Is faith blind or intellectual laziness? Or is faith a good and valid part of a human being?

Science is actually based on DOUBT, not faith. "I say that the universe is really old." "What if it wasn't? What test can we do to prove that it's not?" "Uh, we could do Proceedure XYZ." XYZ is done and proves that the universe is not old. "Cool, the universe isn't old!"

Science makes three assumptions: math & logic are sound, observation (aided or unaided) is valid, and that if there is a supernatural then it plays no direct role in the universe.

The first is a tautology -- if logic is not sound, we cannot proof anyways. I believe you've pointed this out before. If we cannot trust our observation, then we cannot trust any experience, including the divine experience. And if there is something unobservable doing things in the universe, then we can never know anything for certain because the supernatural may change its mind tomorrow.

These are taken axiomically -- they can't be proven. But to accept an axiom is not to have faith in it. If I choose to do some geometry on a two dimensional flat surface, then I'm choosing to accept Euclid's axioms. Let's say I don't like the parallel line theorum (given a line and a point, there is one unique line through that point parallel to the given line) so want to get rid of it, but will keep all the other axioms. This is perfectly acceptable -- you're now working in hyperbolic space, where all of Euclid's axioms, EXCEPT the parallel line axiom, hold true (in hyperbolic space, given a line and a point, there are infinitely many lines through that point that do not cross the given line [which is the same as 'parallel']).

So science is not a faith issue. It's a hypothesis-accepting issue. There's a difference.

-----

Ah, you're speaking of motivation -- then I still disagree with you. Everytime I've asked a scientist why they do it, their motivation has always been the same -- it's FUN. My chemistry professors took sincere pleasure in mixing chemicals just to see what would happen, or if they had done their math right. My physics professors would laugh out loud while playing with lasers, as if they were kids in a candy store. My psychology professors took an almost devious pleasure in concocting the next more complex maze -- or sneaking a 'subject' out of the lab to save its life. They're not motivated by their faith in what they're doing, they're motivated by the little kid inside who never stopped asking, "Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?" And when they get an answer, they laugh, clap their hands, feel the rush of being a kid, and then look at what they've learned to ask the next question... "Why?" Kids don't have faith that they're going to always get an answer to the question. Real little kids who get told, "Well, you know? We don't know," tend to accept it and move right on without caring about the 'i do not know'.

Scientists are rarely looking to prove something or do something or solve something -- they're just flat out looking to learn and play and never give up being a kid.

I do neural network research. I do it only because I find it fascinating. I don't have a question to which I'm looking for an answer, nor a goal to accomplish. It's just plain FUN to me! :) If something comes of it, great, if not, well, it was still FUN.

They discard all evidence that proves otherwise? I'm sorry, did you just imply that the remains of a skull being a mile from those of a knee disproves the theory of evolution? And here you are criticising 'evolutionists' for being intellectually dishonest. If a scientist actually had evidence that could prove evolution false, that would be one of the most significant discoveries ever to be made in the field of biology. He or she would not have to worry about obtaining funding.

Faith is the boast made by those too lazy to investigate. A scientist has an educated guess and investigates it. He never stops at "faith" and any credible scientist will have a peer review.

Efforts to live a moral life based on faith often fall short.

Again, you are muddling the issue with semantics. Scientists and business-persons would be appalled if anyone suggested that they proceed on faith alone.

Faith, in this forum, relates to a belief in the supernatural, very different from the world of reality.

There is NO other choice but to accept it on faith. What other options are there?

There is no empirical proof of their belief about god, there are thousands of other sects reading the same bible and getting entirely different interpretations, so it can't be used as a viable reference to prove anything, so it all has to be on faith, they have no other choice. What else do they have?

Faith is what motivates me to act according to what I know and believe (secularly and religiously).

For me it's very experimental, if I think a principle or action might be right, I try it out - applying it to my life, and wait and see the results - hardly what I would call blind.

Here is what I can tell you, personally from my experience PRE Christian to now adamently Christian....

My life BEFORE Christ was miserable, confusing, dark, I had no purpose, I was depressed and negative, I felt like the world was a black hole waiting to suck me in it, I could not quit worrying or find hope.

Now that I have claimed my life be lived for God I have clarity, my life means something, I find blessings in all of my struggles and strength in prayer, I dont worry I let God take control, I am positive and warm and loving, I accept persecution as it comes and am glad for it because I know that God will never abandon me. http://www.biblegateway.com/

There is no contradiction between religion - at least Islam that I now of - and reasoning, thinking or research. Islam urges us to think, study and learn. Why do people tend to think that religious people are closer to a herd of sheep to be led rather than to human beings with thinking minds?

Peace

I believe that it's possible to both have faith and to not be intellectually lazy. People just need to start questioning things more.

i think you use the word 'faith' a little loosely here - i dont think these 2 paragraphs are analagous.

plus, what makes you think some of those scientists (or businessmen) aren't also believers in God?