Believing all the conclusions of science sounds like "faith" to me. I think that some of what is called science is not real science. It is not repeatable or falsifiable.
If I accept your category boundaries then true. But I don't.
The way I don't believe there were undetectable pixies involved is by faith.
I don't expect that science should be able to find evidence for a supernatural being. Lack of evidence is not evidence that no supernatural beings exist...
Yes I believe for faith reasons and think that those who want to push faith aside in their lives are missing an important part of their humanity.
Pushing aside "reason" is also not sensible.
I imagine it would have been to have it replace the type of evolution that is taught in science classes, evolution without a designer. And if science in the classroom teaches "no designer" then that is not science.
So you agree that science has not shown and does not say that there are no gods.
So if you cannot show how life and the universe came to be without a creator and designer, why would anyone care about your claims?
No
It seems to be a matter, at least partially, of what is considered to be "evidence".
I don't need to not be able to imagine how nature could have generated those things if science tells me how nature could have done it without supervision or intertion. I still have faith that there is a...