Well science certainly doesnít have all answers, thatís obvious in fact iíve already claimed it doesnít on this thread.
But just because scientific rationalism canít answer every question we might have about the human condition doesnít mean we throw the preverbal bath water out with the baby.
Jesus, Buddha etc were men, morality pertains to humans, itís a human construct and one can also throw in anyone from Socrates, Mill, or Marx and beyond who also shaped human civilisation in terms of their moral and social thinking.
Christ isnít a philosopher, he is the revelation of the Jewish prophacies, he is the incarnation of god (albiet post facto)-it isnít his thinking that is uniquelly compelling (much of his teaching is borrowed) itís the belief that his followers have that he is divine.
The distinction between Jesus and Marx, for example, is that Marxís interpretation of the world
is based on an emperical view of how humans are, and history etc, we may or may not reject this, but
we can understand itís tenets,whereas the edicts of Jesus are based on a notion of an eternal and loving deity, parts of his Ďphilosophyí can be interpreted in the light of secular modernity, but the basis is still a supernatural entity who gives us a series of edicts and we either comply, or risk eternal damnation-that even undermines our freewill, who would choose hell?
Bhudda and ChristĎs teaching of the non resistance of evil i find repellent. If evil exists it should be challenged, iím not about to turn the other cheek, nor do i believe telling a child they are disabled because of what they did in another life-thatís unacceptable .
Bhuddism isnít a religion in the technical sense, thatís true, but while he was clearly a wise men, thereís no need to resort to metaphysical explanations from 3,000 years ago, some of which are wise, but many do go against common sense.
You canít apply scientific rationalism to the human condition, but you can use reason to take us on that journey so far, and by rejecting it youíre throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I may be wrong, but what youíre actually seem to be rejecting is your earlier self.
I don't know whether you've ever noticed, god and religions tend to come as a package. The overwhelming history and contemporary view of God is usually understood from a religious perspective.
Some people believe in god but aren't, so be it, but the question for them is, what is it they are believing in?
One thing I still don't understand is why you are mixing up religion with God. As for your comment of fanaticism, when people do things and justify it in the name of religion, its the most horrible thing. Then people who are not familiar with the religion say that its the religion that's saying rubbish.
Ok, so this is where you are wrong. Hinduism and Buddhism both are divided into two parts. The first part leads you to live the 'correct' life...for people who do not have the scientific temper to dig deep into existentialism. The second part and the important part has nothing to do with rituals, people, society or such rubbish because it dismisses all these things entirely. If you dig deep into both religions, there is NO concept of God.
Part two of your question, we all believe in something or the other. Are you skeptical of everything? You believe in something (you atleast believe that your hand will take the food to your mouth). The problem with skeptics is that they think they are being very rational and intelligent, when at the end of the day they are all the way I was 5 years ago - an egoistic fool who thought too highly of my own ability. As a researcher, I believed in science more than anything and all the Feynmans, De Cartiers or Einsteins you talk about were once legends in my view. I realised that they couldn't answer 1% of the questions answered by a Buddha, Krishna or Jesus. Go figure.