There is a great difference between those phenomena which are accepted on faith, and those which are proved by objective determination, though the cause of both may be equally 'rational' once known. And the chief difference is this: that people will treat with disdain such phenomena as are proved by the evidence of the senses, and commonly experienced-while they will defend to the death the reality of a phenomenon which they have neither seen nor experienced. Faith is as powerful a force as science, he concluded, voice soft in the darkness, -but far more dangerous.
The text discusses the distinction between phenomena accepted on faith and those validated through objective evidence. It highlights that while both types of understanding may have rational explanations, societal attitudes toward them vary significantly. People often express skepticism towards sensory evidence and commonly witnessed phenomena, while fiercely defending beliefs without personal experience.
The author suggests that faith possesses a strength similar to that of scientific validation, but it also carries greater risks. This comparison emphasizes the potential dangers of unwavering belief without empirical support, contrasting it with the methodical nature of scientific inquiry.
