Replies

"My point is that we should not kid ourselves concerning the indirect nature of much of the evidence presented to our reason and senses. If science is unwilling to claim for itself the ability to determine absolute facts or truth, then it must assume the mantle of faith alongside all human observers."

No, it mustn't. To say that one can't prove a scientific theory 100% is not to say that our acceptance of it is based on faith. Or that it's claims are on the same level as any other wild theory. Some theories are far FAR better than others. For instance, the theory that the earth is very old is much better supported by evidence than the idea it is about 6,000 years old based on biblical fiat. One doesn't have to throw up their hands in the air and say, "Well, I can't mathematically prove an old earth, so I must accept as equally valid anything and everything reacting to the age of the earth, or I must shake my head at the impossibility of every knowing anything for certain." They only need to say, "Well, the theory that the earth is very old is backed by a huge amount of evidence, while the idea it is very young is not supported by the evidence, and is in fact contradicted by mounds of other evidence. I can safely conclude that the earth is very old."

To say that one can't prove a scientific theory 100% is not to say that our acceptance of it is based on faith.

Look. If a proposition cannot be accepted as 100% true, then what do we call it when we accept the proposition as true anyway and act accordingly? What do you call the percentage, however great or small, that is subject to rejection, or doubt, or revision, or correction?

Apparently you are so used to equating "faith" with wild-assed guesses you do not realize that faith is, in most cases, based upon solid evidence. Faith and evidence are not exclusive of one another. They compliment one another. Reason, however, is entirely capable of misinterpreting and misapplying the evidence.