Pedantic? Awesome. I've joined the ranks of Pete1950 and AndyB Is there a forum award for that :biggrin:
Dream on.......and there's no capitals in andyb ! Get back down here with us minions,' where you belong.
My point is not that science is wrong and religion is right, nor that scientific facts are unprovable. It's that the process of engendering belief in lay-people is the same for both. Not everyone has the ability to repeat experiments to find the truth and instead simply trust in the words of authority. In the case of science - scientists and in the case of religion - preachers and holy books. You asked me if I needed to be told that gravity made apples fall from trees? Well yes, I did. I knew apples fall from trees but until I had received enough of an education to understand the concept of a universal force such as gravity why wouldn't I believe any kind of 'why' about apples falling from trees? Without the education I received due to being born at a time and in such a place as I was, a religious answer would be equally as 'believable'. It is this that hopefully conveys my point a little better. The shape of the process of creating understanding of the world and thus 'belief' in that understanding is the same for both science and religion. How is the concept of radio waves reflecting off of the ionosphere any more provable to the lay-person than the idea that radios are messages to god who delivers them to holy radio sets? Yes, you can prove how radio waves works with carefully chosen experiments but if you don't ask the questions then you just accept what you are told. Also, by setting an experiment you are choosing the boundaries and rules of what you are trying to prove. You know what the results will be before you start so you ask the right initial questions to prove that what you are saying is true. I should point out here that proving something is not the same as finding something out. Once a scientific discovery has been made, it becomes a known quantity and thus the questions you can ask to prove it become set. In a similar way, I could choose a separate set of boundaries and rules to prove something nonsensical. I know what the outcome is going to be, so I can make up what ever I like as long as the expected result of my nonsense matches the reality. It is this commonality between believers in religion and those who prefer a scientific approach to understanding the world around them that leads me to respect people of any religion, almost regardless of the specific details of the religion itself. No, I don't want to follow a religion, however I respect that someone else may take a different path. Who am I to tell them that the way they look at the world is the wrong way? I also recognise that this is a particularly British way of dealing with conflict and difference, and part of the reason that our country is so benign when compared to states such as Switzerland and others more keen to defend their national identities.
I treat people of religious views with respect as I'm a decent chap and all that. I don't respect their views however and I'm happy to discuss it with them the way religious whackjobs see converting everyone as a "good thing".
I can't really let you post this without some form of a clarification. Switzerland is a very tolerant place compared to most places but it is keen to defend its national identity for several reasons. To begin with, it's a country that has to work quite hard in having and building a national identity. This is because it has three major language areas and two major religions (Protestantism and Catholicism). All are areas for potential conflict, so maintaining a cultural glue that sticks them together is important. Secondly, it is a country which is steeped in traditions in a way that the UK no longer is. With the federal cantonal set up, all sorts of cultural traditions change quickly within the space of a few miles. This extends to what people eat and drink, their accents, their flags and pastimes, the way they build their houses. Identities are very local and people set great store on this, as it provides them with a true sense of roots and belonging. They resist anything that undermines this. Thirdly, you have to remember than 25% of those living in Switzerland are foreigners, which is enormous. This also puts pressure on a sense of identity and what the Swiss are increasingly saying is that there has to be an upper limit to that proportion if cultural identity is not to be over diluted. The Swiss are used to foreigners and remarkably tolerant of them. I should know. I have never once been conscious of any discrimination against me from being a foreigner. You should know that foreign inmates of Swiss prisons is about the 80% mark, so foreigners do bring their own criminal troubles in a way that the native Swiss do not. The vote for the Swiss to regain control of immigration to their country was about as close to 50-50 as you can get, but it did pass, just. It is easy for people to think of Switzerland as some outmoded, slightly xenophobic state but my experience this just isn't the case, although if you travel to the more remote valleys it may well be. But you might well find the same mindset in the Western Isles.
Glidd, please don't mistake my identification of Switzerland as an insult or in any way intended in a negative manner. I meant only to contrast the difference between the two states. Whereas Switzerland voted to ban minarets, this is something that would never happen in the UK. I don't intend to say whether either viewpoint is right or wrong, only that they are different and one is particularly British.
In the UK we have a load of very detailed planning laws and building regulations. Many types of building construction which would be acceptable in other parts of the world are not permitted in the UK. We do not have a ban on minarets as such, but in most locations a proposed building with a minaret would not be permitted, and certainly not in conservation areas. Maybe UK and Switz are not so different after all.
