>>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.

All of them? Nope, I think there'll always be more. Which makes it more interesting.

>>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).

You didn't, but I heard a similar argument from those who did.

>>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.

I don't care that there may be some other reality, perceived reality is the only one. As long as the perceived logic, maths and science keep coming up with perceived knowledge which I perceive as fitting that reality, and in it other people perceive it the same way (as proven, logical), I'm fine. If any other reality intrudes, well, the intrusion becomes a part of this one.

As for the problem of nonexistence of a neutral observer, I already mentioned it, and yes it is a problem. Mostly that of interpretation of results of an experiment (the major flaw in all kinds of social "sciences", sociology, psychology/iatry), but in particle physics it is a real physical problem.

>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.

My take in this matter is that these two groups may not be entirely separate, that the second is initiated by some from the first.

As for me being vocal of my views, I try to never start it myself (if I ever did, ooops), but then also not to remain silent when the other side assumes they should always have the right of way, when I feel that we are omitted/excluded from something that should apply to all humans, or when I'm simply insulted by what they say about me (as an unbeliever). IOW, when they forget the golden rule (on which they claim IP).

That's partly a result of the years in the US, where the number of unbelievers is anywhere between 12% and 20% (but that's statistics, based on questions and answers on a sample population, and we know the flaws of that method), while their representation in politics and media is between 0% and 1%. Sometimes you have to give some signs of life just to be acknowledged to exist.