Science? Not necessarily. There is a reason why science flourish on aspects of life not politically significant first. Things like how fast a ball will move down rather than who should die? Not much latter science start answering questions like should government interfere in economy?
When something is politically significant, humans want to outdone the other. Science is often common knowledge and hence do not give much “edge”. Being scientific means you’re just “equal”. So it’s normal that people want to try new things based on what’s not scientific for a chance to do something better than their peers. It’s called magic. Religion is one such magic.
As of now I see that religious people more successfully reproduce, that according to science, namely evolutionary psychology, is life ultimate goal So here religious is “right” in one way namely it prescribe a more effective strategy to breed. Many rich people are also religious.
Most atheists believe that Jacob
stories that Jacob affect the population of sheeps by displaying pattern
in front of those sheeps to be wrong. After all, sheeps pattern are genetic and not affected by what they see. I think the bible is actually
correct here. Pattern displayed affect sheeps’ sexual selection and that
affect their population. In fact, it’s the very thing religious people
are more “advance” than atheists. They are more skilled at controlling
what we see and hence affecting which one of us more successfully reproduce (namely the one like them). I don’t know what a better
question would be. Perhaps there should be another sample.
Many religious group support death penalty while liberal scientists oppose that. Again religion strikes again. In fact, religions may have saved us from communism. Sure scientific economy would also explain that communism sucks. However, 50 years ago it wasn’t that obvious.
The Human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents.
Here is another one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
This is one of the idea where religions can be good despite wrong.
I think science have limitation. Politically incorrect science tend to be hidden. Hence a “double wrong” may need to show up to get things correct again. That’s something religions provide. Religions allow people to achieve things they do not understand how yet based on what used to work.
For religions to flourish they must have been “right” on some facts that are important on our life. Important imply disprovable obviously. Hence the question. What would be a better question then?