Will advances in Science ever deem religion obsolete? Religion/ri
lij
n/ Noun: 1. Belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp.

in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. Expression of this in worship. [5] Ever since time began, religion has been the final refuge of humans. When presented with a problem seemingly impossible to overcome, humans will look to their faith for guidance. It is faith in Heaven that allows people to mourn knowing that their loved one is in a better place, religion has a way of bringing people together regardless of background, gender or colour through common objectives and this unity is an aspect of religion that makes it still as popular now as it was thousands of years ago Religion hasn t changed as a concept since its origins. The Aztecs [3] may have worshipped the sun instead of the more orthodox human resembling entity we read about nowadays, but its core values remain untouched, so why is it that Americans are becoming less religious more atheist?[1] Many would argue that it is because of advances in science and the knowledge we now have of our universe that many are shunning the church s ideologies such as when a human is deemed a life. But could religion ever been deemed completely obsolete given the fact that It provides comfort to millions of people all over the world and plays a vital role in people s lives. One issue resolved when you are religious is the fact that without a creator life lacks significance. Humans have a natural inclination to yearn for a purpose and religion gives us that. Without religion we re born we go to school we work till we are old and we die. But if you add religion to the equation life becomes far more significant we live on the earth to strive for perfection until we are old we die and are at last at one with God in heaven. Aristotle was a firm believer of the notion that as humans it is natural that our function or good is to strive for perfection as we are made in the image of god and thus we should strive to be like him perfect.[2]

I am hoping to discover the reason why people are so eager to cling to religious views despite evidence to the contrary. I am also looking to decipher what factors come together to form a religion as it is quite clearly not just a text it is a lifestyle also. The reason for this is that I hope to a study English language and/or philosophy course in the not so distant future. Research review

Scientist s discovery of fossils would undermine the bible s take on the origins of the universe however, with creationists believing that the world was created in 7 days and taking every word of the bible literally; fossils debunk that and clearly show that the universe is far older than that. The Christian response to this argument is that fossils in fact were put on earth by the devil to trick humankind. [4] Is this a clear signal that no matter what scientists throw at believers they will conclude that it is part of god s plan? It would suggest that despite hard evidence to the contrary believers will believe a sign that as humans we are willing to risk seeming a fool if it means we aren t in control of our own destiny. The idea of being entirely in control and not a mere puppet on a string is frightening and thus the believers will disregard anything put forward to compromise the validity of the bible. The big bang theory is another idea put forward by scientists; again this disproves the bibles teachings and if it were to be found out to be true many religious people would be left distraught and embarrassed. Christians and others alike save face by answering a question with another question. If the big bang did indeed bring about the existence of the universe, who or what caused the big bang. This counter argument is of course futile as it leaves the reader in a position of infinite regress. If god created the big bang who created god and so forth. This reinforces the idea the no matter what evidence or theory is put forward, it shan t be enough to quench agnostic s atheist s and believer s thirst for the truth. It is likely that many more theories will be put forward and they too, will be met with harsh criticism of course, as a believer will never take too kindly to having their pride, joy, and protective bubble taken from them. Which brings me back to my initial question. Will advances in science ever deem religion obsolete? In trying to tackle this question one must first decipher what purpose a religion serves, is it purely a belief that someone holds or is it in fact more than that. If the belief the person holds turns out to be false would they still persist in delusion for their own wellbeing? If a religious person were religious purely because it was something they thought to be true would they be so eager to defend it until death? Surely there must be more to religion than a set of beliefs? What is religion? Religion may have been defined at the beginning of my project however; it still leaves a lot to be desired. For example if I were to say that I am religious because I support-for arguments sake-Arsenal FC. You would laugh, as would most, but why? I share a set of beliefs about the football club with the other 27 million people worldwide [6] that also support Arsenal. Swap the word fans for believers and suddenly the two concepts are ever so similar, we meet up on Saturdays to watch the football games together in a stadium. Christians meet up together on Sundays in a church. I have faith in Arsenal. Christians have faith in God.Is Arsenal therefore a religion, most would say no of course not and

