Read it.
But seriously, humans are like a bunch of goldfish in a bowl trying to figure out what lies beyond that glass barrier. There is so much that we will never know but on the evidence of a few theories, i.e unproven hypotheses, people are willing to discount all other possibilities completely; people are treating science as a god. To be honest, I don't completely believe everything I'm saying, but I can see the rationale behind it. Believing in the big-bang requires a bit of faith in itself. Most people just receive a high-school science lesson on it and take it for fact, or assume that because 'smart scientist guys' say it's true, it is.
But yes, I just think there is too much to consider to either say yes or no completely.
Theories aren't evidence, first off. They're generally educated models that seem to fit certain descriptors. I don't believe people treat science as a God, if they did, there wouldn't be so many scientifically illiterate people in the wider community? Just saying.
I suppose, 'believing', as you call it, in the Big Bang theory
does indeed require faith. Although it's a popularly regarded model, it isn't accepted as definitive fact, or at least
yet. Physicists and other scientists are looking out into space, in an attempt to find out what really happened, preceding our existence on Earth and much much further beyond that.
This is where the divide between science and theology proceeds. Science embraces social flexibility, it 'gets with the times' and supports free inquiry, which I think is of paramount importance. While we have the atomic theory etc, and yes, it's a theory, in the pragmatic sense our predictions are becoming increasingly accurate and has led to the development of many new technologies. In other words, it works insofar as its purpose is concerned.
Theology however, is doctrine dictated by an archaic institution and stifles free thought. I don't see how international donations to the Vatican is going to aid the progress of humans in our contemporary society, nor do I see the relevance of gilded ceilings to the betterment of Roman Catholics worldwide.
At any rate, even if one were to regard the basic tenets of Judaeo-Christianity as being love, compassion etc, I'd argue that is already common to the rest of the community. I suppose there's nothing wrong with believing in a personal God..
.. It's about faith. That's what it is to
believe: It's irrational, it's ineffable, it's personal. But you're not imposing a fickle, totalitarian deity on anyone else, in an attempt to convert them.
Strictly speaking, agnosticism is probably the most 'correct' stance, but, given that many people who live under the banner of agnosticism proceed with their lives without constant influence of 'God' in their conduct, they're practically atheists, no?
As for God per se, it appears to be a matter of semantics.
