Blind belief is unavoidable. No matter what your beliefs are, there isn't any way of looking at the world that doesn't require some kind of 'foundation', some axioms or dogma's, whatever term you'd prefer.

Ofcourse, to question everything is good as a mental exercise. But i think that blind faith in science isn't so bad.

Not when the alternative is: 'everything goes'.

"there is no objective truth, everybody has his own truth and it's all equally valid" is quite a dangerous point of view.

It's the starting point for all fact-free politic's. If there is no objective truth, then why would eye-gouging even be a problem?

Why would the invasion in Iraq be a problem?

Some people belief that there where WMD's in Iraq and some people don't, and it's all equally valid. Some people belief that the Iraq invasion had catastrophic results and some people don't and it's all equally valid.

The acceptance of 'objective truth' is good because it forces us to take responsibility. It forces us to be humble. Science is humbling. In some branches of science, the majority of the experiments done, fail. Failure is good because it's humbling.

How can a religion fail? It can't, because you can never prove that something that you can't see, smell, touch or hear, doesn't exist.

So of all dogma's, the scientific one is the least dogmatic.

Lack of ethic's is just that: a lack of ethics.

You can't blame science or religion for it. Everybody is responsible for his own actions. If the least little excuse, like another persons authority, is enough for someone, to abolish any form of ethic's or the notion of personal responsibility, then thát lacking is the actual problem.