&gt; <i>He means how do you know the speed of light is 186,000 mi&#x2F;sec? Did you test it yourself? Or are you taking someone&#x27;s word for it? It&#x27;s one or the other.</i><p>I take someone&#x27;s word for it, but here&#x27;s the kicker: I don&#x27;t care. That particular measurement doesn&#x27;t affect me one jot if it&#x27;s a different speed. I don&#x27;t play with optics; the measurement affects nothing I choose to do. However, if I did care, I could work from first principles and find out; it&#x27;s <i>really</i> well documented, and I can also create my own methodology. This is not true of religious requirements. Throw money in the plate on Sunday because this guy two thousand years ago was divine? There is no way I can verify that.<p>&gt; <i>Instead of faith, I would have used &quot;trust&quot;.</i><p>I did leave out a bit saying that the GP was using two different forms of &#x27;faith&#x27; that were apples and oranges, but left it out as I was already waffling. :)<p>However, you will find that as you do your own science, it pretty much always conforms to the rules found by people who have come before you. It&#x27;s really only as you near the expansion fringes of science that you start getting conflicts with mainstream thought.<p>Again, this does not happen with religion, where often the argument becomes &quot;god moves in mysterious ways&quot; or &quot;who can know his plan, but he does have one&quot;. Core rules that don&#x27;t make sense with the observed world are often distorted with these phrases. There are definitely grey areas and fuzziness in science - biology has a lot of fuzziness - but there are still common behaviours that work regardless of your cultural background. Born into an Egyptian Coptic family, Christ is divine. Born into the Muslim family next door, Christ is a prophet, but not divine. The fundamental essences of science just don&#x27;t move with cultural background like that; the resistivity of copper doesn&#x27;t care about your state of mind.<p>There is definitely trust involved in science, but trust is a thing that can be broken and reshaped and is allowed to be examined and verified, where faith is not. Besides, if <i>trust</i> is broken, that&#x27;s considered a fault on the part of the person <i>providing</i> the information. However, if <i>faith</i> is broken, that&#x27;s considered a fault on the part of the person <i>receiving</i> the information.<p>But word choice is important - by saying &quot;science relies on faith&quot;, the underlying agenda is that other things that rely on faith should be given the same level of trust, even though they don&#x27;t expose themselves to the same level of inspection.