A lot of scientists don't like to talk about things they don't understand. "Good enough job" is anything which matches the experimental data and the stated assumptions of the theory, which for something like QED is more precise than measuring the length of America from coast to coast and getting it wrong by less than a hair's breadth.
This is a competent summary of how the scientific method works. Even here, however, science rests on unfounded claims. If it doesn't, you're going to have to take Feyerabend's position of epistemological nihilism: there is no method, as science questions everything, so anything goes.
What does it even mean to have faith in infallible natural laws or mathematical laws? So could it also be said that you have faith in your "infallible photon receptor" aka your eyes when it comes to reading my posts?
Obviously. This idea is as old as Western thought itself, hence why Plato refers to physical things as "pistis," which means confidence or faith.
If we're just using the word God to symbolize and entity with knowledge and power far greater than we can comprehend, the existence of God seems pretty logical. I would go as far as saying probable. My issue is with humans who claim to know who or what it is, how it acts on our world, and the exact things it wants us to do.
So you're a deist (or at least saying that deism is a possibility)? I appreciate your honesty, but this runs into its own set of problems: namely, how it impacts human action from day-to-day. What should we do in the face of moral problems? How do we reconcile our inextricably limited mental faculties with our claims to certainty?
The way I see it, every day we know more about the world than we did the day before (speaking figuratively here) with unlimited time and resources we will continue to add to the knowledge gained from the people that came before us. Honestly speaking, I see no reason that there should not come a time when we can understand literally everything there is to know about the very nature of the universe.
This is the position known as logical positivism, and it assumes that there is a definite structure to the universe that the human mind can understand. You're making the same mistakes I laid out before: you suppose that the fallible mind of man has potential access to universal truth, and you suppose that the universe follows rigid natural laws for seemingly no reason.
--
Houston Texans: 3-3
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis