That would be merely a religion of humanism. If you judge a religion merely by its effect on a person, then you are essentially saying, all that matters, is humans.
Miracles are *THE* most important part of religion. Yes, they do "prove" a religion. The biggest problem in that area, is whether a person is content to accept proof of a miracle occurring in the past, as proof of a religion, or whether they require that they get ongoing, yearly/monthly/daily "miracles" occurring in front of them.
I'm not saying that humans are all that matter. I'm saying that we are the best guages for measuring the impact of the divine in our own lives. If you see someone walking on water, for example, it should certainly get your attention, but it doesn't prove much by itself. Instead, the miracle is an invitation to learn more. The Bible speaks of people of people who deceive others by performing false miracles. And our own perception is sometimes flawed. So, don't be too hasty to accept miracles as proof.
The only miracles that constitute proof are the ones that happen in your heart. These are the ones that nobody else can see. These are the ones that change lives the most.
Problem with that is, what kind of person says to the creator of the universe, "keep me entertained, or I'll stop believing in you when I dont see miracles any more"?
I'd say, someone who is either an idiot, or who has WAAAYYY too high an opinion of their own importance.
I completely agree. These are the people who depend on external miracles rather than allowing God to work on them from the inside out.
Faith and science are both backed by plenty of evidence. In science, the lab exists all around you. In faith, you are the lab.
Even the best scientists often disagree with each other. Add to that all the junk science being thrown around out there, and you'll see that your argument about various religions just doesn't stand up unless you're claiming that science is useless.
The real proof of faith comes from the improvements you see in your own life when you follow correct teachings. Don't see the improvement you're hoping for? Then try a different religion. This is starting to sound a lot like the scientific method, isn't it? The main difference is that it's very difficult to describe your internal changes in a quantitative way. This makes it hard to know if someone else has reproduced your findings. But it doesn't prevent you from discovering your own personal evidence of faith.
I have some bad news for you: Newtonian physics may well be just a lot of quantum mechanics.
That's exactly why the analogy works. Newtonian physics is a lot of quantum mechanics. And climate forecasting is a lot of weather forecasting. And yet, because of the huge difference in scale, you have to use very different models to predict each one. Just because you understand elastic collisions doesn't mean you know anything about electron tunneling, or vice versa.
Where are the calculations that go with a calculated risk?