6748_smith_w

If you had to choose between the following scenarios, which would it be?


A)

People continue to polarize themselves along religious lines. Democracies turn into militant theocracies. Religious conflict becomes more frequent and intense. Muslims and Christians interpret this escalation as as sign of the "end times", and launch a full-scale war against each other. Because of their military superiority, Christians wipe out all Islamic nations. After the slaughter, it becomes obvious that their "Savior" is not coming to take them away to "Heaven", so the various Christian sects turn the battle against each other, as well as against non-Christians, converting by force or killing anyone who defies them. Finally, after years of bloody fighting, what is left of the human population is largely under the control of a single repressive fundamentalist Christian sect. Science and technology is deemed "the work of the Devil". Modern medicine is abandoned. The economy collapses, and crushing poverty ensues. In an effort to erase the world's unholy past, as well as to stifle dissent, all scientific books, as well as instruments of advanced technology (computers, telescopes, etc.) are destroyed, and as generations pass, the knowledge and achievements of modern science are forever lost. Human beings sink to an animalistic existence, either being oppressed by those stronger than them, or by oppressing those weaker than them, all in the name of "God". Unaided by technology, the remaining human population dwindles and continues to cannibalize itself to the point that extinction by way of natural disaters, disease, famine, etc. becomes a realistic possibility.

*or*

B)

Human beings become truly rational animals. Conflicts are solved through reason and cooperation. Free, critical thinking becomes the norm, creating generation after generation of children who, through their collective pursuit of knowledge, produce mind-boggling advances in science which improve the quality of life tremendously through the drastic reduction of hunger and disease, as well as the restoration of our natural environment. People everywhere thrive, and live to their fullest potential in a utopian paradise called Earth.
What's the catch?
You have to press this "magic button". Pressing this button will vaporize every religious person on the face of the planet. The murder of billions of people will be on your conscience till the day you die.
With the information given, and having to choose ONLY "A" or ONLY "B", what would you do?

beoba

What, no comedy 3rd option?

Seriously though, genocide (or whatever term) isn't high on my list of "things that make the world better." There are a lot more "normal" religious people than crazies, and even the crazies can come up with some useful ideas from time to time. Perhaps there will be something in the future that will have atheists stumped but the religious, with their different point of view, will see a solution (hopefully something more profound than "godidit").

Yay pluralism.

6748_smith_w

Just to make it more clear, I am not implying in my original post that these scenarios have anything to do with reality. I think both are extremely far-fetched. BUT, if you had to choose the course of humanity's future and it came down to either "A" or "B", which would it be?

Pyrrho

Oh, I don't know; A certainly seems like a real possibility to me, even if it may not be likely (though it is hard to say what will happen in the next 1000 years...).

Even though you claim to be an atheist, the choices really seem to me to be more like some kind of Christian trap, where later on it will be said, without bothering with details about the context, "so many atheists want to kill all religious people!"

Jet Grind

Lewt me modify that last part of choice B to say "You have to press a magic button that will turn every closed minded religious person into a free and rational thinker" Then we could have the perfect world without having tons of deaths on our concience.

But If I can't change it, I wouldn't choose either. I'd just leave things the way they are and hope that someday the whole world will come to it's senses.

AquaVita

Well in both scenarios, billions and billions of people will die.

AquaVita

Oh and I think this is more of a GRD topic.

Arikay

I agree. I would go for the choice of number C. Since religion isnt good or bad, but what we make of it. So the destruction of "religion" wouldnt be the best option.

But the destruction of closemindedness and intolerance, hate, etc. Would be good.

The destruction of what makes religion evil, sounds good to me.

Paperstreet

You have to go with A. It is immoral to CHOOSE the fate of the whole world by doing something as destructive as that. Let them choose there own death.

NonHomogenized

An excellent question. Given that situation, where the outcome of *not* pushing that button is inevitible, I'm really not sure what I'd do.
In favor of pushing the button is the fact that the end result is the ethical choice. It offers the highes quality of life for the survivors, and, in the long run, saves more lives than it ends.
On the other hand, pushing the button makes one personally responsible for the deaths of billions, and forcing my will upon others, namely, the entire world.
*Sigh*, it's not a choice I think anyone should be able to make; it goes against my personal beliefs that one person should be able to enforce their will upon others like that.
However, it seems to me, that whatever choice I make, the fact that the choice exists means that I'm enforcing my will, no matter what. Given that I'm not allowed to put it up to majority decision, I suppose I'd have to push the button. Since I don't think I could live with myself, having done so, I would kill myself afterwards.