The Next Pope

[nirvana]

whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

I am an atheist and I would argue that this is absolute hogwash.  Just off the top of my head I could argue that the best universities in the UK originally came from the Church, the Church played a huge part in the development of football in this country, religion was the major driver behind the invention of the printing press.  Just because something is factually incorrect and based on myth doesn't mean that it can only be a negative force.  I think this is where the arguments of Dawkins etc fall down because they seem so intent upon proving that religion is bad and evil.  For a lot of people (especially in very poor countries) it is one of the only positive factors in their life and I am not sure how helpful debunking them of their myths is tbh.

Succinct and very well put

[doubleup]

whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

I am an atheist and I would argue that this is absolute hogwash.  Just off the top of my head I could argue that the best universities in the UK originally came from the Church, the Church played a huge part in the development of football in this country, religion was the major driver behind the invention of the printing press.  Just because something is factually incorrect and based on myth doesn't mean that it can only be a negative force.  I think this is where the arguments of Dawkins etc fall down because they seem so intent upon proving that religion is bad and evil.  For a lot of people (especially in very poor countries) it is one of the only positive factors in their life and I am not sure how helpful debunking them of their myths is tbh.

Religion only has these postive attributes when it is constricted by a secular society and becomes a lifestyle choice in that society.  When not constrained it will not tolerate dissent.

[nirvana]

whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

I am an atheist and I would argue that this is absolute hogwash.  Just off the top of my head I could argue that the best universities in the UK originally came from the Church, the Church played a huge part in the development of football in this country, religion was the major driver behind the invention of the printing press.  Just because something is factually incorrect and based on myth doesn't mean that it can only be a negative force.  I think this is where the arguments of Dawkins etc fall down because they seem so intent upon proving that religion is bad and evil.  For a lot of people (especially in very poor countries) it is one of the only positive factors in their life and I am not sure how helpful debunking them of their myths is tbh.

Religion only has these postive attributes when it is constricted by a secular society and becomes a lifestyle choice in that society.  When not constrained it will not tolerate dissent.

Like Soviet Russia you mean ?

[doubleup]

whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

I am an atheist and I would argue that this is absolute hogwash.  Just off the top of my head I could argue that the best universities in the UK originally came from the Church, the Church played a huge part in the development of football in this country, religion was the major driver behind the invention of the printing press.  Just because something is factually incorrect and based on myth doesn't mean that it can only be a negative force.  I think this is where the arguments of Dawkins etc fall down because they seem so intent upon proving that religion is bad and evil.  For a lot of people (especially in very poor countries) it is one of the only positive factors in their life and I am not sure how helpful debunking them of their myths is tbh.

Religion only has these postive attributes when it is constricted by a secular society and becomes a lifestyle choice in that society.  When not constrained it will not tolerate dissent.

Like Soviet Russia you mean ?

Not sure what you mean.  Certainly the soviet system of party members and crushing dissent would be like the church in the middle ages.

[nirvana]

Nor me, sorry

[Delboy]

whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

I am an atheist and I would argue that this is absolute hogwash.  Just off the top of my head I could argue that the best universities in the UK originally came from the Church, the Church played a huge part in the development of football in this country, religion was the major driver behind the invention of the printing press.  Just because something is factually incorrect and based on myth doesn't mean that it can only be a negative force.  I think this is where the arguments of Dawkins etc fall down because they seem so intent upon proving that religion is bad and evil.  For a lot of people (especially in very poor countries) it is one of the only positive factors in their life and I am not sure how helpful debunking them of their myths is tbh.

Religion only has these postive attributes when it is constricted by a secular society and becomes a lifestyle choice in that society.  When not constrained it will not tolerate dissent.

This is just not true. The UK does not run under secular lines.

Our Head of State is also Head of the Church. Leading Bishops sit in the House of Lords and are higher in the Country's order of precedence than the Prime Minister. Yet all these positive things came about through the church mainly in the UK.

[doubleup]

whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

I am an atheist and I would argue that this is absolute hogwash.  Just off the top of my head I could argue that the best universities in the UK originally came from the Church, the Church played a huge part in the development of football in this country, religion was the major driver behind the invention of the printing press.  Just because something is factually incorrect and based on myth doesn't mean that it can only be a negative force.  I think this is where the arguments of Dawkins etc fall down because they seem so intent upon proving that religion is bad and evil.  For a lot of people (especially in very poor countries) it is one of the only positive factors in their life and I am not sure how helpful debunking them of their myths is tbh.

