LH,


I know of no legitimate scientists that have a rock-like faith in anything. Faith is the opposite of scientific evidence. Again, I know of no legitimate scientist that has faith in any scientific view. The nature of science is always to test and question.

The history of science is that the biggest challenge to any science did not come from scientists but from religionists. This "blind faith" you talk about can't apply to the subject of science because science is not "blind faith" but a continual testing and questioning of hypotheses. Now when someone says that gravity can be repealed, there will be resistance on the part of those scientists who have done considerable study on the subject, testing it, questioning it and spending years of their lives on it. Then someone invents an airplane or a gas balloon. But the questioning goes on. There simply is no "blind faith" here.
Any respectable scientist will deal in relativity in that there are no complete answers, only verifiable tested conclusions.

As to non-belief, we are discussing theology or religion. I don't see it being foolish or close-minded to reject constructions that impact negatively on society, cause wars, create authoritarian hierarchies or simply talk about ephemeral or vague notions of spirit or metaphysical ramblings.

In science, there are no absolutes. The "blind faith" doesn't apply.

"Direct experience" of an individual to be accepted has to be tested for its grounding in reality. George W Bush has waged pre-emptive war on his divine "experience" in conversing with a god.

I think it's ok to hypothesize but testing it is way to prove it is real.

Frank Hamilton