Summarizing the questions Mark raises

Mark’s “That Old Time Religion” raises a lot of important questions – there’s material there for a few hundred good blog entries, but for now I’m going to satisfy myself with restating those questions and addressing them in depth later. (I suppose I should also thank him for giving my blog a reason to exist. When I can afford my favorite whiskey again, I’ll drink a toast to him.)

The questions:

1. Is it possible to hold a religious belief on a reasonable basis?
2. Can a leap of faith be reasonable?
3. Must one choose between science and religion, or is there room for a combination of both?
4. Can one who draws a sharp line between the “proofs” of science and the “faith” of religion truly claim that his or her basis for belief does not include leaps of faith?
5. To what extent is it appropriate to base one’s beliefs on direct experience?
6. To what extent is it appropriate to base one’s beliefs on the authority of science?
7. (Mark states, “I cast off both religious authorities AND scientific authorities insofar as either would claim that my direct, personal, repeatable, and personally verifiable experiences are non-scientific or anecdotal, or non-scriptural or Satanic, or any other label that strives to dismiss me and my experience by conveniently labeling it.” So, I find it appropriate to add another question here, related to 5 and 6 above: To what extent is it appropriate to base one’s beliefs on the authority of religion?)