Thanks for clearing that up, Naemanson.

I think the claims of religions are more like historical claims than scientific claims. I was recently in a jury, and had to listen to various witnesses give their testimony as to what happened. After all the testimony, the jurors went back to the jury room and we had to decide what we thought happened, based on what the witnesses had said. Not all of the things that were said could all be true. Some of them were true and some of them were not; or maybe all of them were lies. But some of the testimony clearly contradicted other parts of the testimony. So we had to decide, in such cases, which of the witnesses we believed (if any).

It seems to me that religion is something like that. You can't prove it, the way you can prove a theorem in mathematics, or a proposition in one of the sciences. But in places where they contradict, you have to decide which of them you think is more likely correct. And of course there are some who think it's possible for contradictory claims to be true simultaneously (although I can't wrap my mind around such a possibility at all, and sure enough, when you ask them to pass the salt, they almost always pass the salt and not something else).

In the jury, we all had to agree, and render a unanimous verdict. In the courtroom of life, no such requirement is given. Thus, some people believe one religion, some believe another, and still others, no religion at all, based on how they weigh the evidence (or lack thereof) the various religious systems give.

And the evidence is such, I am convinced, that honest people can look at it, and come to different conclusions.

Which of course is exactly the situation we find in the world, thus increasing my faith in such a claim.

That's where I'm at about the whole "religion" question, and religious debates in general.

Alex