1999: "Which is more Dangerous -- Science or Religion?" The 1999 Think-Off received essays from contestants in Pakistan, Denmark, Argentina and all over the United States. Mark Friestad, a social studies teacher from North Dakota, won the final debate arguing that science is more dangerous because people often accept it blindly without question.
[No! My irony meter!]
47 comments
hmmm...
Ok I can kind of see where they are comming from with this one. There are a lot of people who do infact think about religion. However there are some people who will just accept anything that somebody with a PhD says. I agree that this is bad, science must be learned not taught. So I can understand where they are comming from. It all depends on the context on the essay.
However on the other hand there are a vast number of people who do accept religion with no thought of their own, the need for this site if proof of that alone.
So this might or might not be fundie it all depends on the context of the essay in question.
Given the tame context in which the summary was written, I infer that the debate was thoughtful and balanced, and hence not fundie. I therefore infer that this person probably would in fact advocate scientific literacy.
@szaleniec, Belquer, and everyone else.
Here are the essays (Friestad's is the second one):
http://www.think-off.org/archive/1999_essays.php
and for a quick summary, Friestad's essay is more about people's blind acceptance of what experts say about science and how Scientific discoveries have been twisted to various ends (read, social darwinism). NOT about how Science has taken out God, or needs to put God back into science.
So Mark Friestad's essay isn't really a fundie essay, the one above it however...
I agree with their result, science is more dangerous than religion.
That's because science works. Science can actually make real, and dangerous, things for us to throw at each other, drop on each other, poison each other with, etc.
Religion can't do any of that.
Of course, someone's got to want to throw, drop or poison someone with these products of science, and given that it's rare (but not unheard of) for out-and-out psychopaths to be in charge of countries with the resources to throw/drop/poison, such people usually have to convince themselves it's the right thing to do.
That's where religion comes in.
It's kind of true. There are plenty of people who believe science stuff without having any idea of what went into it - hence the panic over the MMR vaccine.
you see some absolutely ridiculous statements from the fundies about how they think the theory of evoolution is supposed to say things work. I've no doubt there are just as many stupid but non-religious people who think the same things about it but, because they don't believe in God, just accept that's how evolution actually works - i.e. a monkey suddenly turns into a human overnight.
I've read the essay, and while I do not agree with his conclusion, I can not necessarily refute his reasoning. People have a tendency to follow things they do not understand, but which they think come from experts. Religion anyone? Yes there were people who followed Kellog, or those who took Darwins theories a little too far, but on the whole that's people being stupid and not thinking. Honestly, if you just want to belive something and not have to think for yourself, then religion is better since it actually attempts to set some moral and ethical boundaries. Science does not have any because science does not concern itself with the larger issues of mankind.
But on the other hand, while this speaker used the idea that Hitler based his policies on the eugenics theories (a fact which I do not agree with, I think there was an entirely economical reason for what he did) that is one example among the tens and hundreds of conflicts in which leaders used religion (of any flavour) to justify the slaughter they were leading their people in. Science can be dangerous to the individual who does not understand it, like a man who can't use a gun will be liable to shoot himself, but religion will give that man a reason to point that gun at other people. And I'm not suggesting that people only kill for religious reasons, I'm just making a point.
And before I go, I think this Mark is wrong, but not necessarily a fundie.
"Which is more Dangerous -- Science or Religion?"
I'm sorry, what? Is this like a trick question, or is it meant to be easy, like "is oxygen good?" or "does stabbing yourself hurt?"? I mean, fuck, if the answer isn't 'religion', there is something seriously fucked up with your worldview.
And none of this 'science makes bombs' crap. It is more the fault of the person who uses it, not the fact that it exists, and for many dangerous things science has made, there's a lot of good (like medicine) that's come of it. Religion on the other hand contributes to blind acceptance, and a lowering of intelligence. And you wonder why people don't understand science...
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.