Can science free us from the evils of religion, as atheists argue?

Doesn't tell us anything about how we should live science simply tells us about how things function in the world this means that the very nature of science is to focus on giving us an understanding that life is a struggle for survival and we are our genes have geared us for survival and reproduction now religion does give us here when we are discussing the contrast of science and religion we can assume that religion also equates with spirituality there is undoubtedly a difference between the two but that difference is not the subject matter of discussion for us right now so when we focus on religion as a understanding of life's deeper truths then the questions that actually religion may impel us to do something better to live better lives to be moral at least religion contains some exhortations to morality now whether people follow it or not and if they misuse it misunderstand it that's a secondary question which is important which we will discuss separately but the point is science is amoral whereas religion does have some directions towards morality so in its conception science if we just stick to the pure word of science is unlikely to guide humans to better living then does religion now if we accuse religion of hypocrisy and violence then yes religious people in some parts of the world have engaged in that but then that raises the next question of fair comparison generally when comparing two things we have to compare the best of each with the best of best of each with the best of the other or the worst of one with the worst of the other to compare the best of one with the worst of the other simply reflects our own bias that means that if we consider that our if we consider the aspirations of one with the real life record of the other then that comparison is invalid so atheists who put science in competition with religion often look at the darkest things that have been done in the name of religion and contrast them with the brightest hopes of science but if we consider the history of science then not just in its application but even in its conception science has had destructive movements not just movements it has been years phases which have lasted for a significant amount of time religion has been around because for thousands of years science as it is understood in today's world has been around for a few hundred years but even in those few hundred years it has been a cause of enormous destruction and if we consider the field of eugenics which was the idea of that we could scientifically improve the human race or more precisely we could scientifically using Darwinian principles of evolution identify which race was the most fit and facilitate only its reproduction and other races which are considered unfit could be eliminated and not just would be eliminated by nature but could be eliminated by science this was science in its conception being hugely discriminatory against people and this was not a one time anomaly in Nazi Germany yes Nazi Germany used this ideology of this idea thought of eugenics to create its pogrom against Jews and others and cause a holocaust which led to the death of millions of people however to say that some atheists are quick to condemn this as outrageous and unscientific ideology called eugenics but eugenics was considered to be mainstream good enough to be published for over 50 years in mainstream journals not just in Nazi Germany but everywhere across the western world where science was developing so eugenics was considered mainstream science for decades and it was only after its use for mass destruction that it was rejected so so science in its conception itself was hugely has been hugely discriminatory holding that some species some races are better than others and therefore others deserve to be killed and this is not just an anomalous thought which was present at the time of Nazi Germany or a few years before that even Thomas Huxley who was considered the bulldog of Darwin who championed Darwinism he was also a strong advocate or campaigner against abolition that means he actually felt that and campaigned that the black people should remain slaves that they should not be given the rights to live freely and he is famously quoted as that if the black person were to confront a white person not through fists but through sound bites then we would end up the white person would always be victorious and he said that if we give black people freedom they will become from well fed animals to pauperized men and the white man should have the Caucasian white should have no pain of conscience for this because the black men have demanded it and they themselves are responsible for their fate they will be responsible for their fate thereafter so he said although he strongly opposed giving equality to blacks but he said giving them equality will itself prove to be the strongest reputation for the idea of equality because they will destroy themselves so this self righteous condescending and outrageous view from today's perspective was proposed by a scientist who lived 80-90 years before eugenics became mainstream and that was the time so he campaigned against the zeitgeist against the contemporary flow of thought that all men should be actually equal so science in its conception and execution can and has led to a lot of evil and we could take this argument further and say that eugenics is as much science as totemism is religion now that both of them are wrong is besides the point eugenics was accepted as mainstream science for many years and today most mainstream science scientists reject eugenics as a branch of science and similarly totemism we could say this is the idea of worshipping some stone or worshipping some wood that is not accepted by most mainstream religions but just as in the history of science eugenics was accepted similarly totemism is accepted as a religious belief system by some people it was accepted extensively in the past if we go by the historical record it is accepted even today so science cannot wash off its responsibility for bad science so the point here is not to blame science for the evil but just to make it clear that science is no cure for evil science may be an impeller of evil and lead to people doing evil as it happened through