NOT morality. Science's principal concern is figuring out how stuff works.

    So, to recap, Religion fails at developing moral behavior. Science succeeds at figuring out how stuff works.

    Why would science be discredited?

  • Jea
    Lv 7
    4 years ago


    Science, unlike religion does not exist only to abuse others.

    Science can be used wrong. Religion is wrong in the first place.

    • janhoi
      Lv 6
      4 years agoReport

      Really. Hence why religion produced people like Martin Luther King Jr and Archbishop Desmond Tutu right?

  • 4 years ago

    Without science, the average lifespan would drop back to under 40, and seven eights of humanity would be dead.

    Unless you are willing to be a part of that dead seven eights, shut up.


    First, the premise that Nazism and Communism were “atheist” ideologies makes sense only within a religiocentric worldview that divides political systems into those that are based on Judaeo-Christian ideology and those that are not. In fact, 20th-century totalitarian movements were no more defined by a rejection of Judaeo-Christianity than they were defined by a rejection of astrology, alchemy, Confucianism, Scientology, or any of hundreds of other belief systems. They were based on the ideas of Hitler and Marx, not David Hume and Bertrand Russell, and the horrors they inflicted are no more a vindication of Judeao-Christianity than they are of astrology or alchemy or Scientology.

    Second, Nazism and Fascism were not atheistic in the first place. Hitler thought he was carrying out a divine plan. Nazism received extensive support from many German churches, and no opposition from the Vatican. Fascism happily coexisted with Catholicism in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Croatia. See p. 677 for discussion and references.

    Third, according to the most recent compendium of history’s worst atrocities, Matthew White's Great Big Book of Horrible Things (Norton, 2011), religions have been responsible for 13 of the 100 worst mass killings in history, resulting in 47 million deaths. Communism has been responsible for 6 mass killings and 67 million deaths. If defenders of religion want to crow, “We were only responsible for 47 million murders—Communism was worse!”, they are welcome to do so, but it is not an impressive argument.

    Fourth, many religious massacres took place in centuries in which the world’s population was far smaller. Crusaders, for example, killed 1 million people in world of 400 million, for a genocide rate that exceeds that of the Nazi Holocaust. The death toll from the Thirty Years War was proportionally double that of World War I and in the range of World War II in Europe (p. 142).

    When it comes to the history of violence, the significant distinction is not one between thesistic and atheistic regimes. It’s the one between regimes that were based on demonizing, utopian ideologies (including Marxism, Nazism, and militant religions) and secular liberal democracies that are based on the ideal of human rights. On pp. 337–338 I present data from Rummel showing that democracies are vastly less murderous than alternatives forms of government.

    Attachment image
  • odd
    Lv 7
    4 years ago

    The abuse of science is political agenda. Religon should have no political agenda.

  • 4 years ago

    The old Soviet Union used anti theist biased science, all theists are deluded idiots, as a driving force behind their hatred and policies.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.