Dark, on the issue of religion verses science I understand the Church of England is far more relaxed on the issue than are American churches. I know that when Charles Darwin introduced the Theory of Evolution the Church of England openly accepted it, and therefore there was no major dispute between religion and science to speak of. However, over here in America the situation is far less relaxed, and often times religion and science are in open warfare with each other.

One reason in the American south there are biblical literalists, the fundamentalist churches, that take everything in the bible literally. Meaning if Genesis chapter one says the earth was created in six days they take that absolutely literally and therefore according to them things like the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution are impossible and in direct opposition to the bible. As a result these fundamentalists we call creationists are often trying to get the Department of Education to remove all mention of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory removed from science textbooks, and of course want them to teach the biblical story of creation in schools

In fact, there was a case not long ago, I believe it was last year, where .a number of churches in Texas got together and put pressure on the Texas School Board to drop Evolution and the Big Bang Theory from science textbooks, and the FFRF had to step in and fight it in court because teaching creationism would violate the Constitutional separation between church and state. Sad to say cases like that are quite common here in the USA, and it is becoming a big problem.

Obviously, it puts someone like myself in a position to choose one side or the other, and to follow where the evidence leads. In my opinion teaching school age children that the universe was created in six literal days and that the universe is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old is as objectionable as teaching the children the world is flat or the earth is the center of the universe. It is safe to say that science has put us far beyond such ignorant non-sense and the evidence speaks for itself that the universe is 13.5 billion years old and the earth is a good 4.5 billion years old. We know Evolution is a fact thanks to fossil records, recent discoveries in genetic research, and laboratory experiments that proves the Theory of Evolution beyond a doubt. As a result someone like myself who is a college educated individual can't calmly stand by while religious fundamentalists push their ignorance off on other people.

That said, I believe the problem is much more basic than that. Its not just about fundamentalists are more pushy here in the States and they are constantly battling the government over issues like weather or not to keep "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, weather or not prayer should be allowed in school, or over various objectionable scientific subjects such as Evolution and the Big Bang. For me the problem between science and religion comes down to good critical thinking skills. The way a skeptical person of science and a religious person of faith come to believe truth are very different.

The scientific methodology starts from a position of doubt and skepticism. Therefore he or she examines the evidence and follows where it leads. As the late great astronomer Carl Sagan use to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Therefore the entire concept of faith goes against the more skeptical approach to truth used by the scientific methodology.

Religion on the other hand is based almost exclusively on faith. Very few religious people actually go out looking for empirical evidence to support what they believe, and base their opinions solely on what their holy book says or what they have been told by their parents or minister. As a result they are free to believe some extremely extraordinary claims such as virgin births, people being raised from the dead, the parting of the Red Sea, and hundreds of other miracles for which there is no credible evidence to believe they ever happened. Therefore I feel that such people who believe in that stuff is a bit gullible.

What I am trying to say is that religion as an institution generally discourages critical thinking, and instead teaches followers to trust their religious leaders, their holy books, and to think it is okay to believe something is true when all empirical evidence and ordinary common sense says otherwise. Such thinking is very naive and often leads to the worst kind of gullibility. What's worse in places like the USA such people tend to try and push their gullible and uneducated opinions on others which is wrong.

Critical thinking is so important, especially now, because science can teach us a lot about things that were not known when most of the worlds religious books were written. Blindly following a religion based on ancient books, closing one's eyes to truth, is a recipe for social disaster. It is easy to label Islamic terrorism like the 9/11 attacks as religious extremism or the Christian fundamentalists who want to have Evolution banned in public schools as extremists, but we overlook the fact that it is because critical thinking is not encouraged as a core value that leads to exactly those sorts of antisocial behaviors. Had those people been taught critical thinking skills, to use logic and reason, I am pretty sure things like that would not happen.

I should point out that it just isn't religious people who could use some critical thinking. There seems to be a large percentage of the American public that is extremely gullible when it comes to psychics, UFOs, Big Foot, the Lock Ness Monster, ghosts, and a whole bunch of other subjects that lack any scientific credibility. I can remember there fore a while there use to be commercials on TV for 1-900 numbers where someone could call this or that psychic hotline to have their future told regarding romance, work, etc. I often wondered who would be idiotic or gullible enough to pay a dollar a minute to talk to a supposed psychic, but apparently there were plenty of people that gullible. Besides that for a while there was a show called Crossing Over with John Edwards who supposedly put people in contact with their deceased relatives. There are several syndicated programs on aliens and UFOs like UFO Files, Ancient Aliens, etc which is a big thing right now.

