It also explains why science cannot disprove supernatural events and why science can't categorically contradict supernatural beliefs. If you start with methodological naturalism, of course you'll end up with either open questions or naturalist explanations. People have the prerogative to disbelieve miracles, but by definition, they're not testable by hypothesis from a rational foundation of methodological naturalism.
It's not science vs religion, it's rational vs irrational thoughts.
As to the rest, it's your prerogative to place the burden of proof wherever you'd like. Though it's not necessarily the case that a hypothetical God would agree with you about your standards for proof.
To think a God would be unfair to not provide clear proof about miracles, etc. is a fair point, but it's not a rational or scientific one.
In security, you can't prove something is secure, because you can't prove a negative.
You can have reasonable faith that something is secure. We don't call that irrational thoughts. We can test for certain things, but not all things.
Perhaps someone has a better analogy, but that's one example off the top of my head.
It's not. The Christian word "faith" (in Greek, pistis (1)) is better translated as "trust", "conviction", or "faithfulness". "Faith" and "belief" are also translations, but the English meanings of those words have been watered down over the years, hence a lot of this confusion.
Anyway, you don't need proof to trust something, to have conviction that it's true. And having incontrovertible proof doesn't mean you don't trust something anymore.
(1) https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?str...
What does it mean to have faith? Have faith in what?
When Jesus says have faith, Jesus meant have faith in what he said. In other word, believe in what he says. But what does that mean though?
What Jesus meant by believe is this...
Jesus: "Dude, believe me, you can save yourself from a life of misery and pain if you just do these things I am about to tell you: Do not murder. Do not kill. Do not steal. Etc. And also, remember, I love you and God loves you."
But somehow, most people have misunderstood this to just mean blindly believing.
This is the framework where science is made - it is not necessary to believe that it is true (that's called "metaphysical naturalism"), just work by the assumption.
That's why there can be religious scientists. They apply methodological naturalism at work (they explain everything without appealing to the supernatural), but they maybe believe in virgin birth / resurrection / other miracles, so they actually believe that naturalism in the metaphysical sense is false.
The successes of science may provide some confirmation that naturalism may be true in reality but of course can't prove it undoubtedly. But in practice it may work in this way: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/