To be an academic philosopher (like me) and to rely on faith rather than reason for accepting the existence of God would require a peculiar kind of schizoid outlook. While there are relatively non-faith-based arguments for the existence of God that might warrant some degree of acceptance of theism or deism, none of them incontrovertibly establishes that God exists or warrants belief in the god of any particular religion. So to be an adherent of a particular religion with its rituals, sacred texts, etc. still requires a huge leap of faith. I am a self-styled agnostic, although some would contend that agnosticism entails atheism or that agnosticism is a cop out that relies on a double standard, both positions that I disagree with. One of the reasons for my agnosticism is that it is not clear, from the various texts and pronouncements (which are vague, ambiguous, inconsistent, underdescribed,...) by religious adherents, what it is exactly that I'm supposed to believe in. So I'm stuck at the first step; I haven't yet gotten to the point of believing or not believing in something intelligible.

To be an academic philosopher (like me) and to rely on faith rather than reason for accepting the existence of God would require a peculiar kind of schizoid outlook. While there are relatively non-faith-based arguments for the existence of God that might warrant some degree of acceptance of theism or deism, none of them incontrovertibly establishes that God exists or warrants belief in the god of any particular religion. So to be an adherent of a particular religion with its rituals, sacred texts, etc. still requires a huge leap of faith. I am a self-styled agnostic, although some would contend that agnosticism entails atheism or that agnosticism is a cop out that relies on a double standard, both positions that I disagree with. One of the reasons for my agnosticism is that it is not clear, from the various texts and pronouncements (which are vague, ambiguous, inconsistent, underdescribed,...) by religious adherents, what it is exactly that I'm supposed to believe in. So I'm stuck at the first step; I haven't yet gotten to the point of believing or not believing in something intelligible.

Thanks for this. I've never really agreed with Dawkins and others on the issue of agnosticism. It seems to make sense to me to remain neutral, although I have also always found it interesting that we have no problem disbelieving in the Easter Bunny, while it seems more difficult for people to disbelieve in a god. From my perspective, they are both entirely the same thing--interesting creations of human imagination.

John Traphagan RE: "they are both entirely the same thing--interesting creations of human imagination. "

One difference is that one alleged entity (and its associated phenomena) is supposedly "global" whereas the other is merely local, so different criteria for attribution of existence may be involved (don't ask me to spell that out; it's still a thought-in-progress). However, if you plump for creatio ex materia instead of creatio ex nihilo (as Mormons and many non-Abrahamic religions do), there is conceptual room for a god who is a nonsupernatural supreme being, e.g. some sort of super alien (or even a plurality of such). While conjectured aliens are indeed products of human imagination, there are the usual arguments from scientists about how unlikely it is that we are alone in the universe or that we are the most advanced beings in the universe. Also, "supreme being" doesn't have to entail possession of all the "omni" properties traditionally ascribed to God by Abrahamic religions. (And yes, I was probably corrupted by science fiction in my youth; may the Force be with you. 😎👽)

Science is fact-dependent.

Like political liberatarianism, is fundamentally material. That is, it operates in the world of independently verifiable occurrences.

Facts come from the information available through the senses or as logical necessities (i.e. the far side of the moon must exist even though we can't see it).

Religion is not fact-dependent. It is truth-dependent. And our truths are subjective (a man's life is valuable, my kids are worth loving)

For the scientist it matters not whether dog bites man or man bites dog. He is observing and explaining the universe without passing moral judgement upon it.

For the religious, moral meaning is what counts most and meaning needs to be applied to facts because:

-Facts are only as important as the truths they support.

We use both facts and truths to navigate the world.