(November 19, 2008 at 12:21 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Daystar, if by 'religious thought' you just mean 'thought' then fine. But religious thought often is used to refer to more overly faith-based and less evidence-based thinking. Evidence based thinking could be described as 'rational thought', 'logical thinking', 'scientific thought', 'evidence based thinking'. Etc. Religious thought usually refers to more faith based thinking. My definition of faith is that it is basically blind belief/trust. Belief that isn't based on evidence.
Good point, EFV, about 'thought.' That is pretty much what I mean. Religious thought is meant to indicate a line of thinking that is more bias, emotional, irrational. Patriotism and religion, for example to a greater extent and dissipating to a lesser extent as expressed in more centrally cultural and traditional applications.
A person kills for state. A person kills for religion. A person kills for musical preference. A person kills for sports loyalty. Kills, defends, debates, organizes - not from or for the sake of practical application, reason or necessity but emotional attachment.
The point is that this human weakness is not exclusive to faith based initiative. This 'thinking' or 'school of thought' can be seen in the most mundane (irreligious) as well as quixotic (idealistic to an impractical degree) places. As you and I have discussed before, 'rational thought', 'logical thinking', 'scientific thought', 'evidence based thinking' can all be nothing more than in the guise of prejudice and bias. This transmogrification is the mechanical result of religious thought.