The point I am getting at is it doesn't hurt to have a healthy amount of skepticism when it comes to the subject of God, psychics, UFOs, and any other controversial subject you can name. As Sagan said the more extraordinary and unbelievable the claim the more extraordinary the evidence has to be to prove it. We can't just believe something because so and so said so or some ancient book says so. We need some empirical testable proof that supports or disproves that belief. When a certain thing is in doubt without evidence to prove it to be true or false the best position is one of admitting we don't know the answer with any certainty. The worst thing to do in my opinion is to assert something is true without any supporting evidence for that point of view. Critical thinking requires weighing the evidence and going with the most rational conclusion based on the available evidence at the time.

Of course, there is a problem and that is personal experience. You said above you believe in a god because of your personal experiences. That is not unusual. I know a lot of Christians have told me the evidence doesn't matter because they have had this or that personal experience that confirms their belief such as feeling a presents in the room while praying, describe a feeling of peace, feeling warm all over, and claim certain prayers were answered. That is much harder for a skeptical person like myself to quantify because it is not testable. Sure, I can come up with reasonable scientific hypotheses to explain all of those things, but there isn't anyway to prove those hypotheses as there isn't any empirical evidence supporting them one way or another. At most all I can do is form a reasonable hypothesis based on what evidence I do have available to me at the time.

All I can say for sure is when I was younger I had some religious experiences myself. I use to feel a tingling warm feeling when praying, once and a while believed there was a presents in the room with me, and certain prayers seemed to have been answered. However, in hindsight I am not so certain any of that was proof or evidence of a god or godlike being. The so-called presents and warm feeling while praying could have been products of my own imagination. As for the answered prayers I suspect they were confirmation bias at work. I believed a prayer had been answered when something had happened I had prayed for, but completely ignored every time a prayer hadn't been answered. Usually I'd use the old excuse this or that wasn't in God's will and therefore could excuse away the hundreds of things I had prayed for with no answer. So I would consider my personal experiences very weak evidence when arguing for the existence of God. Especially, when there are so many things in the bible that can be proven to be false which supports an agnostic point of view.

For example, let's take the story of Noah and the Ark. For one thing there is no evidence of a world wide flood anywhere in the past 1,000,000 years, no mass extinction as a result of said flood, and geneticists can't find any markers in animal DNA to  prove that narrows down to two of each kind. Moreover fossil evidence proves pretty conclusively that some species of animals such as kangaroos have always lived on the Australian continent and have not been found anywhere else in the world. Therefore it is highly improbable to say when Noah finally reached dry land he opened the Ark and the kangaroos just happily hopped their way all the way from central Asia to Australia. That clearly did not happen, and it is pretty clear if one examines the evidence that the Noah story is a myth probably based on some flood or other that was exclusive to central Asia and not the entire world.

For me being a skeptic to begin with I feel there is more than enough reason to doubt the bible as the word of God. There are too many stories like the story of Noah that can be easily explained away or proven to be false to put much faith in them as being accurate or historically significant. When it comes down to it the historicity of Jesus ever being a real person is pretty doubtful. The evidence just isn't there to prove that he existed, but even if there was a historical Jesus there isn't any proof that he had a virgin birth, that he was crucified and rose from the dead in three days, that he healed a bunch of people, etc. All of that is just hear say, and it is purely a matter of faith. Since I am not going to take the bible on faith knowing its various inaccuracies I have every reason to doubt there was ever a Jesus and its claims of God are equally not trust worthy. I'm left with the agnostic viewpoint being the only rational point of view possible.

There are, of course, other religious points of view that I think are more credible from a scientific point of view. There are the pantheistic religions like Daoism and Taoism which see the universe as all being one with God, and God is a natural energy or force that is in every living thing. The Force from Star Wars is a pantheistic concept, and was based on middle eastern pantheistic beliefs. I personally find that view of God more believable and more acceptable than the vengeful tyrant from the bible who punishes people for real and imagined sins for which there is very little evidence to begin with.

Dark, well, I do understand where you are coming from, but I don't think you fully understand where I am coming from regarding my views of religion and science. I suppose that for someone such as yourself who has spent their life studying philosophy and are use to debating with like minded individuals my views seem a bit simplistic and perhaps a bit narrow minded. While I can fully appreciate things like Thomas Kuhn's discussion of scientific progress and paradigm shifts I don't think that can help me any when arguing with religious fundamentalists who have one view, and only one view, of the world. I'll be the first to admit my opinions are not completely objective and unbiased, and you are right to say that my personal experiences have colored my views to a certain degree.