eugenics and science may well become an instrument of evil where in scientific technology is used to destroy people in this science has a destructive power which humanity has never has had in its recent historical memory or even in the distant historical memory often we may see images of terrorists destroying things and killing people now the memory of the twin towers the image of the twin towers being rammed into by an airplane is impinged deeply in human consciousness burned in modern human consciousness and that is often seen as an image of religious extremism while that is true but those religious extremists would not have been able to bring about destruction without scientific technology so if religion is to be blamed for the evils to which it is evil ends to which it is used then science also cannot wash off responsibility for the evil ends to which it gets used someone may argue and say that actually it is religion that made people manufacture use these weapons this way science didn't tell them to use it but we have to consider that science made the weapons it is scientists who made those weapons and as atheists would want us to believe that majority of the scientists are atheists whether that claim is true or not that is a separate topic but atheists do aggressively propagate that most scientists are atheists and that would imply that most of the scientists who made the weapons of mass destruction are also atheists and religion is not a motive for them to have made those weapons so then what would be the motive there would be various other motives such as nationalism steady employment good pay the chance to do lavishly funded research and cutting edge research and all these they can they are all familiar motives that can disarm moral doubt in people in various fields of life so if somebody would argue that it is not science that is making people make these weapons of mass destruction there are other motives human motives nationalism steady employment good pay lavishly funded cutting edge research then we could look for similar motives similar motives in religion also it may not be religion that is the cause of violence it could be nationalism it could be just people unemployed they need some employment it could be the idea that they can become wealthy in this life or in the next life so that may disarm their moral doubt this is not to say that religion does not people does not that religion does not make people do wrong things as I said religion can be an impeller of evil but so can be science and religion can be an instrument of evil in the sense that people's religious faith can be used to manipulate them to make them do wrong things but then science can also be an instrument of evil eugenics was widely propagated and accepted because it was considered scientific so the prestige of science and the prestige of religion are both parts of the problem that both within its history have led to evil so that science at its worst the eugenics and the holocaust is comparable or comparable to say the Spanish inquisition religion at its worst wherein people were killed based on monkey trials that doesn't particularly flatter science and moreover because the holocaust was executed through science and it led to the killing of far more people so it's not at all flattering for science and even if somebody argues that the holocaust was not motivated by science at all but it was motivated by eugenics which was considered a science at that time and further we see that during the Soviet communist rule in Russia and in China religion was severely persecuted because the religion was that science can itself be a cause not only of evil to humanity but specifically science can lead to evil happening against religion so often scientists talk about how religions have been anti-science and the story of Galileo being imprisoned is often touted as an example of this but atheists often leave out the story where stories where science and scientifically justified atheism led to violence against religion so to conclude this answer that religion and science both are very influential in today's world and that which is very influential can be misused by human beings for their own purposes so science in its content is generally amoral so science will definitely not lead to the not contain any guidelines that will lead to the removal of evil in contrast religion is moral and most of this morality actually encourages people to behave better than what they would normally behave and so if it is followed properly religion would actually lead to the minimization of evil if we consider both that religion is misused and is cause of violence then we have to consider then we can't compare the best of science with the worst of religion we have to compare the worst of religion with the worst of science and science has its worst in eugenics which was science being discriminatory to the point of being destructive in its conception and the weapons of mass destruction and the pogroms against certain classes of people be they Jews or non-believers in general be they Jews in Nazi Germany or non-believers or believers in Russia or China under communism science has also led to a huge mean an instrument to a huge amount of evil just as if religion is considered responsible for its worst for the worst excesses done in its name science also needs to be held responsible for the worst excesses that have been either done in the name of science or that have been executed through science so to conclude it is human beings who have their own mentality their own natures and they will act either morally or immorally depending on their own particular nature and then that is affected by their situations also their disposition internally their situation externally that impels people to act in different ways science doesn't itself change the disposition of people religion contains some directives in the worldview which can inspire people to change their worldview change their and become more moral so both can be impellers and can be misused as impellers and instruments for evil destructive potential both from the recent historical perspective and the current power of the abuse of science is far greater than the abuse of religion and thus we can conclude that science can lead to as much harm as their religion.