For me, the difference is that scientists are constantly changing and refining their theories of how the world works as they learn more and more about it; while the religious group cling resolutely to their magic books that were written thousands of years ago.
For example:
You find a fragment of a story left behind on a bus. It details how Jack plots to take a radio from Sally’s house while she is out. You are left thinking how bad Jack is, perhaps that he should be punished for such a misdeed.
Then, the next day, you find another fragment left on the bus. The previous page. THIS details how Sally beat Jack up and stole the radio from him first.
The scientist will now reevaluate the previous evidence, and may come to a conclusion that Jack is trying to non-violently get his own property back. The new theory is that Sally is the bad person, and Jack is the martyred hero.
The religious person will deny the new evidence, will claim that it comes from a different story, or that it should be differently interpreted, and will fight and argue and picket to try to cling to the idea that Jack is a bad man and Sally is a good woman, despite all the new evidence to the contrary.
Now say a THIRD fragment was found, this one following the first and detailing how Jack, on being disturbed by Sally whilst in her house, ruthlessly murdered her where she stood.
The scientist will once again reevaluate and form a new story with this fresh evidence; while the religious corner will celebrate being proven right all along and will try to undermine all of science because the scientists are not afraid to admit they are wrong, while the religious refuse to acknowledge the possibility at all.
Now, you might say that you’d prefer to side with the religious people in this example. I mean, they were right after all, weren’t they? And they had faith all the way through, despite hardships and times of little hope. That’s got to count for something, right?
Me, I prefer to side with the scientists. Sure, for a while they were barking up the wrong tree, but they were fighting for truth with the full scope of the information available. And they got there in the end.
I have no problem at all with the existence of God. It’s just that at this point in time, I haven’t seen any evidence to convince me of this. If God came to me one day and showed me something to prove to me that He exists, I would be the first person to stand up and say “sorry God, I was wrong, I now believe, thank you for coming to me.”
Some people would choose to ‘believe’, ‘just in case’. They’ll go to church and sit there, not really convinced by it all, but hoping that in the event of the priests being right at the end of it all, their attendance will give them some brownie points in the Big Totting-Up in the sky.
Me, I prefer to stand by the evidence as I see it. And if God doesn’t approve of me using the brain He gave me, then I don’t particularly want to be in his club anyway.
Finally, I’d just like to point out that ‘religion’ and ‘morals’ are NOT mutually exclusive and that you don’t need a magic book to tell you that you shouldn’t kill, steal, lie, sleep around or be disrespectful to your society. These five ‘rules’ crop up in EVERY major religion, and EVERY decent person’s moral code and have nothing to do with God.
In fact, if you need the thread of a man with a beard in a dress on a cloud in the sky who is WATCHING YOU and will SMITE YOU if you’re bad to make you be a good person, how can you tell me that I’m ‘going to hell’ because I try to be a good person WITHOUT such threats and incentives?
This was long. Sorry!
April 20th, 2008 at 01:58am
