The Best of Science

I came across http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7432173082287948210&q=zaytuna
and since I have read Sam Harris "Letters..." and will probably read The God delusion sometime, I can't help but comment on it.
Note Yusuf Hamza is articulate and seems reasonably intelligent, but his argument that the anti - religion/God books compare the Best of Science with the worst of Religion is a childish argument.
Science is a tool neither good nor bad , it depends on the who uses it. However the principles on which science is based, are sound. The principles of scientific curiosity, verification by experimentation, continuous evaluation of results by peers, having to give up beliefs which are proven wrong (e.g. the sun revolves round the earth), continuous improvement, no 100% absolute certainty - 'you might be wrong tomorrow attitudes', are all good and can be followed even in other aspects of life.
Religion too can be used for good or bad depending on who uses it. But the principles on which religion is based? well some are definitely bad. i.e. belief without evidence (or at least insufficient evidence - Carl Sagan's said extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence), the absolute certainty in the rightness of itself, the attitude of we the followers are superior/better/more favored than those who don't follow, are all principles which are bad and which would cause trouble if followed in any other aspect of life. We don't have an Indian science and an American Science and we certainly don't believe that those who understand e=mc^2 are superior to those who don't.
So the Best of Religion is certainly way inferior to the Best of Science. And the worst of science? quite simply it's the worst of humanity. But the worst of religion is not restricted to the worst of humanity as it does quite well(!) by itself.
Yusuf says the wars of the 20Th century were caused by fascism, nationalism and communism (unlike the wars of yesteryear's). Leaving aside the numerous conflicts in which religion has played a part, I'm not sure what he intends to prove by this. Certainly I find it hard to differentiate between a rabid nationalist and a religious fundamentalist (We are superior, We can go to war and kill people who are not like us, Even though our birth (and hence in most cases our nationality and religion) is a random chance event we believe we are better than the others and this was our destiny, The other's are always spoiling our way of life , we need some way to stop them, Every one of 'us' is better than one of 'them', We need to stick together with other's like us - Each of this statement can be made by the nationalist of the fundamentalist.). Religion , like nationalism or regionalism, or race, or gender is just one more way humans use to separate 'us' and 'them'. We can look around and see how useful these classifications are for humanity as a whole

Speaking of religions that should be banned , the fundamentalist break away Mormon sect certainly should. The only thing is that, nothing is going to bring back the lost innocence of the children, though I hope I'm wrong.
The discussion though did bring up a point in favor of polygamy. Most rational people are against polygamy. However we (yes I consider myself rational) would also be against any form of legislative action against say single people who sleep around with multiple partner's though we may frown at it. So here's the problem with having the above two attitudes. What we are essentially saying is that its OK for someone to sleep around with multiple partners, its OK for them to have kids, its OK for them to dump their partners and kids (OK in the sense that we wouldn't say put them in prison!) but as soon as that someone decides to marry his/her partners and give some sort of legal protection to them , we say put him/her in prison! Clearly we are hypocrites.
I'm just wondering which is the lesser of the two evils . I'd probably choose giving legal protection should be given to anyone with or without marriage.
Speaking of which I wonder if any religion other than Hinduism has a No Comments against polyandry(my only evidence for this is the Mahabharata - a tale in which we firmly believe you can find all the sin's humans can commit)? Certainly the Abrahamanic religions with their skewed definitions of Adultery wouldn't approve !