Yes, I definitely believe there are things that cannot be explained by reason. I'm also finding this discussion very offensive. Believing in God is irrational? Well, if that's the case, then there are an awful lot of irrational people in this world, many of them on this forum.
An irrational belief isn't necessary a wrong belief, it just means it's based on faith and not reason. Every religious person out there (at least the sane ones I've known) realize that faith is an integral part of their religious beliefs.
And believing in a witch is a matter of faith? That comment just made me laugh because this post you are seeing right this very second was written by a witch. While I don't eat little children or sacrifice animals, I do believe in and practice magic. I'm not asking any of you to believe as I do. What I am asking a few of you to do is back off. Y'all may choose to put your faith in science, and that is your right, but not all of us feel that way.
I think I may have told you this before, but I encourage you to look up the James Randi million dollar prize and go pick up your money; all you have to do is show documentable evidence of your magic use and you'll be rich! Let us know how that goes for you--oh wait, you won't have to, we'll see you on the news, right?
And yes, I hate to break it to you, but your belief in science is faith. When a scientist tells you something you choose to believe it. You weren't there when the experiment was done. A man with a degree does an experiment, writes down the results, interprets those results based on what he knows, then tells you what it means and you accept it as fact without question.EHHHHRRRR WRONG.
You have an extremely poor understanding of science. Let me explain to you how the process goes.
1) Science starts with some sort of phenomenon or problem which needs to be understood.
2) Scientists brainstorm and come up with possible explanations.
3) They derive testable implications from that possible explanation and then perform an experiment to see if that testable implication occurs, thus supporting their hypothesis.
4) The study is then examined by their peers, who pour over their operational definitions, apparatus, and methods of experimentation for any potential flaws. Assuming that this passes their rigorous test, the study is then published in a peer-reviewed journal.
5) Other scientific organizations attempt to reproduce their findings to make sure that the original study was performed in good faith and that the result wasn't a fluke.
6) Assuming that hypothesis passes all of these steps without any problems, whatever claim was derived in step (2) is considered corroborated. More testing occurs and eventually the claim is included in a theoretical framework that explains the effect in a casual fashion.
7) After further rigorous testing, the theory eventually becomes a law (based on all of the statistical evaluation that is done, the countless tests, and its comparison to other parts of the field)
8) This law, which isn't meant to be taken literally (nor is the term theory) may eventually undergo change if in the future scientists find some part of it lacking.
Thus science is frequently in flux, it's constantly evolving and changing to adapt to challenges instead of denying evidence that disproves it (unlike religions which refuse to learn from their failings and instead employ abject denial).
I don't see someone having an experience that they believe as divine intervention and telling me that's proof God exists as being any different. Someone perceived something, they decided what it meant and passed the info on to me.
Honestly though, why does it seem that some of you use this part of the forum to bash religion?
There's nothing wrong with being religious, I'm sure many of us have said this countless times, the problem comes when the religious claim that their belief is based on reason, and it's not. If it was, then it would have the predictable and practical value that science has, and no religion does.
EDIT: If you'd like to learn more about science, and see how scientists actually criticize each other's experimental resources and procedures, check out some of the podcasts on this link: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/
EDIT2: On second thought, I don't know if it's irrational to be religious necessarily. When you have an experience that you interpret as evidence, it can be a very convincing thing, and placing your trust in it doesn't make you crazy. Most people who have religious experiences accept them uncritically because they aren't aware of just how fallible human perception can be at times. I do think, fully aware of all of the facts, a lot of religious beliefs are irrational, but again that doesn't make them wrong--and certainly doesn't mean every religious person is irrational.