You said above you don't believe that religious fundamentalist views are very common over in the UK, and you wouldn't find them worth your time. You see, that's precisely the problem. They are very common over here in the United States, and while I do not equate all Christians with Christian fundamentalists  I do find myself arguing with fundamentalists who are very unreasonable and very irrational. As a result I can't afford to get into philosophical debates over religion and science because those people already have a very simplistic view of the world and I try to give them an alternative view of the world that is hopefully simple enough to grasp where I am coming from.

To give you a prime example of something going on in my life right now that is pertinent to this discussion as you may or may not know my ex wife and I are going through a highly contested divorce. Right now I have taken my ex wife to court over our son's education. I want to enroll him in public school my ex wife and her family don't want him going to public school and instead want him enrolled in home school or in Christian bible school. The reason I object so strongly to either of those ideas is my ex wife, her parents, and most of her relatives are Christian fundamentalist types who take everything in the bible absolutely literally. They believe the entire universe was created in six literal days, they believe the universe is only 6,000 years old, and so on. They don't have a very high opinion of science and have told my son that Evolution is a lie, the Big Bang is a lie, and basically told my son not to listen to me because I don't know what I am talking about. They told him if he believes anything I tell him about science that he will go to hell which has poisoned his mind against me.

Its easy for someone like yourself to be nonchalant  and easy going about religion because you don't have a reason to fight over it. However, what would you do if you were trying to read your son a book about something like dinosaurs and when you tell him Tyrannosaurs Rex lived 65 million years ago only to have him reply, "mommy says that is a lie because the earth is only 6,000 years old?"

I don't know about you, but that sort of thing makes my blood boil.  Thanks to freedom of religion being protected by the U.S. Constitution people like my ex are allowed to get by with teaching American children like my son absolute ignorant concepts such as the world is 6,000 years old without any proof or evidence to back it up. They are allowed to get by with poisoning children against science and making them distrust the scientific method and the analytic process in favor of just believing in the literal word of God. So in an instance like this yes faith and rationality are at odds with each other, because they are completely two different world views.

When debating science and religion with someone like yourself I don't have an issue discussing concepts like the problem of induction or paradigm shift because we are both rational educated people. As for me personally I don't think science holds all the answers and have experimented with a variety of religious views over the years because I'd like to believe there is something more to life. When I was a  college student I took a few comparative study courses on religion and as part of those course studies I spent some time studying Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity.  I think those studies were fascinating, and I did get a grudging respect for multiple points of view about God and the universe. However, I am and have always been more of a skeptical person at heart so I don't necessarily think I can subscribe to any religion based on faith alone. I prefer to apply Bayesian probability  to any hypothesis I am uncertain about in order to gauge its probability or likelihood to see if it is something worth pursuing. So I am a bit of a doubter when it comes to things of the supernatural even though I would like to think there could be something more.

As far as the topic of ethics goes I don't think ethics is a function of science either, nor do I believe ethics are exclusively a function of religion. I consider myself a humanist and as such I believe ethics require empathy for the suffering and needs of others. If I had to boil it down to one simple rule I'd say treat others with the same respect you want to be shown, or as the Christians would say, "do unto others as do unto you." That seems to be a universal ethical principle and that sentiment has been echoed by many religious figures including Jesus, Buddha, and Confucius to name a few.

While it seems most of our ethical and moral principles come from religious sources they are often similar when it comes to the basics. Certain crimes like murder, adultery, theft, and lying are all taboos in just about every culture we could name. We can, for example, study the Egyptian Laws of Maat which are some 5,000 years old and see that even at the dawn of written history humankind were already aware of the need to have ethical codes banning serious crimes against fellow people such as murder. So ethics have been around a long time, and future cultures simply built upon what was established then.

I don't personally believe science and reason alone are a good guide to ethics and morality, but we can use them in conjunction with some universal ethics to have a fair and decent outlook on life. I do believe though if someone has some decent humanist values such as doing good for goodness sake combined with critical thinking that most people will act in a way that is to the benefit of his or her community rather than being self-serving.

