...on religion

If there's ever a time for a more philosophical blog then it is now, while I'm sitting in the late hours with Beethoven's 9th playing, sipping on Laphroaig out of a gorgeous pewter hip-flask (courtesy of a very, very special person).

As a man of science, or more specifically mathematics, people are usually taken aback when I express anything other than pure distaste towards any religious ideologies. Now don't get the wrong idea, I'm not what most people would describe as a theist but I have thought a lot about what exactly it is all about. I tend to avoid the subject because it's a potential minefield of political correctness. I find the best way, if you really want to sit down and think about religion on the whole, is to argue both sides fairly, if not biased towards what you're arguing against. I will try to do just that.  To start with I will make it clear that I'm comparing two groups of people; those who believe in a 'higher power', and those who don't. One of the main problems with this is that theists view themselves as superior to atheists. They feel like they have the ability to have faith or that they have broadened their minds to see beyond, on the same token, atheists look down at their rivals, seeing them as gullible, closed-minded, and insecure. This is seen their arguments for their own position such as, an atheist would argue that if a higher power or 'God' exists, then we should be able to find him/her/it, we should be able to find evidence. This instantly becomes an argument of swings and roundabouts. Both think they're better, but for reason that don't apply to the opposing group. Such an atheist would ask theists for evidence of God, and as these theists wouldn't be reliant on the scientific method, they would say something along the lines one of two things:

1. Evidence is not relevant. That an all-powerful being can easily evade all human attempts to track Him down, should He not want to be found. This seems like a childish attempt to avoid answering the difficult questions, but you have to put yourself in their shoes, believe that the being they describe exists. They believe this to be the absolute truth, which undercuts all that science could throw at it. How do you measure something that can appear to not even exist? From here all sorts of questions about the motives of God can be brought in. Why is He hiding? Does He show Himself to anyone? Why won't He reveal Himself to remove all doubt? But remember, such an all-powerful God would be infinitely more intelligent than any human, so it's pointless to question Him. 'Evidence is not relevant' is a check-mate response that shouldn't be used because it leads nowhere towards a better understanding for either parties.

2. You're the scientists, why don't you prove God doesn't exist? Seems fair, if the scientific method works then God will be disproven or proven outright, or if it doesn't, all remains a mystery, right? Except it's not that simple. I remember a nice analogy for the problems when proving the existence or non-existence of God: imagine a teapot orbiting the sun at some arbitrary distance. No one would've ever seen it or know of it's existence, but regardless of this, a man pipes up one day and claims just that. His says there is a teapot orbiting the sun. Soon enough the populating splits in two, those who believe and those who don't. The theists of the teapot ask the non-believers to prove that there is no teapot if they're so confident. This task would mean searching every cubic foot of the space around the sun and not finding anything, but an atheist responds by saying that if the teapot exists it would be much easier for one the believers to point it out. Clearly here, the teapot represents a God, but the arguments are strikingly similar. These would be, crudely speaking, the atheists asking the theists to use an atheist method for proving the theists are correct. Whereas the theists would be asking the atheists to use a method they don't believe in to prove an idea they don't believe in. Something isn't right. Neither group can prove to the other group their beliefs because they don't use a universally agreed method.

I believe that so far science is on track. It has made countless discoveries that would appear to be independent of a greater intelligence, whilst remaining true to form in its method. But the simple fact is that, even if science finally believes it knows everything, it may still be missing out on one thing - the higher power that doesn't want to be found.

This is just a brief introduction to my opinions, but discussions, counter-arguments, general comments are welcome and encouraged.