Mor(m)ons

[GreecePwns]

In fact, I believe that God set up the system, that it primarily works on its own, but that God does manipulate things, at times very subtly (evolution, just as an example), at times very directly ("miracles", but also perhaps other things, like "sparks of inspiration" or such).

Well how do we know when God is manipulating things and when the system is working on its own? Are "sparks of inspiration" merely thoughts like any other thoughts? Are "miracles" simple the world working on its own in ways that are inexplicable without the proper knowledge? Are any of these manipulations observable?

If we don't know, why should we take sides either for atheism or theism when no proof is presented?

[Woodruff]

imagine there was someone in ancient egypt who believed that the earth revolved around the sun (at a time when everyone else believed that the earth was the center of the universe) because the sun was more important than the earth. which of these two categories would he fall under?

That would depend on what he did after getting the idea. See the above flow charts for specifics.

he measures the irregular movement of the sun and realizes that it's likely that the earth is moving around the sun, instead of the other way around.

people tell him that the earth cannot be moving, because that would generate huge wind storms, but he ignores their evidence (because he cannot disprove it) and clings onto his new idea.

Again, it would still depend on what he did next. If he simply stopped his research and stuck with his ideas for no further reason, then he begins to fall within the "faith" bailiwick. If he continues to research things to determine why there are no huge wind storms (or whatever reactions one might reasonably believe would happen by the Earth moving), then he remains within the "science" bailiwick. As the flowchart clearly shows, once again.

You are utterly missing/dismssing the real point.

I don't believe I am, no.

You consider your beliefs to be "more valid" because they are based upon your experiences/perceptions.

What? That has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about. In fact, I have no idea at all why you inserted this diatribe into this discussion here, honestly.

The difference between religion and science is not lack of evidence or thought, it is the ability to show other people what you know/understand.

If you do not have the ability to show other people, then you do not have evidence.

Of course, anyone is free to make assertions and to attempt to prove them.. but to claim superiority because your beliefs..are, well, your own

I don't believe I claimed any such thing.

SECOND.. let's take logic. Logic is irrelevant of some base proof. That is, it does not ignore it, but goes beyond proof. A young child is perfectly logical to think that Santa Claus is real if he sees Santa, if presents appear on Christmas morning.. and particularly if the child further gets assurances from adults that it is so. (even if they couch things by saying stuff like "Santa is the spirit of Christmas"). An older child or adult thinking the same thing, but having all the additional knowledge is not logical to think of Santa as "real" .. at least in the sense of a person living at the north pole wearing red. (the idea of Santa as the "spirit of Christmas" or some such is a tad different).

That is an excellent example of "science", as "further information" eliminated the previous theory that Santa Claus was real. Thank you.

Now, I realize you wish to claim that believing in God is, while not quite as childlike as believing in Santa, still not quite intelligent/logical.

Where have I said that intelligent people don't believe in God? I would never have suggested such a thing, because I know better.

The problem is, you do this without proof.

No, the problem is that I didn't do it at all.

The best you can come up with is "if there were a God, then xyz ought to happen or ought to be seen... etc.".

I have said made no such limiting statement. You are presuming biases on me that do not exist.

Except, you inevitably come up with things that [most] believers don't actually assert.

You mean like how you are coming up with things that I don't actually assert?

You dismiss real and honest explanations as "excuses".... while making your own explanaitons that are truly no more logical than those made by people of faith.

I've done no such thing.

The difference between your thinking and mine has little to do with logic, it is purely experience.

I'm afraid I must disagree entirely. The difference between your thinking and mine has little to do with experience, and much to do with not making shit up.

IF people keep insisting that belief in God is illogical, is not scientific, etc...

It ISN'T scientific. That's not a belief...that's a FACT. That's why it's called FAITH. Good heavens, that is in fact HOW IT WAS DESIGNED INTENTIONALLY (even presuming that God does exist, it was intentional on his part).

then you immediately put a wedge between the vast majority of humanity and yourself.

I don't put that wedge there. Science does.

[Woodruff]

To put it another way, nothing at all in your chart in any way disproves or even indicates there is no God.

Of course it doesn't. Nowhere did I suggest that it did.

Perhaps you can look at that chart and tell me where it's inaccurate.

[john9blue]

he measures the irregular movement of the sun and realizes that it's likely that the earth is moving around the sun, instead of the other way around.

people tell him that the earth cannot be moving, because that would generate huge wind storms, but he ignores their evidence (because he cannot disprove it) and clings onto his new idea.

