You are just restating my point. It is erronous to refer to
Science or Religion as a "thing" that automatically determines the
behaviour of those who hail by them. At the end of the day people
still have the choice to make what they have of it.
Simply put, the worship of science, is ironically, the almost
religious faith some put in Science to be the solution of all of
mankind's problems... as if the invention of nuclear weapons,
super-diseases due to antibiotic abuse, and what have you not.
However I do not see how religion can be "good" or "bad" going
from a naturalistic perspective. Good and bad, in the naturalistic
perspective, are just irrational human illusions created by society
to control its members. It has no real relation to the universe.
What is good for one man may be bad for another. The only thing
that matters is power and the will to apply it.
By trying to say religion brings "bad" things, one is actually
betraying the fact that he has no been able to shed religious
thought, this irrational belief in the "goodness" or "badness" of
things. One does not need to have a religion in order to behave
religiously... the tons of athiests who reject religion, but yet
still think mankind is bound by some arbitary moral law that
certain behaviours are "bad" are a prime example.
There is no good or bad behaviour, just behaviour that people
put labels on.
The progress of science may have brought troubles and ills, but
it is an undeniable fact that you are enjoying the great benefits
it brought. You get to see doctors that don't just prescribe
"magic" potions, neither do you have to live in caves.
I would not describe any sort of behaviour as being religious,
due to the fact that with or without religion, one can still choose
his own behaviour, thus no need to bring religion into the picture
at all. This arbitrary moral law you stated, everyone lives by it.
This "law" changes with the times, like how in the past it was
common to keep slaves, be racist etc. We even judge the Bible by
the moral standards we hold now, or we would be taking the old
testament literally. An example in the new testament is when jesus
tells his disciples to hate their families, but many christians
don't view this as literal. Why ever not? In the end I agree with
your last sentence.