If there's a sutta that says it, Alex believes it literally, and that's that. That's the impression I have gleaned. If I'm not mistaken, that's blind faith. And having faith isn't necessarily bad, but it's not a valid argument for anything in of itself.
Whether it is a valid argument depends on what convention of valid reasoning you are following.
One convention goes like this:
1. Obvious phenomena can be directly perceived
2. Hidden phenomena cannot be directly perceived but only inferred
3. Extremely hidden phenomena (like rebirth) can neither be directly perceived nor inferred but can only be known throught the testimony of scripture.
That is a consistent approach.
An inconsistent approach however is to take some statements of scripture to be true and to deny the truth of other statements of scripture. If you only rely on direct perception and inferrence why use/apply scripture in the first place? On what grounds do you accept some statements of scripture and reject other statements?
son of dhamma wrote: If he is standing on blind faith, then that's sad, but I've never heard of anyone convincing somebody of blind faith of anything.
Putting the derogative term "blind faith" aside the Buddha would not have taugh somone whom he had recognized to be an unsuitable vessel for his teaching. The situation that we have nowadays is that people who are not suitable vessels have access to written teachings, can deny them publicly and are applauded by other unsuitable vessels.