suggest the claim is audacious but why, what is it that makes the two concepts entirely different? What is it that makes God exempt from the stigma attached to having an imaginary friend? I hope to find out. Religion is a hard term to understand as it isn t bound by certain social norms and has been granted privileges according. For example, you are not allowed to criticise someone s religion in the same way you can criticise someone s music taste. Criticise somebody s music taste and it is your opinion, but criticise someone s religion and it is hate speech in some cases.[7] Religion is special. Religion has an elevated sense of intrinsic value as of late, but more importantly Religion has fuelled one of the most heated debates known to man. The war between science and religion is one that has been waged ever since the very concept of religion was created and yet, it is a war very much alive and kicking today. A quick Google search of the term Science vs Religion reinforces this, as the search returns almost 156,000,000 results [8]. Reflecting upon these results it is evident that the spectrum of different kinds of data related to the subject is a vast one. Forums, blogs, websites and videos are ever-present, dedicated to serving the same purpose. Now it may seem as though the way in which the website conveys its view is irrelevant however, it is important, as it shows that the war between science and religion is an open one. It is not a battle fought between intellectuals or imbeciles but one fought by everyone with the capacity to reason, to be inquisitive. Reason is at the forefront of the debate for many reasons; firstly it is-according to Aristotelian ethics-what sets us apart from everything else. It is our function. We cannot fulfil our purpose that is in his view- to be happy or to be in a state of eudemonia without relying on it fully or at least to an extent.[9] I have realised after reading some secular or otherwise anti-religious texts that from time to time the line between distaste for religion and hatred is a blurred one. This is the case with scientists more often than not. Presumably because in a sense religion underminesin their view- everything they stand for. Facts shouldn t be considered facts without empirical evidence for example. [11] Richard Dawkins-an evolutionary biologist and rather infamous staunch atheist- has written a book entitled The God Delusion . This book caused controversy amongst the religious for both its content and its usage of the word delusion.[10] Delusion as defined by Dawkins is a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence . If Dawkins were to be correct in his accusation that the belief in god is a delusion it would almost certainly shed light on whether or not science will indeed ever lead religion to be obsolete. More importantly it would suggest that the answer is no. He states by definition that the belief is held despite strong contradictory evidence science would provide that evidence but it would fall on deaf ears.

Dawkins bases the majority of his book around the idea that the teleological argument or design argument is invalid as evolution by natural selection explains this supposed designed world. The design argument is the idea that the world must have a creator as it is designed perfectly to sustain life and above and beyond that the sheer magnitude suggests a creator. [12] He is an advocate of Evolution and asserts that the theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity [13] Dawkins is openly disagreeing with any other explanation put forward by the religious or otherwise. In doing this he is risking appearing a fool should evidence come to light to suggest otherwise. This leads me to believe that he too, in a weird sense knows that he can never be proved wrong and thus isn t -in reality-risking anything. The religious seem to understand this too, as they are also very entrenched in their perhaps ignorant views. Before trying to answer the initial question I decided it was vital to decide amongst oneself whether the answer is actually of any importance or is futile in nature. What I mean by that is, even if science did miraculously-and I use the term loosely-disprove religion. Would anybody be more inclined to believe the truth? It is evident in everyday life that we as humans are more credulous when it is something we desire. In laymen s terms, humans demand strong evidence in situations where the outcome of such evidence would be negative or contradictory to the person and demand far less evidence when they already want to hold the belief. If science was factually correct about the origins of the universe and such and it was widely accepted by scholars and academics, would the believers still persist in their delusion ? Retrospectively speaking I don t feel as though it is important whether or not the believers do hypothetically persist in delusion. Holding a false belief might provide them comfort and that s what religion is meant to do and besides, it doesn t hurt anyone. Or does it? Given the two thousand nine hundred and seventy seven killed in the 9/11 attacks [14]. The fifty-six killed in the 7/7 bombings [15] and the countless killed in crusades God commanded his followers go on in the Old Testament. Whilst it may seem as though I am trying to employ shock tactics to promote my own agenda this isn t the case. I have chosen these examples to demonstrate just how much certain individuals believe what they read to be true. It also demonstrates the possibility of wrongly interpreting a scripture. Religion isn t a flimsy belief it is one so deeply held to be factual that the lengths people will go to in order to preserve their religion include death. Of course this is an isolated few however, it still tells doubters that it isn t a belief or mind virus as Dawkins refers to it.[16] that is going to be shaken off easily, if at all. It has been said, 'the truth will make men free.' The truth alone has never made anyone free. It is only doubt which will bring mental emancipation [17] Anton LaVey author of the satanic bible suggests that the truth will not set us free and only doubt will do so. When applied to my question it would imply that even if the truth were to come out. The grips of religion would still be felt. The problem is that science will always be able to

