I kind of agree, the scientifically accurate viewpoint should always be agnosticism, which is usually what I state when asked. I was toying with making this argument, because it's true - so far. By doing so, you reduce a supreme being to a "God of the gaps", and science is always closing those gaps. You're left either believing that God will fill those gaps, or believing that science will. Basically, the scientific argument does rule out God, but reduces God to one of several competing theories, and the one with rather scant evidence for. Take the creation of life. It's thought that, given long enough, a Miller-Urey experiment with the conditions on Earth accurately modelled, would create life. As yet, no experiment has proven this hypothesis and created life, but they've made complex building blocks needed for life. That's some evidence that it's the right idea, but until there's a definitive experiment, there's still a 'gap' for a God to create that spark. Scientifically then, you can't prove God doesn't exist, but to extrapolate from a "gap God" to infer an afterlife, etc, is also unscientific. Also, I've posed the question that you're either believing in science or God, but science isn't a belief system, it's a paradigm of knowledge. Instead, I choose to believe in humanity, and believe that we will find the answers to these questions through application of the scientific method. Equally however, I couldn't blame someone for looking at humanity, seeing what we're capable of as a species, and hoping there is a God after all. Edit: I've just seen Redruth's post above, and fully agree that religion shouldn't play any part in policy making at a government level. It should be guided by morality, yes, but not any religions take on morality. And where a religion conflicts with science then there really shouldn't be a debate. I think even the Dalai Lama has been quoted as saying something similar.
Don't worry Carrabah, I still see you as someone that stirs up interesting football debates, even if you have strayed into an area you are not really suited to tonight!
Religion is a form of population control in a nutshell it started to become more popular around the fall of the Roman empire and the beginning of the dark ages, because there was no order in the world back then.
Rob you have a habit of drawing elements from somewhere else which carry no relevance. You cannot compare this with following a football club which is non essential but a basis of entertainment and stimulation (based on the reality of now). Its not illogical to enjoy stimulation from reality, it is entirely different to live with a philosophy of life based on what someone has told you. They are not the same. Whether cultural values are ingrained with religion may be true, I still think to those with the knowledge we have now must be crackers to take preference of an idea written by some people a couple of thousand years ago over the most intelligent people in the World today. Culture should have nothing to do with there decision, they have the facts.
Happy St George's Day to all. Personally i'd have Jerusalem as our national anthem. [video=youtube;bKaJ4b0XYmI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKaJ4b0XYmI[/video]
So what if no-one can prove God doesn't exist, the onus is for him to be proved. In addition, do these same people believe in elves, gremlins, and eskimo's.
That is simply not true. There are beliefs in football (what is beautiful) and there are realities in religion (collective discussion, scripture, etc). Bear in mind that religion is a source of "entertainment and stimulation" just as much as football! They are both inherently cultural and therefore almost perfect comparisons can be drawn between them. The problem for you is, like someone who is fiercely religious, you will deny that following football can be viewed in this way. I think what's missing from here is that we are arguing slightly different things, as highlighted by your second paragraph. I'm not denying that it is bonkers to take the bible at face value, or even to believe that the son of God died for us or that Muhammad spoke the word of God. These are alien concepts to me too. What I am disputing is that we should remove the imprints that these religions have on our lives (e.g. st George's Day). These are cultural phenomena which to destroy would risk rupturing the fabric of our very, very British society. This is precisely the same as Norwich City's impact on the city and the people of Norwich. I appreciate you don't like thinking of yourself as irrational, but I'm afraid any form of comfort, enjoyment or entertainment is as irrational as the next. Be it football, religion or, I don't know, reading books or bullfighting.
I'm sorry Rob you are just taking things to a silly extreme. Its like saying you don't agree with murdering old grannies and then comparing the crime to swatting a fly. Its quite irrational to kill old ladies, but quite rational to swat a fly yet in both events someone/thing dies. It doesn't mean they are scenarios for comparison however. There are clear differences between seeking guidance from fantasy elements in history about events, and enjoying a football match. And there are plenty of cultural phenomena to choose from history that doesn't involve saints, holy ritual etc etc which are real and offer genuine reasons to be proud. Not because the crackpots say so.
