Faith is not required to send a probe to other planets with precision navigation. Newtonian physics (based on Newton's theories)makes it possible to plot a course with precise predictability. You can use the same physics to plot the position of any object in the solar system at any point in time, future or past.
Newtonian physics is a subset of Einsteinian physics. Einstein's physics allow us to determine the age of the universe. Admittedly, it changes as new data comes in from further observations, but it is always in the range of greater than 10 billion years, not 6000. Again, no faith required. The speed of light is constant and cannot be exceeded. Distances in the tens thousands of light years can be measured rather precisely and millions of light years less so (but still fairly accurate). If this light has not been traveling for that time to reach us, then you and your fellow idiots need to come up with a cogenent new physics theory (with the math) that explains ALL the observed facts. It needs to explain everything from chemical reactions to nuclear reactors to celestial navigation to ballistics to biochemistry.
But then that might entail thinking and other forms of hard mental labor and many man-years to accomplish.
And you believe that to be true, do you not?
And doesn't it take faith to believe that the laws were the same in the past and will continue to be the same in the future?
If not, what hard evidence and observations can you point to to demonstrate that?
And isn't it true that it's an assumption that the laws we observe on earth are assumed to be the same everywhere so that we can count on them working well enough to get that probe to other planets?
If not, what hard evidence and observations can you point to to demonstrate that? Has anyone been there to demonstrate that as well?
And wouldn't you be demonstrating faith in the integrity and truthfulness of the person who did go there and observe it? That they were accurate and correctly observed and reported the data?
You just can't get away from faith. Faith is not simply a religious word that has only one meaning. It is not a term owned b religion and no one else. It applies to all areas of life and is exercised by everybody.
It's not the faith itself that is unique to and in religion, but the object of the faith that makes the difference.
The main difference is that those who are religious honestly and openly acknowledge their faith; they don't deny in themselves what everyone practices every day.
“No faith involved. The theory either fits the observed facts or it does not.” [excerpt]So in other words, what you observe to be a fact may indeed not be.
“Reality is what I see and measure.” [excerpt]How do you know that you are seeing and measuring accurately?
“Faith is not required to send a probe to other planets with precision navigation.” [excerpt]How do you know that the laws of physics won't change half way through the flight?
“Einstein's physics allow us to determine the age of the universe.” [excerpt]Only if you use any number of untestable philosophical assumptions as a basis.
“Admittedly, it changes as new data comes in from further observations, but it is always in the range of greater than 10 billion years, not 6000. Again, no faith required.” [excerpt]Okay, man up and ascertain the age of the universe without using any untestable philosophical assumptions as a basis.
“The speed of light is constant …” [excerpt]Really?
“If this light has not been traveling for that time to reach us, then you and your fellow idiots need to come up with a cogenent new physics theory (with the math) that explains ALL the observed facts.” [excerpt]You call me an idiot and demand that I do what you cannot?
“It needs to explain everything from chemical reactions to nuclear reactors to celestial navigation to ballistics to biochemistry.” [excerpt]I'm still waiting for people of the Evolutionary mindset to provide demonstrably correct explanations for things like the Pioneer anomaly, the ultimate origin of life, and the origin of intelligence and information.