answer questions about the way the world works but in order for religion to die out entirely, I fear we would need to know everything. Religion thrives on fear of the unknown. Thomas Aquinas a catholic philosopher suggests that one of our primary precepts is to shun ignorance[18].A primary precept is a primary rule we must follow in order to achieve our greatest good which in his view was to achieve happiness or eudemonia[19]. If he were to be correct in that as humans we are naturally inclined to shun ignorance and thus welcome knowledge, it is no surprise religion is so popular and wide-spread today.[20] Religion provides us with answers to some of the most complex questions ever conceived, Science attempts to do so in a similar fashion however it is a far more lengthy process. The scientific method of correcting false knowledge or acquiring new knowledge can be broken down into four main stages observation, hypothesis, prediction and experiment. [21] The hypothesis or theoretical explanation is deduced from what has been observed in stage one. The prediction is then based on what has been observed and when all else is done, they experiment*.The process is a long and seemingly tedious one. Religion at the other end of the spectrum is far more simple than that. Religion simply accepts that what has been scrawled into an ancient book as fact not fiction, it does not experiment. Scientists look for other possible explanations when in doubt of how credible something is. The religious pray for forgiveness for doubting their faith. They are entirely different. It could be argued therefore that in reality religion is impossible to debunk. If religion isn t bound by the rules scrutiny and doesn t need to rely on facts it is to be a formidable opponent for science, science isn t allowed to write a book about the big bang and it be regarded as fact. Science is scrutinised every day, science cannot simply assume that something is factual because the belief is widespread. It was widely believed that the earth was flat but that doesn t mean it was true. The more I read about the on-going feud between these two schools of thought, the more I begin to question my own views. Religion on one hand is a very comforting yet seemingly contrived idea. Science seems to be just as ignorant in some respects to that of its counterpart and above all else, bleak. But one thing is for certain; in trying to win this argument one must first accept that there is always going to be an element of faith whether it is faith in yourself or faith in your tools, which is ironic somewhat. Discussion Wherever religion goes, whatever religion touches, it incites discussion, Religion has that effect on people; it s not something you can just talk about without somebody putting in their two cents. It s almost impossible to mention the R-word these days without it ending in tears, that or a protest. I aim to address many talking points within religion and its positives and negatives using a series of questions. Is religion a necessity?

