In regards to the thing you quoted regarding science and religion there are two things I take strong objection to. The first is that science is about power- this is blatantly false and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific principles. Science is at its core a process based upon logic, critical thinking and the process of developing theories that make specific, testable hypotheses about how the world around us works and then testing those hypotheses. Nowhere in that description does power play a role. Even the depiction of science as an entity with particular motivations is inaccurate as there is no one scientific body dictating goals and such, but instead an open community where anyone can challenge any given claim if they've got the evidence to back it up. Institutions like the catholic church can easily be said to be more about power than science, while on the flipside science has disciplines such as paleontology and evolutionary biology, which aren't exactly of much use for those interested in power.Thoughts on the following?
"It is often argued that science and religion are enemies, because both seek the truth, yet each finds a different truth.
The fact is that science and religion are allies. Science is interested above all in power. Religion is interested above all in order. Together, they are a winning team.
Science is a very expensive affair, and it has managed to achieve wonders thanks only to the willingness of governments and businesses to channel billions into research and development. Governments and businesses have funded science not out of pure curiosity, but because they believe it can help them gain more power and attain some cherished goals. And who sets these goals? Not science – but religions and ideologies.
Our religious and ideological beliefs are the ultimate source of funding for science, and in return, they get to shape the scientific agenda and to determine what to do with the resulting discoveries."
http://www.ynharari.com/topic/science-and-religion/
I know this doesn't really touch on what you said, but it's just something I'd like to hear your opinion on given that your statement was already challenged (plus you also sort of pointed out a contradiction in your own statement...). I think the bolded in particular is quite an interesting idea.
ISIS isn't a religion (and neither are extremist christian groups). I think I understand your point though.
In response, I'd like to ask you if it is your belief that a society free from religion is an ideal society then? Do you have any thoughts on countries/states that have/had atheism as their national doctrine? e.g. Cambodia under the Khmer Rogue, the USSR, North Korea, current China, or any of the countries listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism ?
I think my initial question remains unanswered. How exactly is religion holding back humanity? ISIS exists and yet we live in an era of unparalleled prosperity - I guess the argument would be that we are at this point in spite of religion and its efforts to keep us in the dark ages. But I'm not sure I'm really convinced by that.
Secondly, conflating religion and ideologies is just sooooo wrong. Ideology is a very broad term that can describe a massive range of positions on various issues, and ideologies derived from religion are only a small subset of this. This seems like a logical fallacy on the part of the author (cbf looking up the proper one), hoping to bundle religion alongside general ideologies in a way that can be claimed to be valid in that it's true of ideologies but not always true of religion, but nonetheless misleads by implying that religion is the source of all scientific advances, a claim that is blatantly false.
In regards to the question of nations with atheism as their doctrine, it's pretty obviously implying that an atheist state is morally bankrupt, resulting in the kinds of dictatorships you list as examples. This is an invalid conclusion as it falsely attributes causality to atheism, ignoring the real reason the societies you describe can be considered objectionable; that they are dictatorships, and to varying extents prevented their citizens from deviating from atheism. If you were to assert that atheism was responsible for these countries forming dictatorships, then I'd have to ask for evidence because such a claim seems extremely implausible. A healthy society wouldn't enforce any "official" religion, instead leaving the people free to believe what they believe most accurate, like in most democracies. There's also the obligatory point that there are plenty of dictatorships arising from religious ideologies as well, but I don't think you meant to imply otherwise