[kosta50]

You are equating faith with proof. Gravity is a no brainer. Believing in something that makes no sense (i.e. Incarnation, Resurrection, Burning Bush, raising of the dead, Jonas living in a belly of a large fish/whale/sea monster for three days and so on) is much, much more difficult because it has to start with the Faith.

Your example of gravity is just the reverse. You have no faith, then something happens, and, as you can reproduce the result on demand, you believe in it. That's faith but not blind faith.

The proof of the faith is in the experience, not experiments. We cannot express it in the words we know, not transfered it in the media we use. "Blessed are those who believe but have not seen" says the Lord

[annalex]

Your example of gravity is just the reverse. You have no faith, then something happens, and, as you can reproduce the result on demand, you believe in it. That's faith but not blind faith.

I did not express myself clearly. The blind faith of science is the scientific method itself. That if an effect can be reproduced every time it is tried, then it is a "hard fact", -- is the deductive scientific method and it requires just as much faith as the Incarnation. Now, once a scientist has faith in his method, he produces proofs, that, for example, men cannot walk on water. Likewise, once a theologian has faith he produces proofs that, for example, men who steady their spiritual gaze on Christ can walk on water. Faith and reason necessarily interoperate in theology and they interoperate in science, just as much.

Moreover, reason cannot start absent faith, -- theorem cannot be proven absent axiom. But faith can start absent reason, as we see in children.