Many would argue that religion is necessary to maintain order in the sense that it provides a moral framework or compass, one that isn t found anywhere else and because of this, the religious tend to arrive at the conclusion that atheists are immoral or more likely to be bad people as there is no judgement day or fear or hell for them [22*]. There is some evidence to suggest that this is true and that atheists are more likely to engage in bad or sinful acts [23] however, this idea begs the question, what is a sinful act? It is likely that abortion and homosexuality are included in these statistics as they are defined as sinful within the bible and therefore if you aren t religious the statistics will prove to be inconclusive. This theory also relies on the idea that we have an innate sense of what s right and wrong due to the fact we are born with a conscience, which is debateable. If you were to leave a baby on its own without exterior input it is highly unlikely they will know how to behave, which leads me to my counter argument. If morality is learned by copying others in the same way language is, why is it that an atheist is less likely to behave correctly than perhaps a Christian or a Muslim. Of course like most things religiously orientated there is another argument against this. The religious might retort well, the reason a religious person is more likely to behave correctly is because they know that if they do wrong in life they will burn in hell for eternity whereas an atheist will not experience such. This argument is a common one, the idea that if you aren t religious you can behave wrongly and nothing will happen but I believe that not to be true, firstly there is tangible justice because there are jails and there are negative consequences associated with performing negative acts in generalities. I also feel as though its cheap morality, what I mean by this is that when an atheist behaves in a positive way it does so because it wants to or feels that it is their duty to do so. On the other hand a Christian may want to murder someone but then think twice because they don t like the prospect of burning in hell, does that make them a good person? Of course it doesn t it just means they are refraining from doing bad things in order to avoid hell. It s similar to holding a gun to someone s head and telling them they must kiss you, if they do kiss you they did it in order to avoid death not because they felt it was the right thing to do. Is Religion a hindrance? Science flies us to the moon, while religion flies planes into buildings. Richard Dawkins. I discussed Richard Dawkins prior but he raises a good point in a perhaps borderline islamaphobic manner. Here he is clearly referring to the 9/11 Hijackings carried out by extremist Muslims however I think he is using it to convey a far more profound idea in that religion is hindering human development. I say this because flying to the moon is -to quote Neil Armstrong- a small step for man a giant leap for mankind whereas destroying buildings is clearly detrimental to development whether human or otherwise. It is necessary to discuss this possibility as it is one of the main reasons people would rather a world without religion. If religion were to be stopping us from progressing as a race surely it needs to be abolished. I don t think this can be proved, 9/11 is an isolated incident and in general Religion is dictating people s lives in a different way, it tells them to do certain things and avoid others. Religion need not be made obsolete if it is not harming us as humans, arguably however it is doing so. I say this because we live in

a society whereby we are all equals regardless of wealth, race or sexual orientation or at least aim to do so. Religion directly opposes this view. Homosexuality is deemed perverse [24]. Women are oppressed and so forth [25]. So in a sense it is hindering us which is why people like Dawkins are so outspoken in opposing it.

Is it humanely possible to disprove religious ideas? This is a question that underpins my entire project. Can science physically disprove religion and thus deem it obsolete? In short no, it can t. Normally everything stated as fact can be disproven; it is part of being factual. It can be proven, it can be disproven. Normally being the key word. Religion isn t normal it isn t forced to abide by the conventions of being factual. It is fact because it says so within a book that was written thousands of years ago. So why is religion exempt from rules that deter the legitimacy of a claim? The answer is the F-word, Faith. Faith is a word thrown around a lot, used in forums and such and it essentially disproves everything by mere utterance. I have faith that it is true and so it is. Science is only allowed to declare something as fact with empirical evidence. Imagine if you walked into the doctors and said that you had been bleeding profusely from the ear and that you re concerned and the doctor replied with I have faith you are going to be okay . There would be murders, faith in that sense is invalid. Faith can be used to prove religious ideas but not scientific ones. Science clearly has a disadvantage here. It s become apparent that no matter how you try to explain Religion whether you re a linguist or a lout; you end up speaking in riddles. The enigmatic nature of religion works in its favour. Religion is so cryptic that even those who claim to know everything there is to know contradict themselves on a regular basis. Pope Leo X it has been argued has said the following All ages can testifie enough how profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie [26] did the Pope just call Christ a fable? It would seem so, admittedly this is an extremely touchy subject and it is widely disputed as to whether he actually said it and even if he did it has been supposedly taken out of context. Never the less, it does demonstrate the belief that religion is never black and white but more angry shades of grey. The bible is rife with inconsistencies, for example, God is said to be pleased with his creation 27 all the while displeased 28 Adam is supposed to have died the day he ate the forbidden fruit 33 and yet all the while live 930 years 34. On the first day god created light then separated light and darkness 29 and yet the sun-which is obviously needed in order to separate night and day- wasn t created till the fourth day. 30 Noah enters his ark with his family 31 and then enters once more at a later time. 32 Whilst not all of these can be considered contradictions they are most certainly inconsistencies. In general inconsistencies aren t important or at least not to the degree they are in this case, but that s because this is different. The Bible dictates lives; this isn t a book that can be taken

