One thing scientists must take on blind faith in order to be scientists:

"The scientific method yields closer and closer approximations to the truth."

Think about this one: What truth? How do we know that there is a truth we are approaching?

Science is very good at suspending judgement on something, saying "this is the best we've got." But the criteria for "better" must fall back on the Method itself. And it would be circular for the scientific method to test itself.

Try to think of an argument for the above statement that doesn't translate into: "Because it does!" And yet one must accept this in order to practice science at all.

Some scientists, not all, but some, go so far as to believe blindly in a second axiom:

"Reality is testable, material reality."

This kind of thinking has given us ridiculous things things like Behaviorism. And it makes sense to us ... but try to come up with a logical reason for it. The real reason for it is because it works, as a method. But this method, unlike the theories it produces, doesn't seem open to question. Some (but not all!) scientists have let it slip from an optional methodological assumption to a statement about reality.

As for jihads and holy wars, they are going on as we speak. Have a look at the CSICOP webpage and see if you don't see a call to arms made by people who are afraid.

To be a scientist requires assumptions, at least one of them absolutely necessary. It involves a worldview. The faith may not be blind, but it must be assumed. If you can't assume it, you can't be a scientist. I can't be a scientist because I don't believe in God.