Unfortunately, religious fundamentalists and extremists  are often coming from an irrational upbringing of hatred and have a warped sense of right and wrong. It is for that reason that an Islamic extremist can walk onto a bus load of Jews, Christians, or whatever and blow himself up thinking he will go to heaven and be awarded 70 virgins as a martyr.  That sort of thinking is completely irrational and is totally self-serving. I strongly doubt a humanist would do something that extreme because it would go against our understanding of ethics and basic morality.

Regarding religious experiences  that of course is something only the person having that experience can relate to. Religious experiences by nature are personal events, and it is not really up to someone else not having had that experience to say that experience was real or not. At most all someone not having had that particular experience can say is it is something outside their own personal experience, and therefore the best they can do is just keep an open mind on the subject. There is nothing wrong admitting we don't know if something is in doubt and there is no way to prove it happened or not.

However, that said, I do understand your point of view about religion not just being about believing in claims against evidence. Your understanding of faith and mine are quite a bit different. As I understand it your definition of faith is based on people's personal experiences where what I am talking about is blind faith based on literal interpretations of scripture. In short, we are having a discussion about two different concepts and language being infallible as it is we were using the same word to describe two different concepts. I don't really have a problem having faith in something based on some personal experience like you were talking about, but I do have a problem with blind faith, belief, in something that goes against all available evidence such as my ex and her family believe.

Yup, indeed. Another spammer, this absolutely did not make sense in any way.

Talking about the old testament:
I'm not sure whether Jesus already has been born when god wanted to get rid of those who didn't follow him.
I don't think so. Please, to all the others, correct me when I am wrong.
But actually, this wastaking place before Jesus and his followers.
The bible does not actually start with Jesus, it starts with Adam and Eva, who were, regarding the bible, living in paradise till Eva told Adam to eat one of the forbidden apples. Jesus does not play a role here at all.

Kamochek, on the contrary if you study the New Testament more closely Jesus did tell the Jews and everyone else that they must believe he is the messiah else they will parish, be destroyed, etc. Right off the top of my head I can think of a few verses where he explicitly says that, but the one that comes immediately to mind is John 3:16 which Christians often use when talking about the importance of salvation because it gets to the point. In John 3:16 Jesus says, "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that all who believe in him shall not parish but have everlasting life."

I don't think that verse could be any more plain and to the point. In short, Jesus said if someone wants to have everlasting life they must believe in him, meaning Jesus, else the alternative is everlasting death, to parish, to be destroyed, etc. How much more plain and straight forward does he have to be?

Paddy, just a comment about Eve eating an apple. Actually, genesis doesn't really say what kind of fruit it was she ate. All it says is she took from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and ate. It doesn't really say if it was an apple, banana, pair, peach, etc. I think this is a case of literalism at work because people have for centuries been calling it an apple when the type of fruit is never specified. In fact, it is possible the fruit is allegorical and represents forbidden knowledge rather than being a literal fruit. Make sense?

Dark, yes, I definitely see where you are coming from. You are right debate with someone who has already made his/her mind up that they know all there is to know is pretty pointless. Unfortunately, alot of fundamentalists and even militant atheists fall into that category because all they can see is black and white and a discussion about something that falls into an area in between is impossible. They insist that their view is the one and only view which makes arguing with them a waste of time and effort.

I also agree with you about those people who subscribe to scientism because science, although very useful in many ways, is imperfect and is prone to mistakes. One shouldn't automatically believe something just because a scientist said it or put forth a hypothesis that has not been independently verified. That leads to huge mistakes, and scientists have been known to make them from time to time.

In fact, not too long ago I read a book called Bad Science which exposes a number of cases where so-called alternative treatments in the health industry were rushed to market using poor research and in dependant study has found them to be useless. The alternative health products are bad about making false claims about their products that can't be backed up with real scientific study and people are being duped into buying them all because some scientist or medical doctor endorses it, and it turns out the people doing the endorsing are quite frankly quacks. So just because a medical doctor or scientist says something doesn't necessarily make it so.

As far as the militant atheists go who refuse to see any fallibility in the scientific method it is true that some of them like Richard Dawkins almost are as extreme as the Christian fundamentalists they are arguing with in their personal views. I think for those people who openly claim science is the be all and end all to truth they have some personal motivations that aren't made plain in their books and in their lectures. Let's face it we are all human beings, we all want to be right, but a lot of times we embrace some position based on some emotional motivation as well as some rational reason.

