HH, I’m busy right now but I’ll get back to you!

I really should have clarified my statement, but I was not considering anything other than the naturalistic point of view regarding benefit to society. From the theistic point of view of the Born Again Christian, religion has benefited humanity the most because it has allowed for people to be saved by Jesus… But from a naturalistic scientific point of view such a claim is pointless as it can never be verified while we’re alive.

So ignore the claims of religion regarding saving people through Jesus and answer the question instead based on a naturalistic view… Regardless of what happens or doesn’t happen in any particular afterlife, which has benefited humanity more?

Furthermore, explain to me please the sentence in your response where you said

“I don’t want to be heard saying that science hasn’t helped. Of course it has. The question of which has helped more is not really an important one, but for interest’s sake lets pursue it. If true, Christianity is undeniably more benificial – agreed?”

not entirely sure if that sentence makes sense… If what is true then Christianity is undeniably more beneficial? What am I supposed to agree to?

Now to answer your questions:

1. From a nihilistic standpoint, as in “nothing matters at all there’s no point” there would be no reason to live longer, or even live at all. From a utilitarian point of view, meaning “which decision gives the greatest increase in utility” [loosely equated to happiness] then one would want to live longer only if it benefited the greatest number of people by the largest amount. That’s what utilitarian means – make the choices that give the greatest increase in utility. So if you ascribed to a utilitarian code of ethics/morality (whichever it is) you would decide whether or not to live depending on whether or not your death would bring more net happiness than your continued life.

2. Quite possibly. There is a study in progress (or soon to be) looking at what if any naturalistic explanation there is as to why people believe in God and what evolutionary benefit such a mindset allowed for. We’ll just have to wait and see.

I don’t want to be heard saying that science hasn’t helped. Of course it has. The question of which has helped more is not really an important one, but for interest’s sake lets pursue it. If true, Christianity is undeniably more benificial – agreed?

So the question really comes down to this: which has resulted in more good independent of the truth of religion’s claims?
Do you recognise the absurdity of this question? Separating religion from its truth claims is to strip them bare. But, nevertheless, we will continue.

(Actually, I’ve run out of time. I might continue later. I’ll leave with 2 questions:)
1. Science has allowed us to live longer and more productively. Yet from a purely naturalistic standpoint, who would want to live longer? I’m thinking particularly from utilitarian and nihilistic viewpoints.
2. That we have ‘religion’ at all means, according to evolution, it must confer some benefits. No? (added to make this a question )

By the way did you vote on my poll on my blog?

And do you admit that the definition of science is misinterpreted by certain Christian groups, that “certain Christian groups” are trying to erode science and scientific principle until it includes the supernatural as a viable scientific explanation? Do you admit that the push by DiscoveryInstitute and others to allow “God dun did it” as a rational scientific explanation for phenomena is anti-science? Just thought I’d get the fun questions out of the way.

Sorry that we seem to be having this disagreement on at what point technology becomes science… I’ll research more and get back to you

I concede technology has progressed in the past without knowledge of scientific process or principle but still… The sewer systems is a bad example. For a functioning sewer system that is more than just a few troughs in the side of the road you NEED science. You can’t simply dig some tunnels and hope they point the right way – you need mathematics and related principles in order to ensure the system works, the system won’t overflow, the system drains in the right direction to the right location. You can’t make a sewer system by randomly digging some tunnels – it might work but it won’t work very well, it will be messy and complex and will most likely pollute the water supply and / or back up. Your use of the wheel is a good example, machinery is not. Machines require metal, which in the absence of deposits of steel lying around requires extraction from ores, which requires geology and chemistry. You don’t need to know exactly what geology and chemistry are to pull the ore from the ground and the metal from the ore, but it is still the science of chemistry and geology – without the application (you assume) of the scientific principle.

Machinery before metal you say used wood. Well yes you don’t require science to fell a tree – you require science to choose the right wood, measure shape and construct it correctly and to fit it all together. You require a knowledge of basic physics principles and of mechanics for the machine to do something. You don’t need to know the laws of physics to apply the science related to those laws – it’s still the science of manufacturing, or of mechanics, or of chemistry.

Your use of agriculture as an example is also a little weak. Agriculture is itself a science – regardless of whether or not you apply scientific procedures or principles to the practise of it. It’s still a science.

I think what you’re doing is misreading me : to me it seems you’re confusing science with scientific principles. to you it must seem I’m confusing science with stuff that happened before the scientific revolution or confusing science with application of technology. In your definition of what equates to science yes science didn’t exist before modern times. My definition of science is broader though and includes things like ancient architecture and sewerage systems or ancient agriculture.

At the end of it all though… In what way has religion benefited the human race more than science has?

“Without the science that led to bricks and mortar, the walls would not have held.”
Really? What were people living in before the scientific revolution?

I encourage you to read/listen to Parts 1 and 2 of that interview. Really, it explains what I mean much better than I can.

“The bible has always been years ahead of scientists, and is one of the most scientific books around” Utter crap.

Religion and science CAN co-exist, but not completely and not entirely peacefully. Especially not with people like Janet Folger around – I made a good post on my blog entitled (I think) “Fat stupid whore” along with “A name for insanity”

See the difference there? Technology requires science of some form. Those plumbing and sewerage, they required mathematics and application of architectural knowledge to function. Without the science that led to bricks and mortar, the walls would not have held. Without maths the tunnels would not join properly, would not flow in a consistent direction, would not WORK. Maths and physics are components or architecture and of proper design – maths and physics, design and architecture all use science or scientific principles to function.

Like I pointed out though, I said science not just modern science. Maybe our definitions of what constitutes science are different though.

But seriously: clean water, antibiotics, agriculture, transport, communication, medicine… All science. There’s a good youtube video that pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uephBmkupvQ

“Science has done far more for humanity than religion has”
Wrong. And I get this from the Professor above (listen to the interview, its really interesting). We must distinguish science from technology. Science, he says (and he is a Professor of the History of Science), did not have any real benefits until the 1930s.
“Those claims have always been made for science. The things that we associate with science, like plumbing, like sewerage, like machines, are really from the third decade of the 19th century onwards. Modern science produces very, very few benefits between the scientific revolution and the early 19th century. ”
You’ll have to listen to understand why (Part 1)

“The claim your person up there makes that theology has been a driving force behind all or most science… That might have been the case in the 17th century ”
Which is all he claimed.

One should not worship science as the ultimate answer to everything (yet) but neither should science be dismissed because there are things it can’t explain, or because there are gaps in the current knowledge.

That’s a mistake theists commonly make when they don’t know much about science – that because a particular theory has knowledge gaps it should be thrown out and replaced with God. Science has done far more for humanity than religion has – unless you’re of the belief that God made all the science. A rational person living in the modern world can and should admit they’re probably alive for the simple reason of science. Clean water, agriculture, all science.

The claim your person up there makes that theology has been a driving force behind all or most science… That might have been the case in the 17th century but things are a little different today. To continue to claim that theology remains the main force pushing science today is to continue to not really know anything about modern science.