One tenet of the Church is this: it proposes but never imposes. You would have to provide a few good examples of where religion has inhibited scientific research. I don’t think it’s valid to claim that any research is inhibited because of religious beliefs.*
I’ll pick a couple strikingly obviously ones for simplicity, one from history and one from the present day - heliocentrism*and stem cell research.
As for the church proposing but not imposing. You ever hear of the Vatican list of banned books? It no longer exists (I suspect because the Vatican realised that it was probably increasing the sales of those books) but when it did it included some of the greatest thinkers of the last few centuries.*
And back when the church had more power it imposed itself in much more obvious ways, ever hear of the crusades? The inquisition? The witch hunts? Forced conversions? Etc etc. sure it doesn’t impose and more, because it now lacks the power to do so (fortunately for all of us) but when it could, it did.
The human race will not make any significant changes in the wisdom of the ages on the ethical and social fronts.*
I’m glad to say you’re wrong here too. The human race has made enormous advances on the ethical and social fronts over the last few centuries. Consider we have moved from slavery being accepted almost ubiquitously as acceptable and morally fine (including by the churches) to the point where racism is now considered (quite rightly) morally repugnant. We’ve gone from women being considered second class citizens through to genuine equality (except in some religions which are still trying to hold back that tide).*In fact on virtually every front we have advanced incomparably, reducing discrimination on all fronts (still some work to do in some areas though) care for the elderly, animal welfare (deliberate cruelty to animals is now only legal of carried out for religious reasons), environmental awareness… Etc etc etc.
And all this has happened in parallel with huge leads of advancement in science, and a collapse in the power base of organised religions.*
Mr. Harris makes a case for his brand of Utopia. I have already laid out the most likely scenarios.
Not at all, you’ve laid out the scenarios which are likely if we all suddenly decided to elect tyrannical despots as leaders (whether or not there were religions in your scenario makes no difference). You have said nothing about the likely outcome if religion came to and end but we kept electing politicians as leaders.*
Human nature will continue to exist in Mr. Harris’ desired world. Technology will not save us on the ethical or social fronts.*
Indeed, and of course nobody (at least nobody I’ve ever heard of) is expecting technology to help with ethics. They are two completely different spheres of work.*
As a student of the history of science and technology, there are only two possible outcomes: a global surveillance state still filled with human beings whose primary goal will be to manipulate the system or wage war. The second scenario is far simpler: total control by a scientific dictatorship, with an elite that will be allowed to live outside the limits given to the common man.
This is frankly just silliness. If religion were no more than the worlds leaders would continue to be people who are skilled in leadership or management of people and control of image and presentation. We usually call these people politicians. They lead the world now because they have the desire and capability to do so. In a world without religion they will continue to do so just the same.*
Your scenarios both assume some radical change in leadership over to tyrannical despots. Where would these people come from? Why do you think we’d suddenly decide to elect them? Incidentally you’re aware that scientists are very rarely leaders right? Most simply lack the required will or skill set.
Who funds science today? The military, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, private industry that can be manipulated, and wealthy individuals. The average man on the street is unaware of this. The fabulously wealthy will continue to have things their way regardless of who’s in charge.
Ah conspiracy theories, you gotta love them. Yes, rich people get to pay to have things done the way they want, or alternatively the way that smart people manage to convince them they should want. This is the very nature of capitalism. If you don’t like it then see if you can come up with a better system.*
And if you’re skeptical about science being manipulated, I offer the following:
Somebody is manipulating everything, but not one person or group is manipulating everything. Ultimately this is how scientific progress works and has always worked, loads of different people paying to advance science in loads of different directions.*
The great benefits that science has is that first it is cumulative, and secondly that it is self correcting. So it matters not one whit who paid for which research.*Wonderful isn’t it.
By that very perspective, the idea of morality is derailed. To quote Greg Koukl, “When morality is reduced to patterns of behavior chosen by natural selection for its survival value, then morality is not explained; it’s denied.”
