SCIENCE gets my vote, because it is quite objective and mature. It gathers evidence in support of its ideas and rejects them if the evidence or lack of it warrants. It modifies its ideas based upon new discoveries. Religion starts with works of crude fiction written by quite ignorant humans who claim to speak for gods that some of them invented. It has dogmas that are not to be questioned and tries to find support, however feeble, for them while ignoring the strongest refutation of them. Its only supporting arguments are crude fiction of sacred texts. outrageous deceptions and outright lies and quite flawed reasoning. It depends upon arousing strong emotions, so that naive people cannot be logical and objective about it.
Religion v science, who gets your vote? =========================================== This unfortunately and quite ironically appears to be a problem for us in the modern fairly advanced age. It didn't bother people in the Middle Ages. According to Robert Briffault, in his book The Making of Humanity , first published 1919, pages 190-191, “modern European civilization would never have arisen at all" and "there is NOT A SINGLE ASPECT of European growth in which decisive influence of Islamic culture is not traceable....What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of enquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the [Muslim] Arabs”
So if religious people in the Middle Ages could be high level pioneers of science why does it have to be one or the other for us?
Benedict Arnold 