Again, it would still depend on what he did next. If he simply stopped his research and stuck with his ideas for no further reason, then he begins to fall within the "faith" bailiwick. If he continues to research things to determine why there are no huge wind storms (or whatever reactions one might reasonably believe would happen by the Earth moving), then he remains within the "science" bailiwick. As the flowchart clearly shows, once again.

so you can switch charts at will? seems to me like science and faith are both pieces of the same process, instead of being two separate processes. ya think?

Personal experience doesn't count as empirical evidence.

then what does?

[Woodruff]

he measures the irregular movement of the sun and realizes that it's likely that the earth is moving around the sun, instead of the other way around.

people tell him that the earth cannot be moving, because that would generate huge wind storms, but he ignores their evidence (because he cannot disprove it) and clings onto his new idea.

Again, it would still depend on what he did next. If he simply stopped his research and stuck with his ideas for no further reason, then he begins to fall within the "faith" bailiwick. If he continues to research things to determine why there are no huge wind storms (or whatever reactions one might reasonably believe would happen by the Earth moving), then he remains within the "science" bailiwick. As the flowchart clearly shows, once again.

so you can switch charts at will?

Please point out where I have suggested any such thing. This isn't a difficult concept, John, unless you're trying not to get it.

seems to me like science and faith are both pieces of the same process, instead of being two separate processes. ya think?

No, I don't. Not even remotely. The only intersecting point they have is "idea comes to me"...it diverges quickly from there.

Personal experience doesn't count as empirical evidence.

then what does?

The Empirical cycle according to A.D. de Groot
A.D. de Groot's empirical cycle:
Observation: The collecting and organisation of empirical facts; Forming hypothesis.
Induction: Formulating hypothesis.
Deduction: Deducting consequences of hypothesis as testable predictions.
Testing: Testing the hypothesis with new empirical material.
Evaluation: Evaluating the outcome of testing or else

[demonfork]

The problem with the idea of a supernatural creator is that one has to ask where did he come from , who created him/her/it in the first place . You end up backing up indefinitely so never get closer to an answer , much more rational to wait for science to provide.
Having said that I approve of the concept of Inteligent Design , I dont believe in it for one second but I do think its a pragmatic and sensible way for theists to safe face and be able to reconcile their faith with scientific advance.
The alternative is tens of millions of ignorant , brain washed Muslims , Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians fighting against human progress and the pursuit of knowledge.

Because you cant view the idea of a supernatural creator from the perspective that he "originated" in a finite or time based dimension.

God exists outside of time. From an eternal perspective time has no relevance. From an eternal perspective God had no beginning and was not created. In essence God has always existed.

On another note, when are you peeps gonna start talking about Mormons again?

[john9blue]

he measures the irregular movement of the sun and realizes that it's likely that the earth is moving around the sun, instead of the other way around.

people tell him that the earth cannot be moving, because that would generate huge wind storms, but he ignores their evidence (because he cannot disprove it) and clings onto his new idea.

Again, it would still depend on what he did next. If he simply stopped his research and stuck with his ideas for no further reason, then he begins to fall within the "faith" bailiwick. If he continues to research things to determine why there are no huge wind storms (or whatever reactions one might reasonably believe would happen by the Earth moving), then he remains within the "science" bailiwick. As the flowchart clearly shows, once again.

so you can switch charts at will?

Please point out where I have suggested any such thing. This isn't a difficult concept, John, unless you're trying not to get it.

ohhh i see. so you're saying that after he starts, he's stuck in a quantum superposition between charts until he reaches an arbitrary point in his decision-making cycle (let's call it the woodruff point). funny how both charts have a square that says "START". must be an acronym or something!

seems to me like science and faith are both pieces of the same process, instead of being two separate processes. ya think?

No, I don't. Not even remotely. The only intersecting point they have is "idea comes to me"...it diverges quickly from there.

and yet, somehow, they don't decide on a chart until the "woodruff point", long after they begin gathering evidence.

Personal experience doesn't count as empirical evidence.

then what does?

The Empirical cycle according to A.D. de Groot
A.D. de Groot's empirical cycle:
Observation: The collecting and organisation of empirical facts; Forming hypothesis.
Induction: Formulating hypothesis.
Deduction: Deducting consequences of hypothesis as testable predictions.
Testing: Testing the hypothesis with new empirical material.
Evaluation: Evaluating the outcome of testing or else

Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience.