I can use myself as a perfect example. Although, I strongly believe there isn't enough evidence to support the existence of God I'm also a realist to know that hypothesis hasn't been completely ruled out either. Still, my disbelief isn't based entirely on logic and reason alone. I have plenty of personal and deeply emotional reasons for disbelieving in the God of the bible. Some based on personal experiences that lead me to lose any belief in an all loving, all knowing, creator who cares about me or who will intervene on my behalf.

To start with when I first found out I was going blind I was at that time a Christian, and I spent a lot of time on my knees in prayer for God to heal me, to not let me go blind, and I went blind anyway. My family took me to see a faith healer, he laid hands on me, and of course nothing happened. That placed the seeds of doubt in my mind that maybe God wasn't real, because the thing I most wanted was so obviously not granted regardless of how much I prayed.

When I got a bit older, around 16, I had a girlfriend I cared very deeply for. She got a brain tumor, and although the doctors were able to safely remove the tumor doing so caused her a bunch of health issues in the process. In a little over a year after we met she passed away, and I was positively furious at God. No matter how much I prayed God let her die anyway, and everyone tried to comfort me by saying someday we will be back together in heaven or that I need to trust that it was for the best etc. Obviously, I felt cheated out of the life we could have had together and no amount of the usual platitudes could console me or alleviate my grief.

When I got older and became an agnostic I was better able to deal with my pain. I was able to look at it from a new perspective that perhaps if there was no God that losing my vision and the death of my former girlfriend were no more and no less natural events without anyone to blame. Sure, it was alright to feel anger over what happened, but I no longer could direct that anger at a god I no longer was certain existed. I began to look at life as being full of things both happy and sad, both good and bad, with no supernatural god at the switch. I was able to accept things once I realized that sometimes bad things happen and they are simply a random act of nature. Some might view that as cold comfort, but at least it is something I can personally accept at face value as being no more and no less than what it is.

So to get to the heart of the matter I feel as though I have been  lied to by my parents, my church, and everyone else who believed in God because I feel as though I was given a lot of false hope in something that ultimately did nothing to help me deal withe the situation. I would have preferred if people had been straight with me and said there was nothing that could have been done about the situation. Instead of that they continued to feed me false hope by telling me to pray about it, leave it up to God, put my faith in Jesus, and all that. When I did my heart was broken time and time again by unanswered prayers and false hopes. So while I have a lot of rational reasons for disbelieving in a personal God the main one is an emotional one based in having been hurt one too many time by unreciprocated prayers.

Obviously, I can not say what atheists like Richard Dawkins' motivations might be I am sure there is some event, some emotional reason, behind why they are so militant towards religion. For some people growing up in a religious background it is a happy wonderful experience, and for others it becomes a kind of torture. Especially, when they are brought up to believe that God will answer their prayers, that they should seek and they will find, and all that jazz only to ultimately feel betrayed when their prayers are not answered. I don't like being lied to, and I do feel a lot of Christian churches, innocent or not, are giving lots of people a sense of false hope in something that does not exist and are lying to them.

As far as the issue of logic and reason I don't think it is merely a problem with religious fundamentalism either. There are a number of cases where I think people could be more skeptical use a bit of the scientific method to try and come to a better understanding of the stuff they are claiming. As you said there are a lot of conspiracy nuts running around who have all kinds of wild conspiracy theories that don't really have much evidence or credible support. Sometimes the conspiracy theories don't make a lot of sense from a rational point of view.

For example, there is a show over here in the States called Decoded where the host tries to go around the world and prove or debunk various conspiracy theories. In most cases after a very extensive investigation into the evidence for this or that conspiracy theory it is clear that a lot of conspiracy theories are based on a lot of conjecture and wild speculation. Its that old problem of confirmation bias where the conspiracy theorist tries to make the evidence conform to his/her point of view rather than changing his/her point of view to conform to the available evidence at hand. Applying a little research with some logic and reasoning to many of those conspiracy theories usually reveals the lack of proper investigation into the ideas behind them.

Interesting enough it does amaze me how much of American television is taken up with pseudo science type programming. We have shows like Ghost Hunters, Ghost Hunters International, and Haunted History to name a few dealing with ghosts. We have UFO Files, Ancient Aliens, and quite a number of other programs dealing with alien abductions and alien visitations. there are several Christian type programs dealing with such topics as life after death, miracles, angels, and other supernatural events. There are shows like Crossing Over that deals with psychics and contacting the dead. I'm not saying that such shows should not exist, I do find them interesting to a certain point, but I do wonder how many people watch that kind of programming and assume it is all true without a modicum of skepticism.