Science is based on philosophy
The scientific method assumes certain philosophical premises such as skepticism (received "truth" should be questioned
: How do you know?), empiricism (nature is best understood by studying it), and falsifiability. Its success affirms the validity of these assumptions.
Science claims that proof is necessary
Does science claim anything other than its research output? My understanding is that science doesn't prove anything, but rather, identifies regularities in nature that allows one to predict future outcomes.
There may be idiots who claim that science is all that is needed for truth and knowledge.
Science in the broadest sense of the word - collecting data and drawing conclusions from it - is all we really have for determining what is true about our world. Notice that this description includes the activities of daily life, such as looking both ways before crossing the street, the hypothesis being that there may be dangerous traffic, the collected data being that the street is clear, and the scientific conclusion being that it is safe to cross, which will be followed by a test to confirm the results of the study.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Such questions are often posed as problems to be studied or resolved.
I've always thought of philosophy as thought about thought. Philosophy examines basic mental faculties such as a sense of what it true, what is right, what does reality entail, what are we experiencing when we have a sense of beauty or value, and the like.
because we take great pride in our ability to reason, we think that we can improve upon the work of our master teacher (conscience) so we create moral rules and laws that serve only to make the topic of morality a confused mess.
Isn't that what we should do? My conscience tells me that the highest good is a society where the most people have the most opportunity to pursue and hopefully find happiness as they envision it. Others seem to agree. How do we accomplish that? We suggest rules that facilitate that goal, and tweak them to have them better approximate it. Prohibition was such an effort, enacted in the best interest of society at large, but it had unintended and unforeseen consequences, and so it was reversed.
Likewise with our individual lives. We have moral impulses, and look for ways to render them. We want to be kind, but discover that a particular behavior is paradoxically counterproductive and produces an opposite result to that intended, so we tweak our private rules to produce outcomes that conform more with our heart;s desire.
usfan makes a lot better sense and arguments than you do. He is convincing, articulate, and much better spiritually acclimated to the truths of Christ than his Biblically-challenged detractors.
He is convincing nobody. Those that agree with him, which I believe is only you, already agreed with him before he began posting his opinions, which are a series of unsupported claims. "Spiritually acclimated" is a meaningless phrase. There is nothing spiritual about believing in spirits. It's simply the willingness to think uncritically, which is not a virtue.
I agree that science is limited to the physical realm; and that there is, in addition, a spiritual realm in which everything nonphysical resides (consciousness and its contents, reason, mathematics, emotions, thinking, intuition, God if there is one).
Traditionally, these are thought of as mind and matter, and four possible relationships between them have been proposed, none of which can be ruled in or out at this time, meaning that we have no basis upon which to choose one.
The four logical possibilities for the most fundamental aspect of nature from which all other manifestations derive are materialism, idealism, neutral monism, and dualism. These suggest that mind is an epiphenomenon of matter, matter of mind, both od some more fundamental substance, and that they are radically different and unrelated things as Descartes suggested.
Matter is a derivative of energy, and energy may be derivative of something more fundamental, the way that space and time are actually derivative of a prior "substance." space-time, or electricity and magnetism from the electromagnetic force. Neutral monism proposes that mind and material substance both derive from a prior substance that is both and neither.
We have no way to rule any of these four possibilities in or out at this time, and there is no need to choose one, so agnosticism is the reasonable position. We don't know what aspect of reality is most fundamental. We do not know that there is a spiritual realm. Nor is such a term clearly defined.
This is basic philosophy, which a few here have condemned as useless. I find it useful. I find this kind of thinking clarifying.