lightly and it doesn t take a genius to work out that if there is any book on the face of the earth that cannot afford mistakes, cannot afford misinterpretation, to be misconstrued. This is it. Which is why I show no sympathy for those who complain that The Bible and other religious texts are unfairly scrutinised and checked vigorously. No other book receives such treatment this much is true, but that s because no other book has the audacity or perhaps bravery to attempt answering the seemingly impossible. The evidence of said inconsistencies however has made it fairly easy to pick holes in the religion and question the scripture s reliability which leads me to my next point of focus. Can the Bible be deemed reliable given its inconsistencies? Yes, it has been-and will continue to be-granted a status of authority. It continues to convince Christians abortion is murder 33. Whether it is or isn t murder is a matter of opinion and I won t go off on a tangent about medical ethics but the point is that people are allowing the church to make decisions for them. As a catholic you believe contraception is wrong by default 34 if you wish to be regarded as a Catholic you will not try to refute this but will embrace it. Therefore you must trust what they are saying is the truth or else you wouldn t abide by their ethics. So why have the Catholics and others been given this elevated status?, their knowledge isn t seen as subjective but objective. It seems foolish to grant anyone a status such as that, knowledge is forever changing and with that so must archaic views. The dangers of claiming to know something for certain can be extremely dangerous and sometimes fatal. As late as the 18th Century the practice of swimming the witch was still in place. Swimming the witch is a trial conducted when a person is believed to be a witch. The suspected witch's wrists would be tied to their ankles and then they would be thrown into a river, if they floated, their status as a witch was indefinite and they would be burned. If they sank they d be deemed human but dead all the same due to drowning. 35 Now witchcraft and Christianity are entirely different that s a no-brainer but witchcraft does illustrate just how wrong humans can be about things they believed to be true and it can and has resulted in death in the not so distant past. It s difficult to try to gage whether or not religion has had a positive influence on the world for the simple reason that we have never been without it, as I touched upon earlier religion has been the final refuge of humans since time began and it s true. I have no doubt that many would say that a world without religion would be an immoral and unjust one, but what these skeptic hole-pickers forget is that the world isn t the nicest of places now, divisions are rife based upon nothing more than their choice of deity and a yet to be proven existent one at that. Of course it s just as ignorant to proclaim that there isn t a god, but there is a vital difference. The atheist s views aren t damaging to anyone but the atheist. The atheist will never become president, for he is godless. The atheist will never have hope for he is faithless, but he will exercise his ability to reason further than a religious person might. The idea that an atheist will be far less likely to become president isn t one I have spewed from the depths of my anti-religion hate machine either. Barack

