Let us say that someone made use of their religious belief and performed a miracle or cast a spell. Perhaps something small like igniting a candle, which I guess would be more a spell than miracle but whatever. This person obviously believes that their faith has caused this event. Science would conduct their experiments. Were science to reach no conclusion as to why this event occurred, would scientists suddenly admit that science is flawed? Would scientists the world over suddenly show up to religious service the next day? Somehow I doubt this. Science has made the statement before that there are things that are not yet understood, but that does not mean they are still unexplainable. They wouldn’t give up their position either and they are right not to.
I'm guessing if something happened that science could not explain, science would naturally be convinced that there is another underlying part of reality that it does not understand (which would be entirely accurate). To automatically attribute it to faith however, would not be a logical conclusion (though it's a distinct possibility in that scenario), as there is a seemingly infinite amount of things that we do not understand that could be responsible. Even if faith is responsible, unless there's a way to measure it (some sort of effect it has on the body or brain for example), I'm not sure science could ever account for it.
Even so, don't you think that if such glaring holes in empiricism showed up, people would begin to turn away from science? If you could light a candle with your hand, why would you need a match? If you could fly, who would need a car? A reality in which miracles do exist would marginalize the worth of science to begin with. If I can pray away cancer, why would I go to the doctor and pay thousands to be seen, operated on, and checked up in subsequent trips?
And it's not like there aren't things scientists have observed which they do not come even close to understanding. As far as I know science has no problem admitting to that. Take Quantum Entanglement for instance: this is essentially when two particles are somehow "entangled" such that when the state of one particle changes the other particle it is paired with also changes in state. There is no visible connection between the two, no force that this effect can be attributed to, they can even be great distances apart, and the two particles still simultaneously switch states. Would it be logical to assume that this is occurring because of faith or god? No, currently there's no evidence for that, but science has seen all sorts of examples of forces that we did not, at one point or another, understand--and none of them were conscious entities of metaphysical importance.
Science is comfortable with not knowing because it doesn't have to be an entity that has all the answers; it's a process for finding them, but there are some questions it will never resolve. I personally think it's folly to try and understand the origin of the universe by empiricism; we're so far separated by whatever genesis reality had, that I don't think it's something that anything so fact-based will ever understand. Even if you accept the big bang, there was a singularity of infinite mass and energy at the beginning, and something had to be responsible for its genesis (unless it has no beginning or end, but that's a religious concept in and of itself I think).
As for the purpose of discussion, I think we all learn things by having it. I've certainly refined my views over the discussions we've had. I'd like to think I'm a bit less critical towards religion than I've been in the past. Every time I have a reasonable, civil conversation with someone who I disagree with that has a point, my views moderate themselves. Civil discourse is the key to the elimination of extremism, I think.
Anyway, I was simply trying to voice my frustration. Veks and Jude just pretty much proved my point by debating the Big Bang Theory. Two intellectuals don't agree on the same topic, so if you can't agree amongst yourselves, what gives any of you the right to wield the science stick and bash me with it and tell me how wrong I am?
Just for the record, Vekseid was right and I was wrong. I think he has a better understanding of the Big Bang Theory than I do by far. :(