Religion only has these postive attributes when it is constricted by a secular society and becomes a lifestyle choice in that society.  When not constrained it will not tolerate dissent.

This is just not true. The UK does not run under secular lines.

Our Head of State is also Head of the Church. Leading Bishops sit in the House of Lords and are higher in the Country's order of precedence than the Prime Minister. Yet all these positive things came about through the church mainly in the UK.

Don't be silly, if the uk was a religious society, kinboshi would have been disembowelled years ago. 

[thetank]

whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

I am an atheist and I would argue that this is absolute hogwash.  Just off the top of my head I could argue that the best universities in the UK originally came from the Church, the Church played a huge part in the development of football in this country, religion was the major driver behind the invention of the printing press.  Just because something is factually incorrect and based on myth doesn't mean that it can only be a negative force.  I think this is where the arguments of Dawkins etc fall down because they seem so intent upon proving that religion is bad and evil.  For a lot of people (especially in very poor countries) it is one of the only positive factors in their life and I am not sure how helpful debunking them of their myths is tbh.

Religion only has these postive attributes when it is constricted by a secular society and becomes a lifestyle choice in that society.  When not constrained it will not tolerate dissent.

This is just not true. The UK does not run under secular lines.

Our Head of State is also Head of the Church. Leading Bishops sit in the House of Lords and are higher in the Country's order of precedence than the Prime Minister. Yet all these positive things came about through the church mainly in the UK.

The UK does not run under the anachronistic institutions you mention. The Queen is for tourists and the order of precedence is for wikipedia. The House of Commons runs the show.

[kinboshi]

I read the other day that E = MC2 may actually be horlicks, just saying.

No, that's not what you read. It was to do with the neutrino experiment that gave results that if correct would question Einstein's famous equation and the idea that the constant 'c' (the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum) is not the universal speed limit.

The findings were published to be analysed and questioned, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, many scientists have questioned the accuracy of the experiment and the findings and it's very likely that there were fundamental flaws in their methodology.

As for this notion that "science claims to have all the answers" - bollocks does it. Science is a methodology where a hypothesis is put forwarded, tested and then tested by peers. It's this repeated searching for the right answers that separates science from faith. Science isn't wrong, people's conclusions can be misinformed based on limited evidence or understanding of what is observed. Science is about constantly questioning and challenging perceived truths. It's about putting together a model that explains our universe based on the evidence we have and our limited understanding of it. It doesn't deal with fundamental truths, and it's not scared of being challenged. It doesn't rely on blind faith or wishful thinking, or on medieval teachings based on a far lesser understanding and knowledge of how things work.

Science works. We have planes, computers, the Internet, medicine, etc., whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

Does science really constantly challenge perceived truths ?

Are many scientists working on challenging Darwinian theory ? Genuine question, perhaps there are ?

Is there a large tranche of men in white coats challenging the big bang theory. Again, perhaps there are but I never read about them.

A number of scientists are people of faith - are they bad scientists, idiots ?

It's unbelievably dense to take sides in a science versus faith debate in any sense that mandates someone must decide what side of the fence they're on.

Frankly, as well, the level of debate that wants to trivialise and distill the impact of faiths on this world to wars and architecture is pathetic (in the true sense of the word).

Ideas are challenged when a suitable hypothesis is put forward, evidence supplied and a model given that makes more sense than the currently accepted model.

Can you please give an example of how the theory of evolution (also don't misunderstand the word theory in this context, it's not the same usage as a theory in general use) can be challenged with an alternative model that makes more sense of the evidence available?

We're talking complete fossil records, evolution witnessed in laboratory conditions, and the smoking gun of DNA showing that all lifeforms on this planet share a common ancestry. Not only biology, but geology, physics, astronomy and chemistry all support the model of evolution.

Man used to think the world was flat and that the moon, sun and stars revolved around the earth at the centre of everything. Physics and astronomy have shown that model to be false, and we now have a greater understanding of how the cosmos is.

Should scientists be challenging the idea that the sun is at the centre of our solar system, which is one of many stars in our galaxy amongst millions of other galaxies? We don't understand everything about the cosmos, but science doesn't just replace accepted models unless there's something that explains things better than what we have now.

