I see what you are saying, and you are essentially correct about my basic position, though I do not think the distinction between proof, and evidence is relevant in this particular context.

But at the risk of getting bogged down in the semantic differences between the usage of “Proof” vs “Evidence”, I’ll define my use of the term evidence, as I understand it. “Evidence” can be used to “prove”, but both ways, IE to both confirm or deny. eg “Fred’s failure to go to school was evidence of his lack of motivation to succeed.”.

Whereas in contrast, in the absence of any “evidence”, IE not knowing whether or not Fred went to school, we cannot “prove” anything (Fred’s motivation to succeed) one way or another. The absence of this evidence cannot be used to *prove* Fred is a failure.

Put in context, this means that saying “God probably does not exist because the available evidence can be used to provide a scientific description of things, without God.” is scientifically honest, and I would have no problem accepting this statement from anyone. IE God may or may not exist, but it is irrelevant because I can describe things scientifically either way.

However to make the statement “God does not exist because I have no evidence that he does.” is flawed, because you don’t really have evidence that he does not exist, what you really have is evidence of an alternative way of explaining how things came to be, and no evidence that absolutely rules out any other possibilities.

Now I also agree that for any given set of hypothesis, the one that most concisely describes it’s subject is most likely to be true. This is another form of Ockham’s razor. However Ockhams razor is, at best, a guide. It cannot guarantee accuracy. In fact, in many cases, the simplest, or most likely solution is not the correct one.

We all know a large majority of scientific research cannot be carried out empirically. We simply do not have the ability to do so for a wide range of things. So we are forced to support hypotheses with tertiary empirical observations, and come to the probabilistically best conclusion, given the results.

Presuming, of course, that our interpretation of those results are indeed accurate. And for the most part, it is quite an effective approach. But I do not believe these generate truly scientific *proofs* either. They are simply very, very good best guesses, supported by lost of corroborating “evidence”. And by definition, absolutely *not* empirical proofs, and therefore, cannot be considered absolute. These hypotheses remain just that. Hypotheses and theories. Well supported hypotheses, yes, but still not *proven facts*.

I wish people would be more honest about that aspect of science. Too many folks act like science is irrefutable, and wholly supported by proof based on hard, empirical evidence, but it oftentimes isn’t. In many cases we are really just spitballing.

And with respect to giving sloppy/non-science a pass, I’m not quite sure what you are referring to, but if you are talking about the scientific acceptance of a religious explanation for existence, then no, that is absolutely not what I espouse. That would make no sense; religion was never, ever meant to be scientific.

I believe the two can coexist, but only with the understanding that religious beliefs operate on principles that are diametrically opposed to scientific beliefs, and that any attempt to coalesce the two would be a mutually destructive exercise.