Apparently. The point of the comments is not to convince you they are true, but that they’re pertinent to our argument. But you’re dismissing them simply because you don’t contest them from a factual standpoint. That’s nice, but also missing the point. If you agree the two faiths are not equivalent, then no comparison between then will be equivalent either due to the distinctions. This includes “blind faith” comparisons - the differences are still extant regardless that the faith is blind or otherwise.
Not in an equivalent way as religious blind faith, though. In no circumstance is any faith, blind or otherwise, with something that both has been verified by scores of others, the proof documented, and available for scrutiny, the same kind of “blind” as religious blind faith which contains none of these elements. Again, to point to the money-in-the-bank comparison, a certain kind of blind faith is required to believe that a bank actually has your money at any given time. Most individuals do not understand the complex mechanics of how banks work, about how they could potentially lose their money, how the money could still be stolen or unprotected or lost during an economic catastrophe, etc. But having blind faith in a bank whose exact workings you don’t understand is a very different kind of blind faith then believing someone who simply says they have your money waiting for you under a bed in their house, but they can’t give it to you until they think you’re ready. The bank version has verification abilities the house version does not. The fact that neither is fully understood by the layman, offers similarities but never sameness.
Incorrect. This denies what “scientific results” are, which are long-term peer evaluated and constantly challenged knowledge. The peer/group element does change the fundamental make-up of the belief. Nothing can be “just as” blind when there is documented evidence, multiple sources of agreement based on documented experiments, and the free ability to continually verify and challenge.
Perhaps the point of distinction can be phrased in your own terminology to make it stick for you: someone may not understand the mechanics of an individual science, but we all understand the mechanics of science itself, the scientific method. Perhaps not perfectly, but everyone who believes in science, if pushed, could stumble through the laundry list of necessary elements that make scientific method the scientific method and nothing less objective. Because we understand THIS, and no one has yet come up with a more demonstrably objective approach to knowledge gathering, we therefore decide to believe “in science”, which is just a shorthand way of saying we believe in the scientific method. From there, no belief in science that has actually come from the scientific method can be “just as” blind as religious belief. Because we understand and have intellectually accepted the method.
There isn’t really: in both cases the explanation would be the same, you’d either give it because you conducted the experiment yourself or because you read about it/heard about it. But what came out of your mouth would essentially be the same conclusion.
There is, but not the difference you’re suggesting, which is one of trustworthiness. Both examples come with drawbacks in truth and objectivity - the expert who personally tests can get hung up on their own beliefs, results, approach to the experiment, and conclusions. They trust themselves, at the expense of trusting anything more objective, which would be a group consensus. If some third party trusts the group consensus over any individual experiment, then they have LESS blind faith than the person who only trusts their own results.
But it would be disingenuous if you entered a discussion debating the merits between electric and acoustic guitars and said: “They’re both guitars, it’s possible to play any kind of music on one in the exact same way on the other.” Which is not incorrect, but impishly dismisses the entire point of the conversation, which is what the merit of the distinctions are. Pointing out the similarities does not invalidate the distinctions. And the distinctions are not insignificant in the face of the similarities. They do not make electric and acoustic guitars just “guitars”. For practical real-world use and discussion, the differences must be acknowledged and accepted.
