filtherton

I don't think religion needs to stand up to the same rigorous standards as, say, biology. It is impossible to critically and objectively assess the issues of the afterlife or the meaning of existence. Such things are currently by their very definition unverifiable.

I also think that critical thought should be encouraged especially concerning matters of religion. I think that if critical thought were more favored by religious folk people like pat robertson wouldn't exist. I don't think that critical thought and religious belief are mutually exclusive. Some of the greatest critical thinkers and assessors known to humankind were religious.

When it comes to many things that are simply unknowable the scientific method is often woefully inadequate. That's where faith comes in and you can't really function much without it.

There are things that science can tell you. You can be essentially certain that the earth will continue to revolve on its axis and that barring some sort of galactic surprise it will do so for the rest of your lifetime. What reason and verifiability can't tell you is whether you'll get out of bed tomorrow, or next week. You have absolutely no means, other than faith, to expect to live through the next hour. Despite this uncertainty, most people continue to make plans and most people look forward to doing things and most people don't make commitments with the caveat of "i'll do it if i'm still alive".

I imagine that there are many religious folk for which faith in god is very similar to the faith an atheist might have in living until next tuesday. Despite a complete lack of supporting evidence it seems reasonable to them. The same way a person might start exercising in an attempt to experience a more enjoyable life as they get older a religious person might try to live a more pious life in an attempt to experience a more enjoyable afterlife after they die.