Foreword: Watching these two videos reminded me of the psuedo-debate on the chat thread a couple of weeks ago. Its not necessarily the same argument, but its a good place to start.

The first video: Discusses how video games use Faith as a mechanism
The second video: Addresses the response to the first video which reminds me of what happened last time.


EDIT:Upon further thought, this wouldn't work in the debate section for various reasons

oh wow you watch him too?
I like this guy and all the stuff that he talks about.
The last thing I watched from him was how storytelling fits with video games.
Good stuff~

this really opened my eyes because it's amazingly true o3o

I don't know what's going on with this thread (whether it's now intended to be a debate or whether it's in the right section etc), but I will say I think the discussion is simply a misuse, or misunderstanding, of semantics.

Saying that science and observation relies on faith is such an old and unoriginal argument that it's quite tiring to hear it. Faith is a strong, fundamental belief that is important to you, but is also not based upon evidence. If you say that scientific observations involve faith because you're sceptical as to the ability of your senses, then you're saying that it involves faith because you have no evidence that your senses work (remember, faith is belief without evidence). I disagree with that statement. It all revolves around what you consider to be evidence. Science has its basis in evidence, and to say that it requires faith to believe in its method is inherently contradictory: "I believe that a method that places its fundamental basis upon evidence, is actually something that is not based upon any evidence at all".

Furthermore, if I were to concede that there is some "faith" needed in the use of science and the likes, then I still think what this guy does in his videos is irrational. He compares that form of "faith" to other human faith. A priest's faith in a god is not the same as a scientist's faith in science. And that is, of course, assuming that you can call whatever scientists have in science to be "faith", which I do not assume at all.

Faith is a belief or trust in something without much of what would usually be considered evidence- usually. In the case of science, it isn't really faith, per se. In most cases, it's something that was observed and is easily shown concretely.

This is what faith turns people into.