>>A scientist will call this an assumption rather than faith. In science there are a lot of assumptions because we cannot prove a it. I don't think there are a lot of scientifical assumptions inspired by religion nowerdays.
>>
>>>"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Heb 11:1 (NIV)
>>
>>No need to state the reference. I could have found a similar definition in a dictionary. In science a scientist could hope for a certain assumption to be true. In that way he could have faith in the assumption to be true. However this does not have anything to do with collective religion.
>
>I'm very familiar with the scientific method. I don't think I said that the employment of the scientific method was a religious process. I'm speaking on a personal level. That is, you believe that science will eventually explain the origin of matter and life. That is your belief and it cannot be proven until it happens (if ever). That is the essence of faith.

Wrong. That is the essence of hope. A scientist hopes that the experiment will work. A scientists hopes that an hypotesis can be demosntrated, tested, replicated independently and that it can predict results given a set of conditions. There is no faith involved. And there is no dogma. If a new explanation comes along that better describes what you experience and that better predicts the outcome, then the old assumptions are thrown away and hypotheses are revised.

In faith and religion you have infallibility, dogma and therefore nothing can change, everything is preordained. God is immutable. No room for dissent or alternate explanations.