Good points. For the masses, as things are now, most certainly true.

For some individuals, not necessarily. Are you familiar with cartesian doubt?

It's a way of thinking pioneered (at least in the modern era) by René Descartes. The only foundation is, that he thought the only thing he can be certain of is that he exists, with the reasoning that he must exists since he is contemplating his own existence. Using this as the only starting point, he worked himself up by dissecting every concept & belief into the smallest possible units, only believing what he knows for certain to be true. Socrates comes to mind too.

It's not no foundation, but imho a pretty good one. It's debatable if that should be categorized as a blind belief or not. But if it is, how could there be anything else but blind beliefs? EDIT: Just realized I've come to the same conclusion as you, depending on if you consider believing to exist to be a blind belief :lol:.

As I said I try not to pick favorites and consider everything.

I certainly agree with everything you've said below that. Blind belief in science is certainly the best option compared to blind belief in other ideologies, but blind belief is blind belief.

What you said made me think of this Terence McKenna snap that I've just recently saw here somewhere posted again : Terence McKenna denounces Relativism in 5 minutes (with subtitles)

I do have to wonder sometimes though, if he still would be with us today if he'd placed his trust in something like Ayahuasca instead of cutting edge science, given what we know now about Harmalas & DMT and cancer. Not to forget his love for CBD rich Lebanese hash.