I argue that some of the claims of Christianity, like "Jesus was bodily resurrected" or "God exists" are of a different kind of reasoning than those found in Science.
A claim like "evolution is a fact" or "the earth is several billion years old" are based in a different kind of thought process than those of faith.
So do you agree that Religion is a different "kind" of thought process than Science. If so, what evidences and arguments would you make to prove that point?
I’m unclear what the thought processes of faith are. You did however give 2 examples of what I think of as mythic tales… the resurrection and God.
Mythological thinking is quite different from science since it conveys meaning with stories. It just doesn’t matter how historical or phony anyone thinks “The Resurrection” is, it's symbolic anyway.
There are plenty of instances of rebirths/resurrections in myth, which is experiential. To take one instance that's reminiscent of the Christ’s resurrection: shamans frequently tell of a visionary experience of being torn apart and boiled in a stew or other mortal crisis for a period of time that’s often a multiple of 3, and then reconstituted with new abilities.
Likewise if you die in a dream, it can signal changes happening (or needing to happen) in the dreamer's life. That’s the evolved epiphenomenal meaning of death in the imagistic/dreaming/mythic mind. A religious person might dream of death and say “Hey, this is a prophecy of what is to be!” and a skeptic will say “Bullshit, it’s just random firings of neurons!” when all along the symbol just innately means change, transformation.
The images convey meanings, because not everything that's meaningful must be discursively articulated. And getting literal about it like my example of the religious prophet versus the skeptic above just misses the point. Ancients didn’t split the inner and outer worlds the way we moderns try hard to do, they intermingled them. In today’s world, doing that subjects you to being deemed superstitious for being unscientific.
Anyway, that’s the only way I can figure out how to make either "Jesus was bodily resurrected" or "God exists" into a variety of thinking: they come from and appeal to another part of the mind than philosophical abstractions do. The resurrection's gotta be metaphoric or God exists as a big-time generalization about all the believer conceives to be "divine", or they’re bullshit in the way others are saying. Ultimately my point is, it doesn't have to be the way others are saying though, unless the believer makes it so by insisting "it's historic fact, ‘real’ in exactly the way my cat is real!” Religion's mythological thinking politicized and institutionalized, and then made absurd by losing sight of its psychological origins.
