[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

This. Science cannot answer everything, only questions about the observable universe. Science can explain how the big bang happened, but not why it happened. Religion cannot explain this either, but it does offer an outlet for people to express the emotions that stem from these unanswered (unanswerable?) questions. I don't see anything wrong with communing with others in a religious setting (just like I don't see anything wrong with a bunch of dorks sitting around and speculating on how cool it would be if there is life on other planets or parallel universes) as long as, at the end of the day, participants are able to separate fantasy from reality and keep a healthy perspective about their made-up beliefs. Religion should just be something that is "left in the church" just like me tying up and spanking my girlfriend should be something that is "left in the bedroom".

People who say "science can't answer anything" have no imagination. That's why science exists. It knows it doesn't have the answer to everything. Once it does, it will stop. Until then, it will continue.

What happened before the big bang (therefore before time) is very likely unknowable, although not impossible, and if so is inconsequential to us. You can't very well measure something outside of time itself (this is also why it would be likely impossible to ever disprove a deity). A lot of people have a problem with somebody saying "I don't know", so they invent religion and spirituality, which pretends to answer questions, but doesn't answer anything except fanciful thoughts.

I agree with you wholly about religion just being kept to ones self. I think it's time for a Hitchens quote on the matter:

HITCHENS: Absolutely, I say good luck to it. The way I phrase it in my book, available at fine bookstores everywhere, is that I propose a pact with the faith, the faithful. I say—I'll take it again, I'll quote from the great Thomas Jefferson, I don't mind if my neighbor believes in 15 gods or in none, he neither by that breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. I would echo that and say that as long as you don't want your religion taught to my children in school, given a government subsidy, imposed on me by violence, any of these things, you are fine by me. I would prefer not even to know what it is that you do in that church of yours. In fact, if you force it on my attention, I will consider it a breach of that pact. Have your own bloody Christmas, and so on. Do your slaughtering, if possible, in an abattoir. And don't mutilate the genitals of your children. Because then I'm afraid it gets within the ambit of law. All right, don't you think that's reasonably pluralistic and humanitarian of me? I think it is. Why is it a vain hope on my part? Why is that? Has this pact ever been honored by the other side? Of course not. And it's a mystery to me, and I'll share it with you. If I believed that there was a savior who had been appointed or sent by—or a prophet—appointed or sent by a God who bore me in mind, and loved me, and wanted the best for me, if I believed that and that I possessed the means of grace and the hope of glory, to phrase it like that, I think, I don't know, I think I might be happy. They say it's the way to happiness. Why doesn't it make them happy? Don't you think it's a perfectly decent question? Why doesn't it? Because they won't be happy until you believe it too. And why is that? Because that's what their holy books tell them. Now, I'm sorry, it's enough with saying in the name of religion. Do these texts say that until every knee bows in the name of Jesus and so on, there will be no happiness? Of course it is what they say. It isn't just a private belief. It is rather, and I think always has been, and it's why I'm here, actually a threat to the idea of a peaceable community, and very often, as now, and frequently, a very palpable one. So I think that's the underlying energy that powers the friendly disagreement between Tony and myself.