> I think it's rational to acknowledge there are things science can explain and things it cannot. Yes. > E.g. science cannot prove nor disprove the existence

> I think it's rational to acknowledge there are things science can explain and things it cannot. Yes. > E.g. science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God nor the afterlife. That depends on the specfific god claim. > Faith is a basic and universal part of life. Why? Because we cannot know (with absolute certainty) the future. That's a false equivocation. "faith" has two different meanings. One is roughly a synonym of "trust". That is what you are talking about here. The other is the religious meaning, namely a justification for accepting as true a claim despite complete lack of any supporting evidence whatsoever or in the face of contradicting evidence. > When you get into an airplane, do you know for certain you'll get to your destination safely? No. You weigh the odds and choose whether you want to take that risk. Taking a risk is going by faith. We have to take risks in life because again, we don't know the future. That's a continuation of the false equivocation and completely irrelevant to the concept of religious faith. > So it is with getting married, accepting a job or even sitting on a chair. And more false equivocation still. > When a Christian believes in God, they are taking a risk that they may be wrong and God doesn't exist. ... or that they may be wrong and Allah or Vishnu or Zeus or who knows which god actually exists. > When an atheist does not believe in God, they are taking the opposite risk, that God does exist. How is that a risk? Also, you have given exactly no reason why it is rational to accept those doctrines of the Catholic belief system as true that I cited.