Through science, we now know the causes of most sickness, we understand weather enough to know that the hand of God does not directly cause rain or lightning at a particular place and time.
Though sickness and weather phenomena may operate according to obvious natural laws, this in no way means that supernatural forces such as demons cannot cause sickness or madness, in some instances, or that a divine being cannot intervene in the weather. Nor does it invalidate miraculous healings or ressurections.
The integrity of religious doctrine is suspect, indicating all of religion may be a fraud.
Suspect according to whom? And which religious doctrine?
That integrity is not improved by the fact that religious doctrine is preeched in translation. Translation is a tricky business even when the text is a bedtime story; when the text deals with life and death, salvation and sin, the translator's burden ought to be unbearable. I don't understand how anyone short of a Saint can be qualified to translate religious material.
The many English-language versions of the Bible indicate that at least some religious people share your concern with accuracy, even if others may be concerned with making the Bible say what they wish it to say. But religious doctrine is not always preached via translation. Even if it is, this is a silly objection. Do you really think you could stand before God, and tell Him that you didn't even care enough to learn Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Hindi (whatever), so you decided not to follow Him?
I have more respect for religions that follow certain criteria: they make no attempt to actively convert outsiders, they have little or no a history of glaring errors when viewed through the lens of modern science, and they can be viewed as a form of psychology and philosophy rather than an objective explanation of the world.
Which religions do you mean? Also, I wonder why you object to proselytizing, and whether you have considered that science might in some instances draw wrong conclusions.
Why should I believe in God on faith?
You shouldn't. You should believe there is a God, because it requires far less faith than atheism. It is far more plausible.
What is so compelling about an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent creature? Why is that less of a strain on the imagination than the concept that the big bang was a chance occurrence that created spacetime... and either this current universe is the first one ever, or the Kth one, or this expansion/contraction cycle has been going on forever?
Because such materialism is anti-scientific. It does not comport with what we see around us. It does not adequately explain the complex natural processes and forms of life around us (including us). We do not expect machines to just happen; nor should we expect living organisms to slowly develop over time. By the way, God is by definition not a creature.
Either way, God or pure science, there are incomprehensible elements in the explanation. The difference is that while scientists may accept the big bang on faith, they will shake that faith if presented with enough evidence to the contrary.
Do you think so? Do you think that scientists are interested in the facts, while religious folk are interested in - what, exactly? Do you not recognize that some scientists might be as emotionally attached to, or as professionally invested in, scientific theories as a priest might be to religion? Do you not further recognize that of the great number of those trained in science, very few are really testing big bang/evolution theory, or are in a position to know its accuracy?
You imply that religion is blind faith, but there are many who have rejected beliefs they once held. Jamis Jockey attested to that on the first page of this thread.
If any religion is valid, how do I know which one(s) are and which aren't?
As with scientific theories, the claims of religions can be tested against the world around us.
