RE: RE: RE: The case against science

Steve: Really? Just exactly how was religion involved with or provide the motivation for scientific socialism, the gassings of World War I, the Nazi holocaust, and the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden? And are you saying that religion is the motivation behind abortion and global warming? You've got to be kidding, right?

C'mon, Steve — you know that's not what I was saying. Look back at the Vox quote I was referring to:

If "religion" is to be held culpable for the Inquisitions and the jihads, "science" is certainly no less culpable for the historical ravages of scientific socialism, the gassings of World War I, the National Socialist Holocaust, the fire-bombings of Tokyo and Dresden and the American abortion atrocity, to say nothing of the possibility of nuclear devastation as well as the inconvenient perils of global warming.

With the first two examples offered up by Vox, "religion" could be held culpable via direct motivation, while with the following examples — WWI gassings, etc. — "science" is only culpable by indirectly offering the means. You've heard the pro-gun cliche, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people," right? Well, science doesn't kill people, either, or motivate them to kill. And for that matter, neither does religion, except that, in Vox's Inquisitions and jihads examples, it provides the motivation. Religion may influence people to act, while science only gives them the means after being influenced. So, I was just saying that the example that Vox offered is weak, IMO. Other than that, I get what he's trying to say.