"observation or EXPERIENCE"... hmm... i guess there must be some other kind of experience that isn't personal... an out-of-body experience? an acid trip? not sure what your latest crazy theory is, but i'd love to hear it (and please don't copy someone else's idiotic charts again to try and explain your theory, because then you won't be able to defend it)

[Woodruff]

On another note, when are you peeps gonna start talking about Mormons again?

I find this a much more interesting discussion than the ridiculousness that started this thread.

[Woodruff]

he measures the irregular movement of the sun and realizes that it's likely that the earth is moving around the sun, instead of the other way around.

people tell him that the earth cannot be moving, because that would generate huge wind storms, but he ignores their evidence (because he cannot disprove it) and clings onto his new idea.

Again, it would still depend on what he did next. If he simply stopped his research and stuck with his ideas for no further reason, then he begins to fall within the "faith" bailiwick. If he continues to research things to determine why there are no huge wind storms (or whatever reactions one might reasonably believe would happen by the Earth moving), then he remains within the "science" bailiwick. As the flowchart clearly shows, once again.

so you can switch charts at will?

Please point out where I have suggested any such thing. This isn't a difficult concept, John, unless you're trying not to get it.

ohhh i see. so you're saying that after he starts, he's stuck in a quantum superposition between charts until he reaches an arbitrary point in his decision-making cycle (let's call it the woodruff point). funny how both charts have a square that says "START". must be an acronym or something!

So you ARE trying "not to get it". Well, well done then!

Personal experience doesn't count as empirical evidence.

then what does?

The Empirical cycle according to A.D. de Groot
A.D. de Groot's empirical cycle:
Observation: The collecting and organisation of empirical facts; Forming hypothesis.
Induction: Formulating hypothesis.
Deduction: Deducting consequences of hypothesis as testable predictions.
Testing: Testing the hypothesis with new empirical material.
Evaluation: Evaluating the outcome of testing or else

Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience.

"observation or EXPERIENCE"... hmm... i guess there must be some other kind of experience that isn't personal... an out-of-body experience? an acid trip? not sure what your latest crazy theory is, but i'd love to hear it (and please don't copy someone else's idiotic charts again to try and explain your theory, because then you won't be able to defend it)

I wasn't disagreeing with you that experience is a part of the empirical cycle (it has to be, otherwise observation is impossible). I was simply pointing out what the Empirical cycle is, as there seemed to be confusion about it. The problem is that so many people want to only use the first two or three steps of the cycle, ignoring the last two very critical steps.

[PLAYER57832]

The difference between religion and science is not lack of evidence or thought, it is the ability to show other people what you know/understand.

If you do not have the ability to show other people, then you do not have evidence.

No. This is an illogical and unscientific thought..and pretty central.
1. First, the "evidence" is, on one level a change in my thinking. That I think something different than you means something did happen. Claiming it is just that I am not logical and you are logical is, well, just arrogance, not science. (this is a pretty fundamental philosophical debate, by-the way)
2. Second, there are many discoveries that are first found or grasped by one person or a small group who lack the ability to transmit/show it to other people. They keep working until they find the proof.
3.Lack of proof is not proof of anything. The fact that we now know so very much means it is even MORE important to keep that fact in mind, not to even begin dismissing things you have no proof of.

Of course, anyone is free to make assertions and to attempt to prove them.. but to claim superiority because your beliefs..are, well, your own

I don't believe I claimed any such thing.

Its very fundamental to what you are trying to say here.

SECOND.. let's take logic. Logic is irrelevant of some base proof. That is, it does not ignore it, but goes beyond proof. A young child is perfectly logical to think that Santa Claus is real if he sees Santa, if presents appear on Christmas morning.. and particularly if the child further gets assurances from adults that it is so. (even if they couch things by saying stuff like "Santa is the spirit of Christmas"). An older child or adult thinking the same thing, but having all the additional knowledge is not logical to think of Santa as "real" .. at least in the sense of a person living at the north pole wearing red. (the idea of Santa as the "spirit of Christmas" or some such is a tad different).

That is an excellent example of "science", as "further information" eliminated the previous theory that Santa Claus was real. Thank you.

Now, I realize you wish to claim that believing in God is, while not quite as childlike as believing in Santa, still not quite intelligent/logical.

