well sensed is certainly a good term to use since it requires external input and pretty much all external input received would have been faith based
There is the idea that if something is not physically and objectively measurable + repeatable + predictably -- all three of those things -- that there
is no validity to it. But plenty of people have experiences and observations which are as real and valid to them as anything is to anybody, regardless
of the lack of predictable or repeatable nature of it. Some of those people are scientists. Assuming that someone is brilliant in a whole list of ways
but then a complete and utter moron in some other way is ridiculous, but that's what the current 'culture of scientism' appears to do about nearly
every most brilliant founding scientist of the past, who wasn't part of the modern nothingness-cult.
There is also the idea that if someone believes something that clueless onlookers don't have the capacity to perceive and/or understand, that they
must believe this based on "faith." And our modern culture teaches faith as an irrational emotional stubbornness based on an intellectual exposure
to some idea for which the believer has absolutely no experiential evidence whatsoever. This is another completely misguided, modern
cult-of-nothingness notion which in fact has as much 'faith required evidence-less assumption' involved than the one they're assuming about.
Plenty of things people believe are based on personal experience. Often a lifetime of a variety of personal experience. The experience may not be of
that-specific-thing or it might not be objectively measurable, but it may still be a belief system borne of experience, not assumption. And by the way
their assumption may be completely wrong, but that doesn't mean that it is without 'indicative' experiential-evidence for someone as its source.
Yes, there are people who are genuinely stupid. And there are people who make intellectual-emotional assumptions without any intelligent discretion or
"personal experience" as their evidence source, but usually those are the ones trying to stuff something down your throat at high volume so they are
recognizable. People who quietly go about their own way in something, often in a lifetime of something, are usually not virulent-idiots, they are just
people who have some kind of ongoing experiential reasons to have developed whatever belief system they have.
By assuming that people believe things "solely based on faith," one is basically invalidating even the possibility that they might have had any
personal experiential reasons to come to such ideas or conclusions.
It's a shame, as it requires history's cult-of-nothingness victors currently rewriting nearly all past -- as well as many modern -- scientists into
people who mysteriously are reasonable and evidence-based in every way except the-thing-our-current-cult-doesn't-believe-in.
Now to apply this to the specific topic,
1 - he may have had experience with the synchronicity elements of certain elements of geometry/math to give some credence to other things using the
same sorts of logic. In other words there may have been to him observable evidence for these elements functioning in past situations, indicating there
might be something to their predictions of future.
2 - there are many pieces of sacred-geometry type info that happens to be in "the bible" as well as in many other places. To believe something about
a certain element which happens to be reflected there does not necessarily indicate a belief in that religious doctrine. Your average jewish qabalist
might tell you there is something special to the number 666, but its presence in the bible doesn't make him a christian.
Ironically, the above is actually the same mistake religion itself makes: assuming that the conglomerate (and political) collection of ideas in one
book somehow makes the religions promoting doctrines based on parts of it to "own" it all. Like how christ is appended to the name jesus like it's
his surname. As if "christ" does not reflect nearly every major religion that ever was. Mithra was a christ, Buddha was a christ, Krishna was a
christ. Because the word isn't someone's name, it is the word-name for "the sun, the son, the christ" and represents a divine energy which humans
can carry in varying doses and degrees. The primary religion stemming from the Council of Nicea was busy making Jesus into a patentable commodity
available only through their quasicorporation, so it was marketed differently. Concepts like reincarnation and the understanding of "the christ
energy" which various tiny groups (they were all tiny groups originally) had even when they were jesus fans, those ideas or interpretations were
excluded as part of the doctrine. But anything which it includes -- e.g., some ref to numbers (which are fascinating) -- which has some underlying
validity, is taken to support the edifice of a doctrine that has nothing whatsoever to do with them. It is understandable that religion would attempt
to do this but why non-religious people insist on using the same silly paradigm, essentially, is a mystery. A person could be interested in and
believe in a ton of things that are technically in the bible, without necessarily buying the official or modern version of that larger doctrine at
In other words, you could believe in sacred geometry, or numerology, or prophecy, all of which are in the bible (in positive ways I might add),
without necessarily believing that a) Jesus was 'a christ' or, even if you did, believing that b) Jesus was the only human allowed to be christ for
all time [meaning we change the christ concept from one innate to earth-sun-spirit and instead make it the trademark commodity of The Church, and
hence we also dismiss every other christ our species ever had or will have]. A person could believe jesus was A christ, and believe in reincarnation,
and still have great adoration and respect for that figure and history, without necessarily believing the official doctrine.
The point I am making is that theological beliefs are not like being pregnant or dead where it's either/or. Any person including our most brilliant
scientists may have exposure to, and experience with, any number of things and may have decent experiential evidence for coming to the theories they
have. This may include elements that are found in one or more religious books. That does not make them "exactly like that bozo on another thread
ranting about how you'll burn in hell if you're gay" or whatever.
It seems to me that we ought to do our most brilliant founding scientists at least the respect of granting them "the benefit of the doubt" here --
that even if their theories are wrong, that they probably had SOME kind of personal, experiential evidence or study to make their belief systems more
than just irrational idiocy they believed for no good reason whatever.