There is a lot of knowledge in science and a lot of knowledge that is historical or traditional. The problem is that (almost) all the low handling fruit have been picked and there is a lot of intersection. To use a silly example, "drink water when you are thirsty" is science, historical or traditional knowledge? Curare is poisonous? Use heat to melt cooper? A lot of historical or traditional knowledge has been absorbed in science, in particular many medicinal plants have been confirmed and there are now artificial procedures to produce the same active component or some improved version.
So most of the things that are usually called "historical and traditional knowledge" are in the difference, i.e. things that have not been confirmed in a scientific acceptable way, or that have been debunked. So most of the leftovers are wrong or are very difficult to test (or both, wrong and difficult).
Just imagine the 20th season of MythBuster. In the fist seasons they pick popular myths and "confirmed" or "busted" them. Then they run out of popular myths and had to pick more obscure myth, and then crazy or weird ideas. They run out of authentic myths and started reproduce scenes in movies or to create their own myths. I enjoyed the show, but it's difficult to imagine what could they do in the 20th season.
The current state of science is similar. Most of the good parts of the historical and traditional knowledge has been assimilated and extended. The current questions are weird. (Is the neutrino it's own antiparticle?) The leftovers of historical and traditional knowledge are wrong or are very difficult to test (or both, wrong and difficult).
The electrons bouncing between the neon molecules in a bar lamp and our electrochemical responses occurring in our neuron synapses orders of magnitude closer to the notion of god than than the rituals and ceremonies religions use to worship him, in my opinion.
This is why I see Christianity as hubris. to claim atheism requires faith is to say that religion asserts it has absolute knowledge (the doublespeak goes both ways). If god is this all powerful, omnipresent creator of all space and time, its overwhelmingly likely that we wouldn't be able to comprehend him. We barely comprehend the <literally anything> and I'm expected to believe ancient peoples could comprehend the nature of gods existence? Nay, instead they willed him into existence, their actions an expression of that will.
didn't mean for this post to be so long. I guess I'm just a little unimpressed by this preacher who states we're not trying hard enough to understand each other then strawman's the arguments for atheism.
One theory I've read on Quora somewhere, which for me is intriguing, is one that was used to explain why there might not be any evidence of alien life. The theory, if I'm remembering correctly (and am too busy ATM to go looking for it) is that alien life forms may have evolved to a size and lifespan so far beyond our own that they may move at a pace that seems glacial for us, and hence we don't recognize it as intelligent or even as a single entity. This also reminds me of the description of the largest or oldest organism in the world (I believe) in a North American forest (again, too busy to look up the details) and it's been posited that it may have slowly migrated across the North American continent over the span of human history, which on a different time scale, would look as an intelligent being moving around.
For me, this line of thinking could explain apparent lack of evidence for God (though I think there is compelling philosophical reasoning for at least a theistic position). Of course, this will fall within your own presuppositions for what it might indicate.
But I think that in the same way that God is outside of the physical realm, you wouldn't really find concrete evidence of Him in the physical world.
That requires a leap of faith that many are uncomfortable making, but I have found that there are plenty of atheists and theists who are comfortable making leaps of faith on all sorts of matters (like if their spouses or children love them, or believing in aliens as the creators of life without bothering to ask where the aliens came from).
I don't have a problem with faith, but I hope my mind never becomes so rigid as to not explore other options, or so flexible I never decide to believe in anything.
Regarding your view about the video, one thing I appreciated about the book that I don't remember seeing in the video, is the acknowledgement that God doesn't have anything that one can definitively declare as absolute proof, but rather something that is open enough for you to come to your own conclusion on.
I do think atheism requires faith, as it states a position that is ultimately unverifiable. But again, I don't have a problem with faith. I think strong atheists (those who proselytize the absence of deity) operate far more on faith than those who are merely skeptical.
Do I think that ancients could comprehend an omniscient, all powerful creator fully? Of course not. As you say, we barely comprehend anything.
But do I think that ancients had the ability to reason, understand when something was a miracle and when it wasn't? Of course.
For instance, when Mary showed up pregnant, everyone's default reaction wasn't to assume that the God of the universe had impregnated a 14 year old girl with the Messiah that would redeem humanity. Instead, everyone, including Joseph, went to the logical conclusion, and assumed she'd stepped out on him.
I think there's often a modern day bias against ancient thinkers because they didn't have all of the information we have today. But I don't believe that instantly makes them wrong.
I don't say any of this in an attempt to intellectually convince you of anything, but rather to explain the areas of my thought that allow me to reason my way to belief in God (though there's more that would go to specifics).
And, btw, thank you for watching the video. It's a long time to commit to watching something where you're not sure you'd get anything out of it, and it sounds like there wasn't much new there for you to buy into, but I appreciate the time you committed to understanding my viewpoint :)
But this is the great benefit of empirical science to our understanding of the world. I truly believe in the philosophical principle that the person stating the positive position in an argument has the burden of proof on it's shoulders.
So while we would all love for our deeply held beliefs to be treasured by science, it's for our benefit that scientists don't work that way, and that we should have the burden to prove what we believe.
And if it's truth, there should be some way to reason to it, whether scientifically or philosophically.
So when traditional knowledge is validated, I say great. But let's not start cherry picking according to our biases and using that to somehow infer that "science" is the issue. Sure, some in the scientific community can come off as condescending, but that's a personal issue and one of approach, not one that is fundamental to the empirical study of the world.