Actually, you and I agree on this point. AFAIC, the word "supernatural" has no meaning. If there is a God, then it would be natural. But at this time we have no way to address or test the claims of a deity.
The term supernatural certainly has meaning; it is simply something above nature, or for our intent, above scientific inquiry. It is certainly possible that there are entities above the scope of science or above the natural world. Anything other would almost constitute as scientism. If the Abrahamic deity exists, then it would certainly be supernatural.
We certainly have ways to address and test some claims of the features of certain deities, such as special creation, age of Earth and so on.
I am saying that you can choose science as a religion, or not. Do you only believe what your mother tells you when she offers scientific proof [for example], or do you make leaps of faith every day?
I think this is a somewhat fussy statement. An operational definition of religion could be "a social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought. (Dennett 2006), even though this is not set in stone. Science would not qualify as a religion.
Another operational cluster definition of religion is worship of the supernatural, sacred versus profane places, times and events, rituals dealing with these, forms of spiritual communication etc. I do not see how science fulfills these, even 'sort of'. You might be confusing religion with strong evidence-based trust?
One point that I suspect is lost on many here is that people do have reasons for their beliefs. People don't believe just because someone said so. They couple the history of religion with their own experiences and feelings. People go to church and pray because they feel that when they do, they can sense the presence of God. For them, this is evidence.
Be so that it may, not all possible deities can be true; some 4 billion people on Earth would therefore have a delusion no matter how you put it.
We do take gravity on faith. Theories can only be falsified; they cannot be proven true.
No, you take gravity on evidence. Tons and tons of mutually supporting evidence that you experience every day. You be convicted of the reality of gravity, but you certainly do not accept it without evidence.
No one is claiming that science can prove something beyond truth, but it is all about the evidence. The evidence makes a certain position reasonable and others less reasonable. Just because you cannot prove something to be true does not make it any less approximately correct in its explanatory and prediction power.
If God exists, his existence does not depend on faith.
Be so that it may, if it can be shown that religion is a natural construction, any attempts at inference or justification via religion becomes less convincing.
I should add that gravity doesn't exist [well, not the classic idea]. There is spacetime curvature...that is if spacetime exists. One day we may have have a more sophisticated description of whatever it is.
Indeed, GTR makes more accurate predictions than NM, but according to instrumentalism, all that matters is its explanatory and prediction power. That is why we still make use of Newtonian Mechanics today. To my knowledge, the first shuttle that landed on the moon made use of NM, exclusively.
What bothers people here is the idea that we are not logically bound as humans to accept only scientific evidence. But, if you think about it, you will certainly conclude that it's not even possible to live this way. We have to make judgements about what we choose to believe every day.
Not quite - your brain makes constant updates on your life and future based on the available evidence - even if you do not consciously think of it.
Russell has faith in his defintion.
Faith as in conviction; not faith as in blind acceptance without evidence. This is a crucial semantic difference.
When science runs into problems (e.g. incompatability of GR and QFT), do you even consider the possibility that science itself is the flawed idea? Or do you retain an unwavering faith in science itself, and insist that a new scientific theory will be discovered that doesn't have the known problems?
[...]
I never said you treated any particular scientific theory or law was sacrosanct. I'm saying you treat science itself as sacrosanct.
The left hand flow chart indeed has no end -- which means there is no provision for the possibility that science itself is flawed. When contradictory evidence appears, you blissfully go back to your "Get an idea" box on the left hand flow chart -- that is the means by which you "keep idea forever".
No faith in science is needed, since methodological naturalism has demonstrated its enormous potency as well as the knowledge gained by it. We can certainly treat science as enormously powerful because of its demonstrated success; the same cannot be said for various types of religion or general supernaturalism.
Discussions on whether the methods of science is valid or not is certainly a big part of science / philosophy of science and is treated with the same approach as scientific theories are. If some part of the philosophy of science is demonstrated to be false or less good as an approximation (such as logical positivism or verficationism), it will be replaced.
You said that you don't even consider the possibility that science is flawed. That's not the same thing as simply going along with science because you think it's better than the alternatives.
We do not need to consider science flawed because of the enormous power of scientific methodology and the massive amount of knowledge gained by it. That is a large plateau to stand on. Naturally, as time goes on new methods, ideas and results will appear; if they are shown to be successful, they will simply incorporate them into science and proceed.
Methodological naturalism has put forward a general challenge to any types of supernaturalism. Today, thousands of years later, none have successfully stepped up to the plate. MN is waiting.
Question: do you examine other methodologies to see if they are better? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Even though this was not directed at me, I will give my thoughts on it.
I think that there are at least 3 questions any form of supernaturalism must address before trying to call the shots:
i. methodology (by what methods are knowledge reached?)
ii. epistemology (what separates, say, a valid revelation from a false and why?)
iii. evidence (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence)
Methodological naturalism has two major things going for it; its power and the massive amount of verifiable knowledge that it has discovered. Methodological naturalism have well-defined methodology, epistemology and ideas of evidence.
Naturally, I am always open for attempts to answer these fundamental questions.
), if a duck or a dog invents their brand of science based on their own logical system or simply, let them define what is rational thinking, wouldn't it make human's version of science or logical/rational thinking any more/less important? 
