By the way,Einstein's quote wasn't in the context of defending the intrusion of religious dogma into the scientific method. Einstein called his religion 'a cosmic religion' and described himself as agnostic.

... because why?

And who says that we are trying to gain "perfect" knowledge (whatever that means?). We are trying to create the most accurate model of the universe we can. Thus far the scientific method has been wildly successful at doing just that, and we already answered several big questions, such as "Where did we come from" (a: evolution via natural selection), "What is the purpose of life" (a: there is none), not to mention that we discovered some fundamental facts about the Universe. We know the Earth is round, and orbits the Sun. We know roughly how and when the Earth and the Solar System formed. We know that every species on Earth shares an ancestor with every other one. We know the Universe has a Quantum nature (as described by QM) and that on large scales it follows principles laid out by Einstein. We can also trace the history of the Universe to within nanoseconds of its creation. And we've only been doing proper science for about 200 years, out of the 250,000 we as a species have been around. Not too shabby, wouldn't you say?

And if the scientific method is too imperfect for you, pray tell, what is a better way of discovering the nature of reality? Thinking really really hard? Meditating on texts written by bronze age peoples?

I am not going to get into your 'answers', because I think they are also leaps of faith.

There are two kinds of knowledge, inductive and deductive, ascending and descending. The vedic literatures explain that knowledge from someone who knows is superior to speculative endeavour. A simple example is death. We can see that billions of bodies are born and die. Yet can we prove by experiment someone born will die? No, in fact there are people trying to make their material bodies eternal through various means. The vedic literatures explain the material body is by nature temporary (in contrast to the eternal living force). So is this knowledge equal to doing a scientific experiment?

HOW!?!?! It may lead YOU to nihilism. It doesn't lead me to nihilism.

>I am not going to get into your 'answers', because I think they are also leaps of faith.

I'm not quite sure which of the points you think are leaps of faith, but I've cited mainly uncontroversial and fundamental facts. For example, we know that the universe has a quantum nature as defined by quantum mechanics. This isn't a leap of faith, it's based on the fact that the standard model makes predictions, that when verified in the real world, are accurate to an insane degree. The theory of Evolution by natural selection, is also backed by massive amount of evidence. For you to claim that this is a leap of faith is akin to, for example, believing that Jesus risen from the dead, is ridiculous.

>The vedic literatures explain the material body is by nature temporary (in contrast to the eternal living force)

What is the evidence for this "eternal living force". You seemed to be using ancient scriptures as an authority, though you must realize that these books were written by men, just like you and me, just as fallible, with all the faults and weakness of a typical modern human except without the massive body knowledge we have available to us today. I'm not sure how much an ancient Indian man can tell me about the nature of reality given he had less awareness of the real world, than an 8 child of today would. Furthermore, how did this body of knowledge come to be compiled? Thinking on it really really hard? So given all these facts, why should you trust them to tell you anything?

I must've missed a memo.

- There is no evidence that there is any intrinsic purpose to life (except in context of the genetic purpose to reproduce).

- Our entire current understanding of the world strongly suggests there is no higher purpose to life.

Literature on the scientific process is all quite clear that the process does not yield perfect knowledge, nor is it supposed to, nor can it.

Also this is not a conclusion of science (the scientific process is not meant for such things) but rather epistemology and the philosophy of science.

EDIT: In order to avoid simply offering a flippant (if true) one-word reply, let me also say that your comment is as guilty of painting with an overly broad brush as the GP comment.

Some religious folk are anti-science. Some scientists are rabidly anti-religious. Most of both are neither. There are just a lot more religious people than there are scientists, and religion tends to lend itself towards being a pulpit for extreme views more readily than science. Coupling those facts, of course it's going to seem like religion wants to beat science up and leave it for dead.

That's a pretty broad brush, too.

Seriously, both religious and scientific folk need to get over themselves on this schtick. Policy moves forward at a glacial pace because culture abhors all change, and regularly seeks the path of least resistance.

I am reminded of the apocryphal exchange between Napoleon and Laplace.

Put simply, if the theory doesn't need gods, then gods have no business being a part of the theory. That is just simple common sense.

Science does not require faith - it's based on theories you can prove. It also has no dogmas since you can prove even the most established theory wrong and change science with it. Much like the guy you quoted.