Where have I said that intelligent people don't believe in God? I would never have suggested such a thing, because I know better.

When you say belief in God is illogical or unscientific, that IS very much what you are saying.

The problem is, you do this without proof.

No, the problem is that I didn't do it at all.

The best you can come up with is "if there were a God, then xyz ought to happen or ought to be seen... etc.".

I have said made no such limiting statement. You are presuming biases on me that do not exist.

True, forgot I was not talking to natty for a moment.

Except, you inevitably come up with things that [most] believers don't actually assert.

You mean like how you are coming up with things that I don't actually assert?

You dismiss real and honest explanations as "excuses".... while making your own explanaitons that are truly no more logical than those made by people of faith.

I've done no such thing.

The difference between your thinking and mine has little to do with logic, it is purely experience.

I'm afraid I must disagree entirely. The difference between your thinking and mine has little to do with experience, and much to do with not making shit up.

IF people keep insisting that belief in God is illogical, is not scientific, etc...

It ISN'T scientific. That's not a belief...that's a FACT. That's why it's called FAITH. Good heavens, that is in fact HOW IT WAS DESIGNED INTENTIONALLY (even presuming that God does exist, it was intentional on his part).

Nope, logic is not limited to scientific fact. It is a process.
and yes.. I believe that God intended faith to be a question.

then you immediately put a wedge between the vast majority of humanity and yourself.

I don't put that wedge there. Science does.

[/quote]
Nope. Science is utterly neutral on the God question. And ignoring that IS very much driving as much a wedge in our society, is just as destructive as the claims made by young earth creationists.

[PLAYER57832]

Also.. what john said.

The line you are trying to draw between faith thinking and science thinking just does not exist. The difference between science and faith is the kind of evidence accepted, not the thinking process.

[Symmetry]

Neutral to the God, or gods question, sure, but it's hardly neutral to wider religious questions.

I've argued this before in a variety of ways, but attempts to use science to prove a religious myth tend to set up an artificial clash as much as attempts to use science to disprove a religious myth.

So, yes, science isn't going to prove or disprove God, or gods, but it can be a tool to disprove aspects of religious belief. Or, in other words, belief in God doesn't necessarily mean that you believe everything that is associated with that faith.

[PLAYER57832]

. Or, in other words, belief in God doesn't necessarily mean that you believe everything that is associated with that faith.

Rather, because some people believe something in a faith does not necessarily mean that is "the faith" in its entirety.

[Symmetry]

. Or, in other words, belief in God doesn't necessarily mean that you believe everything that is associated with that faith.

Rather, because some people believe something in a faith does not necessarily mean that is "the faith" in its entirety.

That's a fair way to put it. I would generally say that there is a core kind of faith that science can neither prove or disprove. Essentially the divine aspect, but there is also the aspect of faith that deals with how the divine impacts on the world.

Science is worldly, and that is the area where science can disprove faith. It's never absolute- I heard a great paper on Galileo a year or so ago that argued that his main problem with the church was necessitism, that he didn't allow that God could make things look a certain way (kind of like the argument that God could have placed fossils during creation).

Problems occur when faith encompasses worldly things that can be tested. That's when science can be opposed to religion, but not necessarily belief in God.

[Woodruff]

The difference between religion and science is not lack of evidence or thought, it is the ability to show other people what you know/understand.

If you do not have the ability to show other people, then you do not have evidence.

No. This is an illogical and unscientific thought..and pretty central.

No, it is not illogical nor unscientific. If you can not display the evidence, you do not have evidence. You may have EXPERIENCE, but you do not have EVIDENCE. Do you not understand what the term "evidence" even means? As you say..."it's pretty central".

1. First, the "evidence" is, on one level a change in my thinking.

That is not evidence. That is experience. The two are not the same.

That I think something different than you means something did happen.

It could simply mean that the neurons in your brain fire differently than the neurons in my brain. How is that evidence of anything?

Claiming it is just that I am not logical and you are logical is, well, just arrogance, not science. (this is a pretty fundamental philosophical debate, by-the way)

It's fundamental yes, but you don't seem to understand it. I don't believe I claimed that YOU are not logical, I claimed that treating faith as if it were science is not logical. Which it isn't.

2. Second, there are many discoveries that are first found or grasped by one person or a small group who lack the ability to transmit/show it to other people. They keep working until they find the proof.

