But the fact is that theories have to fit perfectly with everything that science has already discovered and proven. It must then reasonably answer certain questions that the theory was devised to answer. It has to be rigidly correct in its mathematical formulations and until it can be proven experimentally, it must naturally remain a theory.
How many times did you go through this process? I know: You simply trust the scientific literature that you read. You never even repeat the math, not to mention the experiments. You believe the reported results plus the interpretations blindly. This is the dogmatic kind of faith that I always had a problem with.
I always verify things for myself. It's easy to become overly suspicious growing up in a society built on lies, where news are gross propaganda, visibly at odds with easily verifiable facts. To get rid of paranoia and to identify trustworthy information, one must thoroughly work on the background framework based on which to determine what is plausible and what is not, learn to read between the lines. I occasionally write between the lines too
Modern science does not have any solid metaphysical foundation. Materialistic science has very loose and inconsistent definitions of fact and truth. It touts progress without any sensible definition of progress. Materialists don't even believe in math and this means there's no hope there's any logic in them. Whenever I talk about math with you, you always turn to physics, the absolutely wrong way to go. Modern physicists deny they have any background assumptions colouring their conclusions, even when they make most obvious demonstrable use of background assumptions. You are a similar blatantly self-contradicting example of the positivist perspective. At least I hope you will get those quantum mechanics gravity papers published and acknowledged by the next time the Nobel prize jury meets. It would be the first good thing you get out of physics, good according to your definition.
You can learn to identify background assumptions once you have identified your own background assumptions. Then you can do amazing things, such as understand the true meaning of propositions, even the meaning of the scriptures. The Bible though is the most difficult scripture to interpret. It's very hard job to figure out its symbolism and metaphysics. Obvious false interpretations abound concerning the Bible, but I suppose the purpose of this is that the Western people would not think too highly of themselves. Accusing believers of irrationality and hypocrisy when failing at the very basic understanding of the scripture that shaped the foundations of this civilization is a ridiculous self-contradiction by atheists indeed. This ensures that atheists and the religious community keep talking past each other and each one can remain largely themselves, to each other's annoyance.
Unless one can comprehend both sides and rise above the dispute. You will have convinced me that you understand the materialist science side when you get those papers written.
EDIT: When science stops answering the tough questions, stops making life better for everyone on this planet and stops providing hope for the future then I'll stop believing in science. Btw, what has god done for this world lately...or ever?
God sustains the universe at every point in time. How? This is the bit that went over your head when I told you the way Ghazali argued for it. Without this, we would not exist in the first place.
What is some tough question science has answered for you and in what way did it make life better for everyone?
@Belfrager
You of course think that the scripture is not meant to be understood, but to be believed. Whereas for me seeing is believing. The problem with the Bible is that it's hard to see its point. Eventually I have gotten around to seeing its point myself, but I find the point hardly communicable and the effort to understand it too hard to suggest to ordinary people to undergo. It's much easier to recommend scripture that says something like this:
"Scriptures are numerous, divergent in their message, conflicting in their conclusions, confusing and laborious. They have to be studied over a long period of time, but time destroys what it builds, leaving one running around in an endless circle, vainly endeavouring to put the fragmented personality and life into order. Loving and benevolent Suta! You are the master of all the scriptures and are therefore in the best position to help us. Give us the quintessence of these scriptures..."