If by scientific we are going by the literal definition, i.e. "branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws" then above post is arguably, at most part, an account of religious practice shaped by thousand of years culture, ritual, anthropological development etc. We like to subscribe to a group, a thought, faith and identity. We are raised into that identity. Hypothetically, it would be interesting to run a research where two siblings, say twins, are raised in Saudi Arabia and Sweden separately without their knowledge of birth parents. But such research would be widely illegal and subject to universal humanitarian laws. The point being, we feel existentially threatened when someone challenges our faith because our living conscience is shaped by our faith. Here, unlike many other fields of science, technology and philosophy (say, logic), a scientific argument against ritualistic and religious beliefs cannot be formed. So an argument and counterpoint against faith based practice will not yield anything. A man of faith is what she is - a man of faith. I like to explain this phenomenon with an analogy. A famous medical doctor who is a devout Hindu would not hesitate to point a scientific flaw in a program say, for example, launched by xyz company. For sake of argument, a drone based home delivery program. Something doesn't work and the program is a massive flop. The devout Hindu Doctor, who did not invest a dime in xyz stock, would be happily cajoling her point sipping her martini in the party where few anxious listeners are curious as to why the program failed. She would lay bare all the counter-points of the program. Her explanation would be widely factual, based on financial data, industry standards and technological evaluations. After all, she is very knowledgeable and backs her point with valid data. She would enumerate all the reasons that one can think of in a scientific manner. Point made. We are impressed. And there is a tangible result that we can compare to. The program actually failed, the company made a loss. When the same Doctor is debated about her beliefs her premise would be completely different when forming logical arguments. One could watch hundreds of you tube videos to study this phenomenon. When it comes to arguments against faith the premise of a logical counterpoint seems so futile.