Of course. Yet THEY DID NOT HAVE EVIDENCE. They had a hunch, an insight. But they did not have evidence.

3.Lack of proof is not proof of anything. The fact that we now know so very much means it is even MORE important to keep that fact in mind, not to even begin dismissing things you have no proof of.

Of course not. Nowhere have I suggested this was the case. What I have suggested is that faith does not expect any further investigation, whereas science does expect that.

Of course, anyone is free to make assertions and to attempt to prove them.. but to claim superiority because your beliefs..are, well, your own

I don't believe I claimed any such thing.

Its very fundamental to what you are trying to say here.

I believe you're allowing your personal bias toward faith to erode your perspective here. I've made no such claims.

Now, I realize you wish to claim that believing in God is, while not quite as childlike as believing in Santa, still not quite intelligent/logical.

Where have I said that intelligent people don't believe in God? I would never have suggested such a thing, because I know better.

When you say belief in God is illogical or unscientific, that IS very much what you are saying.

No, it is not at all the same thing. I know many very intelligent people who do not think very logically. I know some less intelligent people who do think quite logically. The two are absolutely disparate concepts and should not necessarily be tied together. It doesn't even make sense to me that they would be tied together.

IF people keep insisting that belief in God is illogical, is not scientific, etc...

It ISN'T scientific. That's not a belief...that's a FACT. That's why it's called FAITH. Good heavens, that is in fact HOW IT WAS DESIGNED INTENTIONALLY (even presuming that God does exist, it was intentional on his part).

Nope, logic is not limited to scientific fact. It is a process. and yes.. I believe that God intended faith to be a question.

A question, sure...but not a scientific one. God does NOT expect anything of the sort, and in fact clearly does not want it else he would not demand faith of his believers.

then you immediately put a wedge between the vast majority of humanity and yourself.

I don't put that wedge there. Science does.

Nope. Science is utterly neutral on the God question.

THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING. From the beginning of this part of the discussion. Sheesh.

And ignoring that IS very much driving as much a wedge in our society, is just as destructive as the claims made by young earth creationists.

Saying that science is irrelevant to God's existence does no such thing. Saying that faith is not a logical process does no such thing. Any religious person with the ability to view the situation objectively would recognize that the process of faith and the process of science are completely different and non-interacting processes. The only place that faith has in science is to posit the original question. Unfortunately, that is the point which faith halts, whereas science proceeds from there.

[Woodruff]

Also.. what john said.

The line you are trying to draw between faith thinking and science thinking just does not exist. The difference between science and faith is the kind of evidence accepted, not the thinking process.

No, the difference between science and faith is that science attempts to answer questions through further examination using the scientific process whereas faith is not interested in using the scientific process in determining answers or those answers cannot possibly be determined by the scientific process.

[Woodruff]

This cartoon seems appropriate to the place this thread is in:

[Army of GOD]

who didn't fall of the bridge: the little moron or the big moron?

the little moron because he was a little-more on

[PLAYER57832]

Also.. what john said.

The line you are trying to draw between faith thinking and science thinking just does not exist. The difference between science and faith is the kind of evidence accepted, not the thinking process.

No, the difference between science and faith is that science attempts to answer questions through further examination using the scientific process whereas faith is not interested in using the scientific process in determining answers or those answers cannot possibly be determined by the scientific process.

See, here is the problem. You have set up a paradigm where the only thinking process is science.. all else is not thinking or questioning.

I say the real paradigm is not that, it is the kind of evidence accepted. Religion accepts things like text, tradition and personal experience. Science accepts, as proof, only that which can be shown to others.

Religion IS very much interested in finding answers, it is just not limited to things that can be proven given observable/quantifiable methods now available to us here on Earth.

What you describe above is not religion, it is just not thinking. I agree that many people act that way in regards to religion. They also do that in regards to politics, and even science (I believe I mentioned the time it took for velliger larvae to be considered larvae and not parasites?). However, that is their failing. That's like saying because some scientists falsify data or are just plain lazy/poor scientists, then all are. There is a vast difference between a technician plodding out numbers or chemicals and nobel laureates. There is a huge difference between the guy who goes to church, listens to his pastor/preacher/priest and "follows the rules" to get to heaven and truel theologic thinkers and analyzers.

[PLAYER57832]

This cartoon seems appropriate to the place this thread is in:

I did laugh...

