Scientific fact vrs. religious faith?
Despite the often toxic form of many of these religious conversations, I have learned a few important things, particularly from the atheists who post here. For one thing, they despise the same sort of fundamentalist religion that I despise. Beyond that, they have lured me to take science much more seriously. I have long held that science is not the enemy of religion, science is the enemy of ignorance. No intelligent person, religious or non-religious can afford not to take science seriously.
But insofar as science is simply a collection of unalterable facts, no intelligent scientist would be caught dead trying to affirm that one. The other day in a conversation with a sub-atomic physicist, he suggested that the scientific community is always involved in convictions of things not provable--that's called faith. Right now, he tells me, the debate between Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics is raging. Both cannot be right. Advocates of both claim factual knowledge, but are really talking about faithful conclusions based on unprovable faith claims.
It has always been so when science is at its best. Cosmologists were certain that Ptolemy was right. And then they were certain Copernicus was right. Later they were sure that Newton was right and that the universe is a collection of parts. Along come a new generation of scientists convinced that the universe is one giant interconnected cosmic web and the Newtonians had it wrong. It is now clear to the best scientific minds that no one can assume to know incontrovertible facts, and that every observation of a natural phenomenon is conditioned by the agent that observes it. Is is a wave, or is it a particle? And much more.
Any religionist who says, "I have the facts," is in serious trouble. We in the religious world rely on trust without knowing for certain--as Paul says, "we see in a very dim mirror." All good scientists are in the same boat. Those on either side who won't admit it are subjects of ridicule. In science and in religion, a good supply of humility is a necessary virtue.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Maybe I'm reading a different post than you. 
for scientists who side with a particular theory, although there is the element of believing in a particular point of view based on a hunch, or some aesthetic aspect of the theory.
In practice, people who spend a lot of time in a particular area get attached to theories (schools of thought, etc) because they have a lot of time invested in it, and possibly are part of a group getting funding to work in that direction. There is also a wee bit of ego involved 
.
Scientists also have a remarkable ability to ignore or casually brush aside weaknesses in what they are working on.
So there are some similarities with religion.
I am not criticizing the way research is done, because the sometimes irrational and unjustifiable support for a particular theory is needed to make sure the best answers are found in the end.
I don't know where your friend gets this idea. If it's true, it apparently has not percolated up into science reportage. In fact, the standard model, the quantum field theory that explains three of the four known universal forces, is consistent with both relativity and quantum theories. Of course, one could argue that general relativity, the current theory of gravity is not a quantum theory and therefore is somehow inconsistent with the latter.
Yet, I don't think any responsible theoretical physicist would describe this situation as an either/or problem. For instance, we know that general relativity breaks down within a black hole, and generally in any domain where quantum effects dominate.
The inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum field theory are because general relativity is a classical -- i.e., non-quantum -- theory. Few scientists would doubt that there should be a quantum form of gravitational theory. Such a theory is extremely difficult to find because of the scale of the forces. Gravitation is so profoundly weak when compared to the other forces that it is very difficult to merge them. Attempts to do so result in all sorts of mathematical inconsistencies.
But nobody really thinks that relativity and quantum are something like two different ways of looking at nature. The universe appears to be a place where both quantum and relativity effects exist.
At least that's the way many scientists see it, AFAIK.
Thanks for your post.
on edit: I also disagree with your characterization of science as a collection of facts. That is just not true. Science is a methodology. The facts are the data the methodology gathers. The theories are explanations of the data. (Putting it simply.)
