I read /. at least twice a week, for the last ten years or so. And congratulations, you + parent are the first one I can remember who has summed up the 'science vs. religion' subject in a relatively objective fashion. At least, that is how you started. I have long thought this was true:
"The problem isn't with the proof, the problem is with the AXIOMS. Very good and convincing proofs of the existence of God are there, if you take a particular set of axioms as the basis for your outlook. That's the faith part.
So does that, ultimately, amount to "you will be convinced of the existence of God if you make assumptions about the world that require the existence of God"? Unless there's a non-faith-based reason to make those assumptions, the proof isn't going to be convincing to people who don't make those assumptions, making it just an entertaining exercise for those who happen to make those assumptions, not something to take seriously as a reason to believe."
But few consider the implications of this. IMHO, faith by *definition* is axiomatic. One doesn't prove the existence of God/Supreme Being, one *assumes* it. But the converse is also true. One does not 'disprove' or 'disbelieve', rather one assumes 'lack of existence'. The two statements are mutually exclusive, and both based on faith.
I think the thing that ends up tripping both sides is that, starting with *either* axiom (does exist/doesn't exist) you can produce our world. That is, there is nothing that requires a 'Supreme Being', but also nothing that precludes it. This is why some scientists believe and others don't - because it doesn't affect the outcomes of your experiment or how you reason about it. Its a philosophical axiom, and therefore unprovable in any sense.
Just had to add my $0.02 - you guys made my day!