Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, unfortunately for some, there's not much
> room for "faith" in the quantitative science [sic]
> like physics and engineering.

Doctor Femano,

Allow me to remind you that your doctorate is in physiology, not physics. Also that engineering is not a science:



On the contrary, some would argue (and not just religious apologists) that without something like faith in a set of basic principles or assumptions, physics would never get started, as here in simple outline in a didactic context:

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

> No data or testing is required for "faith".
> Christian traditionalists had "faith" that the
> earth was only 6000 years old. Not such as
> prevalent a notion as it was many years ago.
>
> For a long time, the humanities had "faith" that
> the Roman Empire was responsible for the megaliths
> at Baalbek. Newer standards of proof are revealing
> that to be an increasingly tenuous attribution.

And here we have Doctor Femano’s favourite form of argument, false analogy. It would seem that his “newer” standards countenance old fallacies—but then Doctor Femano, in his generalised ignorance, doesn’t know they’re old and doesn’t know they’re fallacies (for all he’s been told so).

M.