The problem here is what we mean by "religious."
What I mean by it (and it is in accord with Webster's) is belief in God as the creator of the universe. The term certainly has other meanings, such as being very pious, or belonging to a particular religion. When scientists, as exemplars of logic and reason, talk about "science and religion," I think it is pretty clear that their reference point is simply whether a scientist can believe in God. I don't think they are talking about whether a scientist can be a Christian, or a Catholic, of a Protestant (they may talk about that, too, but not as the central point). The defining point between religious versus atheist, is belief in a creator, or not.
I believe that a person can be religious without being a member of any established religion, or of any church. In this sense, belief and faith are virtually synonymous; if I believe, I have faith.
The various organized religions offer different versions of theology, and do lay a claim on the importance of faith in their particular belief system. To believe in Christianity, one must accept the accounts of Jesus and the Resurrection. Given that these accounts are incredible, they can only be believed on faith. Is such faith illogical and irrational? In my view ... no. A religion which provided documented proof of its claims would make no sense to me. What would be the point? Everyone would believe in it, and that would be that. A religion would only make sense to me if its tenets were wrapped in mystery and enigma, just as the universe is so cloaked. Thus, reason and logic can lead me to believe the incredible, even though I do not understand precisely why I have been given free will to believe or to reject. That I am being tested in some way could be a plausible reason. (Much of this you have already stated).
In any event, the more important question to me is whether there is a God or not.
I wish you a Happy Easter! (In the bunny and egg sense, and not to offend) |
