Logically a person cannot say that black holes are x,y and z because they cannot prove their points except by accepting the parameters which they put on the conclusion. By that I mean that they accept all the things which they say are true which lead up to this end truth.
So what makes an NT believe Mr Hawkins?
What makes an NT doubt Mr Hawkins?
The problem, here, Xander, is that science is based on observable data. Black holes are assumed because their existence actually is supported by science of things that we can observe and test directly. (Similar to how we date things, whether using Carbon-13 or uranium or cosmic rays or whatever -- the science all interlocks as cross-references, confirming the hypothesis enough that it can be used dependably.)
So although we have never seen black holes, although they might not be visible (and actually they are visible, if you can view X-rays... they give off a LOT of them), the phenomena we have labeled "black holes" does exist. We might not know exactly what they are or cannot define them in all their specifics, but something is there and we know how to recognize them, etc.
Religion cannot be equated with that, because it's more of a perspective than anything else. Any proof that we observe/experience doesn't really say anything about the "spiritual" realm. We can articulate ethical systems, we have been up psychology and can witness patterns of human behavior, but we cannot attribute it to something spiritual, anymore than we could just say it's "natural." It's a large question mark.
People even argue about altruism now -- is the tendency towards it self-selecting, because it's advantageous, or is it a direct reflection of the divine since people could choose to be selfish? Does everyone who is altruistic have to be religious, in the sense of having some articulated theology about the spiritual world?
To look at it from another perspective, why do some NTs embrace existentialism and others nihilism? Why are some affable people and others crotchety intellects devoid of warmth?
I think it's a choice of perspective, tied into past experience and (gasp!) underlying emotions that drive behavior.
Most probably the answer to how NTs can have religion is that they choose to do so. Not that I profess to understand that choice but that doesn't mean I can't see the choice.
Yes, that's a choice as well.
It has to do with the method of discerning "Truth". We were talking about using pure reason which is essentially useless without a starting place. I am suggesting that revelation be the starting place, since science is useless in answering theological questions. Or do you have another method of gathering information about the divine that is separate from revelation, science or pure reason?
I suppose I just see it as useless... because there is no way to validate revelation. You either choose to buy into it or you do not. Why not select something that others would find abhorrent, because it was simply "revealed" to you? At some point criteria has to be used to evaluate revelation.
But I suppose this is what you are saying next:
Once you have a starting place then one can apply reason, but logic is impotent without knowledge to feed into it. Logical statements can always be reprased into some sort of if-then statement. Without the "if" there is no "then".
The attitude I'm referring to is that which accepts revelation, then simply uses logic (and whatever else) to support the revelation... but the revelation is first and foremost assumed to be true in the way understood by the advocate. At that point, the person is simply deciding to believe something, because they want to.... not because it's necessarily true or can be shown to be true.
So revelation is arbitrary. Some revelation is "way off" and can be excluded, I guess (like "historical events that never happened"); other spiritual revelation (whether Christian or Muslim or New Age / Spiritualism, etc.) is too general and amorphous to ever evaluate. you either buy into them or you do not.
...Let me respond to what you've said though. If a person were to ask me if the Christian teachings were "right" I would essentially say yes. But if someone were to ask me if another faith's teachings were "wrong" I'd say, "I don't know"...
Based on the rest of this, we are probably much more in agreement than it seemed.
I'm still surrounded by people who believe (sometimes with regret but still choosing to believe) that truth is exclusive, and that if they're right, everyone else is necessarily wrong. So if you read my posts with an understanding of that tension I experience, then that will probably help clarify some of what I've said...
I never really know whether I agree with Xander or not, but I'll behave myself and mosey on. 