Obama, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were all accused of being atheist during their campaigns for presidency, and it didn t go down well at all, especially seeing as their competitors made their religion known extremely early on in order to not send off such jibes. Almost all of the presidents of the united states of America can be characterized as Christian at least by association. As I approach the denounment of my piece I feel as though I am obliged to address a seemingly irrelevant statement that every atheist questions at some stage in their life, it is one that nibbles away at an aspiring atheist's piece of mind as though it were a piece of pie on a regular basis with usually bleak results that can lead to severe apathy. If God and religion are false I have no purpose and may aswell cease to exist. This bleak prospect is one that I think will ultimately prolong religion's lifespan in light of scientific discovery. The great thing about religion, Christianity in particular is that it has it all worked out, in no more than 1281 pages [35*] which seems like a lot when they only book you've read prior is 'The Ugly Duckling' but in reality it's nothing at all. You read the book and your whole life is tied into a neat little bow for you. Get Cancer, it's part of God's plan for you, miss your flight? God wants you to stay in glorious England. The atheist doesn't have the luxury of this enlightenment. He's not part of God's plan for he is a non-believer and he has no purpose as he doesn't want to be in the prescence of God in Heaven, in fact he dislikes God for making him an atheist in the first place, that was his first error. It is easy to see why an atheist may feel left out in the cold on planet Earth but he doesn't need be. Atheists may not have a purpose by default but after quite some pondering I decided that they could in fact assign themselves one. If you think watching ''WrestleMania'' is important then go and do it, in the bigger scheme of things nothing is of any importance you'll live your life and then die. It's down to you to figure out what is important to you and what isn't; what is good for you and what isn't. It's your free will you can use it however you please.On the other hand, with regard to Christians having a default purpose comes rigidity. A christian must abide by the bibles teachings all the while somehow keeping his free will intact until he is judged by God and hopefully granted entrance into Heaven. Earth is similar to limbo in this case. I never liked waiting rooms. It is extremely difficult to live knowing that you are going to perish after only a relatively small amount of time on Earth but that doesn't stop it from being any less true. The credulity of mankind seems to have forced society into submission in this instance. Rest assured that if you asked a group of atheists whether they'd prefer God to exist and thus be part of a bigger much more meaningful picture they'd say yes, but thats not an excuse to take a blind leap of faith and jump on the religion bandwagon out of sheer convienience. Instead of wallowing in pity and doom about lacking significance it seems far more reasonable, reason being the key word, to find comfort in the fact you have

complete and utter dominion over your destiny and will something Christians do not have. Which brings me onto my final question. Do the religious have legitamate free will? Free will is something we are all taught we possess, it doesn't cost anything we are gifted it. We can do as we please, without fear of reprocussions within reason. It isn't debatable whether the religious have free will, of course they do but I used the term legitamate because if you genuinely believe you are going to literally fry in hell for eternity should you do something detremental to God's ideology you're not going to do it. Therefore you don't actually have free will at all. What you have is a system whereby you can do what you want but if you do certain things you will burn in hell and nobody is going to want that to happen to them and thus they will submit. The last person to exercise free will in God's prescence was the Devil or Satan he used his free will to attempt to over throw god and as a result was banished from heaven and sent with his angels to hell [36].I am fully aware that for society to function retribution is necessary and should this have actually happened there would need to be sanctions but you can't give humankind free will and then tell them how to use it that'd be like giving someone money and saying here's some money but you have to use it to buy me presents!.God clearly wasn't a big fan of free will. Conclusion When I began this quest I was optimistic I may reach the end having gained the necessary credentials to form a judgement on religion and its 'unique' relationship with science but the trouble is even someone as entrenched in secular views as I will question their own beliefs if they do sufficient research. Everytime I thought I was getting closer to the answers I sought I suffered knock backs internally.I wanted to break down the components of religion and inspect them which I think I did manage to do but due to the fact that religion is built on unfactual grounds it seems extremely unlikely to me that Science will prevail victor. Its a bit like asking if DVDS will make VHS obselete. Dvds might be popular and might advance to Blu-ray and what not but you still find an audience for the retro VHS. Yes, that comparison was shallow,but I've discovered that it is important to reside within shallow waters where possible, adventuring too far into deep complex analogies will only drown you. Over the course of this project I have began to realise that the very arguement is a paradox in itself similar to that of''what came first the chicken or the egg'' and other nonsensical questions such as 'Who let the dogs out' I think real question here is who cares? if you do and you feel as though you need to dedicate your entire life to something that is wholly impossible to improve then go ahead. But it seems a tad suspicious, if you genuinely believe there is a God why do you go to church every Sunday for your dose of reassurance,it reeks of insecurity. You wouldn't catch scientists meeting up weekly and discussing how much gravity means to them that's because they don't feel the need. They know it exists it's a brute fact. It's a double edged sword however, because you will get scientists who clearly yearn for reassurance in the

same way you can tell by the way they argue with theists almost purely to convince themselves what they are saying rings true. Essentially, I have learnt a whole lot about nothing and the more I think the more confused I become, even now I thank God that it's all over. Alfie Rankin 2012

References 1.Ariela, K., & Barry, K. A. (2008). American Religious Identification Survey (internet). Available from: www. http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris Accessed 21/11/11. 2.Aristotle (fourth century BCE) The Nicomachean Ethics, translated with an introduction by W.D. Ross, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980. 3.Brundage, B.C. (c1979). The Fifth Sun: Aztec gods, Aztec world. Austin: University of Texas Press.

