And your trust in these people is based on what exactly? If I told you that my dog died and came back to life, and then I wrote about it and had you read what I wrote, would you believe it?
Can I ask what specifically about not having faith causes you to be even more skeptical of scientists? I don't really see the connection there.
As for the intelligence thing, I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue. What isn't difficult to prove, that goes against everything we observe about life?
The terms "meaning" and "purpose" are not interchangeable, first of all. So I would answer your question by saying that I think my life is very meaningful but I do not think it has a purpose. I'm very grateful to be alive and I think I can derive a lot of personal meaning from my life experiences while I'm alive, but I certainly do not think I was created for some specific "purpose" by a god or spiritual being. And it is FAR from a fact that there is some sort of grand, higher purpose to our universe and existence. I understand that it is comforting for people to believe that there is some greater purpose to their life, but there is no actual evidence beyond people's emotional interpretation of our existence to support that assertion. I'd like the reassurance of that belief as well, but logic doesn't allow me to believe that genuinely.
My trust in the people who claimed to witness the resurrection is based on all the facts surrounding the event, that have a ring of truth to them. Peter denied christ when pressed. They were all depressed, hiding in a room after he died. They didn't believe at first (even Thomas said he wouldn't believe). And as a result of their seeing the risen Christ, their lives were changed. And with such life changing events, who wouldn't want to share it and write it down?
But, not just that, but the teachings of Christ are so opposite the way the world thinks. The first will be last, the last will be first. And when applied to one's life, they work. So, in a nut shell, I guess I'm saying that my trust is based on both the facts and my personal experience.
If you claimed your dog came back to life, I don't think I'd believe you. Now, if you had 500 witnesses to your dog being dead for three days, and then came back to life, that would be different.
As far as meaning and purpose, it seems to me that they are connected. But, for the sake of argument, I will accept your premise. You don't think there's any "grand" purpose. So in essence what you are saying is that you are able to create meaning where the universe has none in and of it self?
If that is correct, isn't a bit illogical to assume that you have meaning but the universe which is greater than you, has none?
I'm skeptical of scientists that don't understand how their own world views effect their conclusions. Take Stephen Hawking's statement that God is unnecessary. Here is place where science isn't speaking, but his faith is speaking. Even science admits it can't detect God, so it can't say one way or another what God is doing or not. But, the point is that faith is masquerading as science at that point, because Stephen Hawking doesn't seem to realize the net effect his world view has on his conclusions. And if someone so smart can't see the most basic truths of how one's world view effects one's conclusions, I don't trust them.
Proving that intelligence can come from non-intelligent sources. If it actually happened, then it should be easy to demonstrate, but the fact is that it can't be demonstrated because it hasn't happened in reality.
I have to disagree with you that believing what scientists say is an act of faith. Science has a method for verifying and demonstrating its findings. Science tells us that gravity exists, and we can actually demonstrate that it exists. That's not faith.