But, at the risk of going back to the beginning, I think that if you want your religion to be more than a personal thing then you need something that you can show to other people that might convince them. Especially if you want it to have a pre-eminient position in society. This is why Christianity has miracle stories isn't it? They constitute proof - although that leaves aside the debate about whether proof makes faith unnecessary.
Anyway, let's suppose we have "science" hard measurable facts and a world that recognises that. Outside that world we have... something else; religion, spirituality etc The question I'd like to know the answer to is how you evaluate those religions, how do you pick one and how do you argue for it as more real than others?
I'm particularly interested in the pragmatic bits of this - I have no problem in anybody practising their own personal faith as long as it doesn't affect me or others who don't follow that faith - but what can Christianity (say) use to argue for its exalted place in UK culture other than tradition?
I think there must be something - it's not the case that science means hard verifiable facts and the other world means anything goes, there is obviously something between these two extremes but what is is?
"We don't want to limit what's real to only those things that can be measured and quantified, and it seems like this could be a danger if we expect all of our knowledge to replicate scientific standards."
How do we extend it beyond those limits without accepting absolutely anything at all is what I'm asking.
