I haven't done this for years so here it goes:
"1) As we know, one's human brain processes "way more" information than 'other animals' can.
However, it is still possible to come to the wrong conclusions with that processing. Do you say our intelligence makes us more divine or ethical or more like God? Then there should be no reason to assail the integrity of science, which is done by smart folks mostly. One can question science freely in some parts of our world."
I am kind of confused by your point in general are you saying that since we are more intelligent than animals that we should shouldn't question sciences integrity? I think that is dangerous thinking to not question if something has integrity before looking at it as source to use in the discussion of knowledge. Clearly know there are many parts of science that are clearly integreitable, I just happen to question a few methods used in a few parts that is all.
2) Religions often make much of our great difference from other animals. For some odd reason, religions then seem to function in the way that herds of animals or schools of fish function.
This is quite an exterme statement in that it suggests that religion is nothing more than a instict in man and that it alows them no free reign of thought. To even suggest this shows a lack of understanding of the history of religion it self and how varied its many different practices are. Know clearly if we are to look only at Christainity it self we can see a history of many different turns and events that have lead to the many different denominations that we have surronding us today. I myself firmly deny that religion in anyway by it self can lead men into herds. I have seen that happen after basketball games, but not after church services.
3) The hard questions are not answered
in most religions except by scriptural authority.
When Scripture does not contain, for example,
the DNA code or evolution or the equations of physics, there is a convoluted explanation given why we 'still should not ask the hard questions of religion, and should accept the church authorities' interpretation of ancient Scripture' in almost any religion -- not all of them but most of them.
It seems that you limit the hard questions of life to mere science and not to other aspects of life; that frankly most people find much more important to their existance. No Scripture doesn't contain DNA code, it doesn't need to be their. It does not contain evolution, why would a book based around creationism do such a thing? And ofcourse there are no equations of physics, it is book ment for even a child to understand. I think you are misinterpreting what the scriptures are meant for. They aren't a lesson in math or physics, but a window into the Mind and Heart of God. A fount of wisdom out of which love and justice flow. That is exacltly what its purpose is for.
Besides what good are physics equations to dying men on the field of battle. DNA code to a women in torment? Or the debatle theory of evolution to a family who just lost their home?
4) That is changing for the better in many places but it is also possible to lose the higher level of Freedom to Question which we have been enjoying since the development of Civil Constitutions.
I am quite confused by exactly what you mean by this last point? Are you saying that by embracing a religion we have lost our ability to freely think?