Let me start like most of the politicians have today: there is no excuse for the violence that has been perpetrated on the streets around this country and the wanton destruction and theft that have been committed by the rioters and looters. They should be pursued by the law, arrested and prosecuted. OK?

But what next? Are we to believe that the riots were a one off? That these were the spontaneous acts of hundreds of individuals who just fancied smashing up their own neighbourhoods? That they are just ‘thugs’ and ‘evil’, as they have been described? That they just need a good long stretch inside to sort them out?

I don’t buy it. On any number of levels.

For a start, this isn’t the way humans behave. If people did this without reason and provocation then we simply wouldn’t have a society. There are a number of theories as to why (such as those posited in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins), but whichever theory you subscribe to our recorded history shows a propensity for people to act within social norms.

“But these are different people. Not like us. They are ‘evil’ people,” the tabloids say. Bollocks. I’m afraid I don’t believe in evil people. Mad people? Yes. But these people weren’t mad. They were angry, desperate, and disconnected from the society whose rules they so clearly violated.

So yes, we should respond to their crimes in the way that our society has agreed. Protect our streets, arrest and prosecute. But we need to do a lot more than that if this is not to be a common occurrence.

For a start we need to talk to these kids – and the adults backing them up for that matter – and find out what brought them to this point. We need to make sure that when they leave prison they are not in the same situation they were when they went in. Then we need to make sure that the generations behind them do not ever reach that situation.

Whatever the reasons I doubt the solutions will be simple, or quick. But I know for sure that no simple, quick solution – like just locking them up – can possibly solve the problem.

I’m one of those annoying people who objects to Thought for the Day, the slot on Radio 4′s Today programme where one religious leader or another gets to relate the big news of the day back to the teachings of his or her preferred religion. Most people find it pretty innocuous, and I confess I quite enjoy hearing some of the little morality tales. If nothing else the speakers are usually fairly eloquent.

So why do I object? Because I don’t believe that any religion should be given access to such a powerful platform for preaching on a national scale. That faith should be given an exclusive opportunity to proselytise, when despite what the zealots might tell you, it already receives such privileged access to the media and government.

My objection usually just bubbles under. At most I might occasionally change channels for a few minutes. But last week one of the ‘thinkers’ really raised my ire, and in doing so, illustrated for me, more clearly than I ever have been able to, the fundamental split between faith and science.

The speaker was the Reverend Canon Dr Giles Fraser. His topic was ‘Original Sin’. You can read the full transcript of what he said here: http://www.stpauls.co.uk/News-Press/Latest-News/The-Revd-Canon-Giles-Fraser-BBC-Radio-4-Thought-for-the-Day-26-July-2011.

Like the good doctor I am no economist and I’m certainly no theological scholar. Unlike the good doctor, having confessed my lack of expertise I won’t now go on to pronounce that one approach or another to the debt crisis is inherently flawed. At least that’s what I assumed he meant by comparing Keynesian economics to Original Sin.

It’s not the criticism of Keynes that angered me though. This is a minor issue compared to what the piece really shows. Because you can strip out finance as the target of this article and replace it with anything you like: science, art, any form of human endeavour. It seems to me that the doctor is making a general point not limited to man’s chasing of money.

He appears to be saying that ‘Original Sin’ is an exhortation for human beings to know their place, to recognise their limits and never try to exceed them.

This I cannot understand. Surely the strive to exceed our limits is what makes humanity great? The desire to do more, know more, create more. Sure we might trip ourselves up when we overreach occasionally, but on a global, historical scale it is this drive to exceed our limits that has brought us to where we are today. For all our problems it would take a deep cynic to refute the fact that we have progressed an incredible amount over the last few thousand years.

If what Dr Fraser says is an accurate portrayal of the Bible’s teachings then it is no wonder that the Christian religion – and others – have often been on the side opposing progress. From Galileo to stem cells, the church has opposed scientific progress. More than that, if what it takes to have faith is an acceptance that humans should never strive for ‘godlike’ limits then for me that implies a fundamental conflict between faith and science.

When you look at what science has given us – the power to cure disease, communicate across the globe, move at supersonic speeds and visit the heavens, then you have to say that any person of faith in previous centuries would describe these things as godlike powers. Things that were beyond the limits of mere humans.

According to Dr Fraser, faith means accepting these limits – limits that science has proven utterly false. That is why I will always be a man of science and never a man of faith.