Or in other words: There is no such thing as absolute (mathematical, provable) truth about reality, and if you ignore that there is such a thing as evidence for claims about reality, then all claims are equally justified, as long as you make assumptions that are consistent with your claims.

> If you were more intellectually humble this might be easier for you to accept, but as it stands, you are no different from anybody else who chooses to reject the limits of their knowledge.

Well, yeah, it is tragic how religion poisons minds to the point where everything about the world is upside down.

The funny thing is, you yourself don't actually believe that that supposed limit to our knowledge is there. You yourself do constantly make decisions prefering empirical evidence over other "belief systems". When the stove is hot, you don't put your hand on it "because it can't be proven that I will hurt myself (true!), and if I assume that heat doesn't hurt you, that is just as proven as the assumption that empirical evidence tells me something about reality (true!), so I am just as justified in my belief system that putting your hand on a hot stove won't hurt you as people with a scientific 'belief system'! Believing the science requires just as much faith as believing that a hot stove won't hurt you!" You are not actually stupid enough to believe that. In your daily life, for the most part, you constantly act consistent with the belief that empirical/scientific methodology gives you reliable information about reality, and inconsistent with the belief that any other assumptions instead of what possibly underlies scientific "belief systems" is just as justified/just as much "faith based". Nor would you accept so from anyone who disagree with you about something. If someone made the assumption that murdering people made their loved ones happy, and started murdering people on that basis, you would not say "oh, well, it's their assumption, and it can not be proven, but science can't either, so it proably makes people happy". You would immediately call that out as completely moronic reasoning that is way overstretching the implications of an iteresting conundrum of epistemology to be more real than the obvious immediate experience that killing people does not make their loved ones happy.

All of this is not actually a set of principles that you believe in. It's a set of excuses you give so as to avoid seriously examining the epistemic foundations of this one particular belief that you happen to have, and that you apply only very selectively to that one claim.

I have a tremendous amount of faith in science, I have a degree in physics. I simply happen to understand the contextual limitations of the knowledge that I’ve derived from it, something you seem far too arrogant to do yourself.