4.Numbers, R. L. (1992). The Creationists. New York: Random House 5.Thompson, D. (1996). The Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English. (3rd Ed.) Suffolk : Clays p.l.c. 6. Arsenal fan base an estimated 27 Million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_F.C._supporters#cite_note-Granada_Ventures-0 Accessed 04/12/11 7. Disagreement = Hate Speech. http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/disagreement-hatespeech/ Salazar, L Accessed 04/12/11 8. Google returns 156,000,000 results for the term Science vs Religion www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=vss&q=%E2%80%98%E2%80%99Science+vs+Reli gion%E2%80%99%E2%80%99+&btnG=Search 9. Eudemonia Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics H. Rackham, Ed. Chapter 7 10.Turkey Probes Atheist God Book: Accessed 04/12/11 http://web.archive.org/web/20071129222236/http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/eu rope/11/28/dawkins.turkey.ap/index.html 11. Science relies on Empirical evidence http://www.helium.com/items/769638-the-meaning-of-empirical-evidence Dudgeon, R Accessed 4/12/11 12 The design argument/teleological http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument 5/12/11 Accessed 5/12/11 13. Dawkins Quote:
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence Reveals a Universe Without Design 1987 14. 9/11 Death Toll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks Accessed 5/12/11 15 7/7 bombings death toll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7/7 Accessed 5/12/11 16. Dawkins mind virus quote Viruses of the mind 1993 Dawkins,R 17. Anton LaVey Quote:

It has been said, 'the truth will make men free.' The truth alone has never made anyone free. It is only doubt which will bring mental emancipation. The Satanic Bible. 18. Primary precept to shun ignorance Christian theology and medical ethics: four contemporary approaches
Tubbs, J. 19. Aquinas believed Humans greatest good was eudemonia http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/atkinson/Aristotle_and_Aquinas_Intrinsic_Morality_versus_Gods_Mora lity.shtml Atkinson,M

Accessed 5/12/11 20. Map of religion by area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1883_religions_map.jpg Accessed 5/12/11 21. Scientific method Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton 1999, pp. 794 6, from Book 3, The System of the World. 22. Atheists are immoral http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/06/15/charley-reese-atheists-are-untrustworthyimmoral.htm 23. Atheists are more likely to do bad things http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html 24 Homosexuality perverse Corinthians 6:9 (the bible) 25 Oppression of women

(Genesis 2:19-20)
29 God creates light

Genesis 1:3-5
26 Pope Leo quote The Pageant of the Popes p179-1801574 27 God is pleased GENESIS 6:5-6 28 God is displeased GENESIS 6:5-6 30 God creates sun GENESIS 1:14-19

31 Noah enters ark GE 7:7 32 Noah Re-enters once more GENESIS 7:13 33 adam dies

GENESIS 2:17 34 adam lives GENESIS 5:5 35 pages in the bible http://www.biblestudy101.org/Lists/statisticsHB.html 36 Devil banished bible references Isaiah 14:12 Revelation 20:10
Directly Consulted Sources Ariela, K., & Barry, K. A. (2008). American Religious Identification Survey (internet). Available from: www. http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris Accessed 21/11/11. Aristotle (fourth century BCE) The Nicomachean Ethics, translated with an introduction by W.D. Ross, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980. Bowie, R. (2004). Ethical Studies (2nd ed.) Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes ltd. Brundage, B.C. (c1979). The Fifth Sun: Aztec gods, Aztec world. Austin: University of Texas Press. Numbers, R. L. (1992). The Creationists. New York: Random House Thompson, D. (1996). The Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English. (3rd Ed.) Suffolk: Clays p.l.c.