The question here is not "Are science and Religion in conflict (at war, etc)?" My answer is related to the question about what is most likely to halt human progress. The debate over religio-scientific conflict are separate issues reserved for a theoretical and rhetorical dialectic between religious apologists and philosophers. Human progress is the issue here. Humans have made progress, are continuing to make progress, but could be much further along with religion.

Based on history as it is understood in most contemporary societies, we can say unequivocally that human progress was delayed for at least 1000 years due to religion. During the era of "The Dark Ages", religion brought out the worst in human nature - tribalism, authoritarianism, demonetization and zero-sum thinking - and repressed the better attributes of human nature - logic and reasoning, preferring ignorance and superstition over understanding and know-how. Imagine where humanity would now be if not for the Dark Ages!

Religion didn't stop there, but the Enlightenment helped to thwart their efforts at ignorance. As humans have progressed, religion continues to festers in the back-ground, always fighting for legitimacy. To the extent there is a war/conflict, it is not about religion and science - it is about religion and human progress.

Based on current U.S. politics, one can certainly argue that religion is winning, To be sure, evangelicals have been slowly elbowing their way into U.S. politics for the last 40 years, and they are finally in charge. With that leadership, we see the expected trend toward tribalism, authoritarianism, demonetization and zero-sum thinking, just like the Dark Ages. Unlike the dark ages, the dangers are much greater, for they can now realize their desires of the second coming, which requires Armageddon. What better way than the nuclear option.

They have won a battle, but as long as rational humans are able to intercede and prevent them from delivering their ultimate goal, human progress, using the tools of reasoning that nature provided, will ultimately prevail. History tells us so.

@atheist

Nothing, because my purpose is already determined haha. The notion that the world can be saved is unattainable by a single person for a sheer lack of manpower.

I agree. I think that capitalism will continue to accelerate up until the point that man gives over control of the world to machines of the sort that Ray Kurzweil speculates about. He thinks there will be (by 2045) a technological singularity (also, simply, the singularity). The hypothesis that the invention of artificial superintelligence will abruptly trigger runaway technological growth, resulting in unfathomable changes to human civilization.

@cava That's the way I see it. I don't see a bright future for humans. I'm going to look at Kurzweil's writings.

@cava "Man" will not intentionally give over control of the world to the machines... it will be A person, or a GROUP or people who will do it, consciously, intentionally, with malice and forethought. It will be one or more suicidal terrorists, exactly as with the not-so-hypothetical terrorists of today, taking the rest of the human race with them on their way to meet the 72 virgins who are waiting for them in their reward. Just one twisted (or incompetent) A.I. nerd is all it will take to unleash the machines. Once the machines can design & build their own, advancements by them and for their own purposes will take place overnight while we sleep.

I'm waiting for that issue to be resolved, tbh. Has me a bit shook up about the quality of life when SHTF.

@atheist It's been hijacked by religutards, greedy politicians, and stupid-ass administrators.

@atheist I mean everyone, not the extremely successful money hoarding few

@atheist yes well if everyone was like me things would certainly look different. The amount of crap people buy that they don't need astounds me...and then they buy it for me as gifts! A nightmare of the modern age.

@atheist hmmm lots of attempts so far have had the opposite effect