Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, both christians and atheists who are interested in debating each other tend to have a hard time understanding the limits of their knowledge. The criticism can be directed equally in both directions. The entire sum of scientific knowledge is based on unprovable axioms, just the same as the entire sum of religious knowledge is based on unprovable axioms. Faith is a belief in something you can’t prove, and p…
Faith is a belief in something without evidence, correct? Science is rooted in empirical evidence. It may be with imperfect models and imperfect measurement, but there is indeed fairly reasonably-measured evidence.
Faith is a belief in something you can’t prove. The munchausen trilemma invalidates all logical proofs. As such, all forms of knowledge are based on unprovable axioms from which knowledge is derived. If you were to try generalise some of the axioms that form the foundation of scientific knowledge, you might say that ‘empirical evidence is a source of absolute truth’ or that ‘everything we don’t understand about the physical world will either be explained by science, or is not possible to explain’. Any individual might consider those ideas and decide that they are worthy of having faith in, or they might not. But any unprovable axiom has no more or less merit than any other unprovable axiom. To say otherwise is to be ignorant to the limits of your own knowledge. You might say that scientific knowledge is more complex or rigorous than religious knowledge, but that doesn’t speak to its merit either. Flat earthers rigorously promote an incredibly complex system of beliefs, it is naturally more complex than science, because it needs to add additional ideas to explain scientific ideas that conflict with their own. That doesn’t speak to its merits at all.