That's right. In fact science is a new word, less than a couple of centuries old, in real terms, it was always known before that as 'Natural Philosophy'. Science is just a more rigourous philosophy with stronger working methods, which can be used in some areas. Good philosophy respects the findings of science therefore, and good science does not break out of the rules of logic established by philosophy.

@Fernapple philosophy was described as the parent of science when I was at university. Seperate areas of focus within philosophy get "hived off" to form the individual sciences of chemistry, physics, maths, psychology, sociology etc but historically they start off as philosophical interests.

This is very good, but I have problems with your fourth and sixth points. As to your fourth point, who is an accepted authority, and by whom? Is the Pope an accepted authority? The Dalai Lama? Richard Dawkins? You will not find anyone who is a universally accepted authority, I fear.

And on your sixth point: you say I must use faith. Must I, indeed? And what is the nature of the failure that leads to this conclusion? And how exactly do you 'use' faith, anyway?

I agree, pretty much, with the rest of your comments.

@Coffeo Good points. On the fourth, accepted authority, is of course a well known fallacy, but then it is well down the list, next to ad populum ( Can be fallacy.) of which it is a sub-set. Because 'accepted' is itself, proof by democracy. Yet with the extra point that, though accepted authority is only proved mainly by ad populum, it has the further filtre that you may use your own previous experience with each authority as well, to evaluate its quality, so that it is just that little better, than popular judgement alone would make it.

Since you, unfortunately, do not have a choice but to use accepted authority, because it simply would not be possible for any single individual to prove every single thing by performing an experiment, and/or collecting your own data. When I use a set-square to mark out a piece of wood in intend to cut, I accept the authority of the tool maker that it will give me a right angle, though I could test it. Neither did I take my new car to pieces, and measure all the parts, since I accept the authority of the car makers, and the national standards agency that any new car sold will be safe. Foolish perhaps, but if I checked everything, it would soon use up so much time, that I should starve. ( Also accept the authority of the food makers, and government, that the foodstuffs are not poisons. Though that at least, is questionable, as history proves. )

On the sixth, it is important to note my, "keep this to a minimum," statement and the fact that I have never in practice needed to go that far down the list, for anything important or debatable. Yet, I do take it on faith that, my senses provide a 'nearly' accurate model of the world, that I am not insane, not seeing visions, and that the basic rules of logic really do work. Which is what I mean by nothing debatable, since I do not know of any of any other set of senses that I may have in another world, or any other rules of logic. And nothing important, since if I am insane, then no one has offered to introduce me to sanity and until they do, then any alternate sanity has no meaning for me.

@Fernapple Thank you for the clarifications.

Yes, I suppose my quibble was with the word 'accepted'. If a mechanic tells me that my car needs new plugs, then it is up to me whether or not I accept his authority. He does not have to be 'accepted' in any broader sense.

And yes, I do think that my senses provide a nearly accurate model of the world (etc.), but it would never have occurred to me that this is an act of faith. To me it seems more along the lines of 'it seems to work; I'll go with it'.

@Coffeo I perhaps over qualify, but you have to be wary, especially if debating with theists. Since they will regard any evidence they can come up with, that you use faith in however small and periferal a way, as a way to score what is to them a major victory, and a clear proof that all sceptical views are invalid.

@Fernapple I suppose so. The only theist I ever debated with was my mother.

@Coffeo You have been lucky then. But it can be fun.

@Fernapple I might try it if I encounter any theists willing to discuss it. But I actually think I would find it unbelievably frustrating, so I'm not going looking for any. Also, I can't point out all the contradictions in the bible because I haven't opened one since I was bored out of my mind by it as a youngster.

True, religion isn’t a method. Reading religious books is a mothod. Dreaming is method. Believing a relious authority is a method. Catholicism’s papal infallibility results in agreement among Catholics.

Agreed.

If you do religion, how do you acquire knowledge? If you get it wrong, do lighning bolts accompany it?

If you do science, how do you acquire knowledge? Ben Franklin brought lightning down and almost electrocuted himself.

If you do philosophy, how do you acquire knowledge?

Stephen Jay Gould said religion and science do not conflict. Did he or anyone say philosophy doesn’t conflict with those?

The "clarification" still does not make any sense.

@yvilletom

Religious people acquire knowledge through education and experience like everyone else.

Religious belief does not preclude learning.

@LiterateHiker It does not preclude it but it does often attempt to supress it.