>>And there's the rub; to say science doesn’t have all the answers is a cop-out. It is the scientific way to diminish the fact that in the final analysis we still have to believe. The short version is simply - I believe something until proven false. Then I shall create a new belief. Hence the scientist is a believer.
>
>Does not equal faith. Credo quia absurdum est never becomes a part of it. "I believe" is, in this case, "I hold as truth until further".

In science one holds a particular theory or model as true until proven otherwise - good model for science. But you believe that science as a system of thought and inquiry will eventually answer all the mysteries of the universe. Perhaps it will, maybe not, I don't know. But until it does then one chooses to believe it will.


>I've heard a few religious propagandists using this to put an equal sign between science and religion from time to time.

I didn't say science and religion are equal. And I have no problem with religion in its true form (as opposed to organized religion).


>Mathematics and logic seem to have no solid foundation at all, or they can be founded in several ways... but that still doesn't invalidate the tight fit of all that with reality.

Nietzsche (amongst others) would argue how you would know your math/logic/whatever fits reality so well. It presupposes you know what reality truly is against which you are checking your observations and methods of measurement. It's a catch-22 with the observer always standing in the way. This topic is too complex for forums like this and I wont try and re-write what other far more eloquent and learned people have written about it.


>If it cannot be conveyed in words, why do they still try to get new believers then, using words? And use semi-logic at that. And, yes, BTW, keep classifying all non-believers as having no spiritual life whatsoever.

Probably far more people who have had extra-ordinary experiences in consciousness do not seek to create religions or disciples at all. Some do, some are vocal whenever the opportunity presents itself but I would imagine that most do not.


>IOW, one's spiritual experience is, IMO, strictly personal, is an insight into the functioning of the universe. Whether one gains faith (or deeper understanding or just a passing fascination with an idea) into what they learned then is a personal matter. When such a person starts canvassing disciples, I have some doubts. When disciples start canvassing disciples, that's when I stop trusting their sincerity and think they are just another expansionist hierarchy, bent on gaining power.

Well there are 2 different issues here; one about extra-ordinary experiences in consciousness and one about those that actively preach their religious ideology. The first is about a reality beyond that which can be explained in words or measured and hence is beyond the scientific method. The other is just the way some people are. Why do I know the religious affiliations (or anti-religious feelings) of so many on this forum? Because they have promoted those ideas over and over, albeit not as vigorously as Rick.