Do religious people and scientists define evidence the same way?

Yes.

And no.

To the extent that rules of logic must be applied to the case at hand, there is a very close similarity between the top thinkers in either community. For example, the Vatican will not declare an event as a miracle unless and until a group of disinterested scientists (sometimes doctors) reports that they can not find any evidence from natural or man made causes.

But where the two communities part company is on the subject matter; theologians dealing with that which cannot be proven scientifically, and scientists dealing exclusively with matters that can be measured, observed and tested at will.

Please note that I have limited the "religious people" to those highly trained and disciplined thinkers among the various faith traditions. I am leaving most of the people who appear on Yahoo Answers out of the discussion, for reasons which should be obvious.

Actually scientists usually define evidence differently from the average human, religion or not.

The definition of "evidence" that I've learned from scientists is much different than the definition of evidence that I have seen on this section from the religious AND atheists.

Louis Wu: Well it's nice to see you still are the same hypocrite you have always been. Every claim that you have made, religious or not, has been backed up with "because I said so" and "Google it". You are too blind to see how hypocritical you are.

They tend not to..

For a scientist evidence is something you can test, you can probe, you can measure and so much more. It is actually something.. something reliable.

For religious people.. evidence can be "that feeling in the heart".. rather lousy isn't it :!

How about religious scientists? Stop generalizings the religious for about 40% of scientists are religious....

Depends on the religious people. Religious scholars understand the concept of evidence. A lot of 'believers' have no clue.

Religious people think something is evidence if it makes them feel good.

In most areas of study, yes. When it comes to proof of religious beliefs, no. Scientists require better proof than faith, personal experience, and ancient unreliable books with unknown authors. Religious people think these things should count.

According to Y!Answers no; scientists use facts as evidence and religious people use the bible or some other false/unproven attribution (e.g., I heard god answer me).

Both groups also cherry pick, using the evidence that supports their belief and ignoring inconvienient facts.

Nope.