To challenge evolution just because a two thousand year old book didn't include an understanding of how life evolved on the planet is pretty ludicrous.

[kinboshi]

I haven't criticised faith. I was criticising religion.

[bhoywonder]

whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

I am an atheist and I would argue that this is absolute hogwash.  Just off the top of my head I could argue that the best universities in the UK originally came from the Church, the Church played a huge part in the development of football in this country, religion was the major driver behind the invention of the printing press.  Just because something is factually incorrect and based on myth doesn't mean that it can only be a negative force.  I think this is where the arguments of Dawkins etc fall down because they seem so intent upon proving that religion is bad and evil.  For a lot of people (especially in very poor countries) it is one of the only positive factors in their life and I am not sure how helpful debunking them of their myths is tbh.

Religion only has these postive attributes when it is constricted by a secular society and becomes a lifestyle choice in that society.  When not constrained it will not tolerate dissent.

This is just not true. The UK does not run under secular lines.

Our Head of State is also Head of the Church. Leading Bishops sit in the House of Lords and are higher in the Country's order of precedence than the Prime Minister. Yet all these positive things came about through the church mainly in the UK.

The UK does not run under the anachronistic institutions you mention. The Queen is for tourists and the order of precedence is for wikipedia. The House of Commons runs the show.

Doesn't the queen have final say in passing new laws........in theory she can say no to whatever the house of commons passes on to her to sign,but doesn't to avoid a constitutional crisis.........would be a laff if she said "feck off Mr.Cameron...one will not sign this law"

[kinboshi]

Yes, there are lots of scientists looking at alternative theories to the big bang. Not sure there are any yet that explain the evidence as satisfactorily though yet.

[nirvana]

Can you please give an example of how the theory of evolution (also don't misunderstand the word theory in this context, it's not the same usage as a theory in general use) can be challenged with an alternative model that makes more sense of the evidence available?

Not for me to say how it can be challenged, I don't have a scoobies. If you want to have it both ways that science always challenges, except when it doesn't, that's fine by me and prob God, Allah etc. Sounds dangerously like a dogma though

[thetank]

whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

I am an atheist and I would argue that this is absolute hogwash.  Just off the top of my head I could argue that the best universities in the UK originally came from the Church, the Church played a huge part in the development of football in this country, religion was the major driver behind the invention of the printing press.  Just because something is factually incorrect and based on myth doesn't mean that it can only be a negative force.  I think this is where the arguments of Dawkins etc fall down because they seem so intent upon proving that religion is bad and evil.  For a lot of people (especially in very poor countries) it is one of the only positive factors in their life and I am not sure how helpful debunking them of their myths is tbh.

Religion only has these postive attributes when it is constricted by a secular society and becomes a lifestyle choice in that society.  When not constrained it will not tolerate dissent.

This is just not true. The UK does not run under secular lines.

Our Head of State is also Head of the Church. Leading Bishops sit in the House of Lords and are higher in the Country's order of precedence than the Prime Minister. Yet all these positive things came about through the church mainly in the UK.

The UK does not run under the anachronistic institutions you mention. The Queen is for tourists and the order of precedence is for wikipedia. The House of Commons runs the show.

Doesn't the queen have final say in passing new laws........in theory she can say no to whatever the house of commons passes on to her to sign,but doesn't to avoid a constitutional crisis.........would be a laff if she said "feck off Mr.Cameron...one will not sign this law"

If she did that then yeah, constitutional crisis. She's best to do it late on a Friday afternoon as then she might last till Monday.

[redarmi]

Doesn't the queen have final say in passing new laws........in theory she can say no to whatever the house of commons passes on to her to sign,but doesn't to avoid a constitutional crisis.........would be a laff if she said "feck off Mr.Cameron...one will not sign this law"

You are correct as is thetank in suggesting that the Queens roles is practically limited.  It would, however, be very naive for us all to think she has no power because she woldn't use constitutional veto.  She has a weekly meeting with the Prime Minister and there is no doubt she has influence and influence and access way beyond that of most elected representatives and if she decided she didn't like any specific legislation her views would be heard.  She is also not averse to interfering politically if she feels it is appropriate.  She got rid of Gough Whitlam as the Aussie PM as recently as 1975 and if the Libs and Tories hadn't formed a govt she would have had the right to pick a PM last year.