[Woodruff]

Also.. what john said.

The line you are trying to draw between faith thinking and science thinking just does not exist. The difference between science and faith is the kind of evidence accepted, not the thinking process.

No, the difference between science and faith is that science attempts to answer questions through further examination using the scientific process whereas faith is not interested in using the scientific process in determining answers or those answers cannot possibly be determined by the scientific process.

See, here is the problem. You have set up a paradigm where the only thinking process is science.. all else is not thinking or questioning.

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

[john9blue]

Also.. what john said.

The line you are trying to draw between faith thinking and science thinking just does not exist. The difference between science and faith is the kind of evidence accepted, not the thinking process.

No, the difference between science and faith is that science attempts to answer questions through further examination using the scientific process whereas faith is not interested in using the scientific process in determining answers or those answers cannot possibly be determined by the scientific process.

See, here is the problem. You have set up a paradigm where the only thinking process is science.. all else is not thinking or questioning.

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

it doesn't, IMO

the thing is that religion is more than just faith... it uses logical thought processes. and many scientists use faith when making their assertions. so it's pathetically dishonest to try and pretend that you either follow one or the other.

[Woodruff]

Also.. what john said.

The line you are trying to draw between faith thinking and science thinking just does not exist. The difference between science and faith is the kind of evidence accepted, not the thinking process.

No, the difference between science and faith is that science attempts to answer questions through further examination using the scientific process whereas faith is not interested in using the scientific process in determining answers or those answers cannot possibly be determined by the scientific process.

See, here is the problem. You have set up a paradigm where the only thinking process is science.. all else is not thinking or questioning.

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

it doesn't, IMO

the thing is that religion is more than just faith... it uses logical thought processes. and many scientists use faith when making their assertions. so it's pathetically dishonest to try and pretend that you either follow one or the other.

Yes, scientists use faith when they make their assertions...I'VE SAID ALMOST EXACTLY THAT IN THIS THREAD. However, that is where the divergence between faith and science happens. Science goes on to look for the answer to the assertion, whereas faith simply accepts it. Because that's what faith is.

[john9blue]

Also.. what john said.

The line you are trying to draw between faith thinking and science thinking just does not exist. The difference between science and faith is the kind of evidence accepted, not the thinking process.

No, the difference between science and faith is that science attempts to answer questions through further examination using the scientific process whereas faith is not interested in using the scientific process in determining answers or those answers cannot possibly be determined by the scientific process.

See, here is the problem. You have set up a paradigm where the only thinking process is science.. all else is not thinking or questioning.

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

it doesn't, IMO

the thing is that religion is more than just faith... it uses logical thought processes. and many scientists use faith when making their assertions. so it's pathetically dishonest to try and pretend that you either follow one or the other.

Yes, scientists use faith when they make their assertions...I'VE SAID ALMOST EXACTLY THAT IN THIS THREAD. However, that is where the divergence between faith and science happens. Science goes on to look for the answer to the assertion, whereas faith simply accepts it. Because that's what faith is.

okay, so then you'll agree that christians who study philosophy, the bible, and the teachings of the church for answers to their questions are using science?

[Woodruff]

No, the difference between science and faith is that science attempts to answer questions through further examination using the scientific process whereas faith is not interested in using the scientific process in determining answers or those answers cannot possibly be determined by the scientific process.

See, here is the problem. You have set up a paradigm where the only thinking process is science.. all else is not thinking or questioning.

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

it doesn't, IMO

the thing is that religion is more than just faith... it uses logical thought processes. and many scientists use faith when making their assertions. so it's pathetically dishonest to try and pretend that you either follow one or the other.

Yes, scientists use faith when they make their assertions...I'VE SAID ALMOST EXACTLY THAT IN THIS THREAD. However, that is where the divergence between faith and science happens. Science goes on to look for the answer to the assertion, whereas faith simply accepts it. Because that's what faith is.

okay, so then you'll agree that christians who study philosophy, the bible, and the teachings of the church for answers to their questions are using science?

That depends on the questions, I suppose. See, what you appear to be missing is that I'm not at all saying that Christians can't be scientific (in fact, I've said exactly the opposite), but rather that science and faith are two disparate concepts and concepts of faith cannot be looked at from a scientific perspective. In fact, that's directly what that chart is saying. Science continues to explore whereas faith does not. This isn't rocket science, it's practically just definitions.