It's dogma that "Science has/can arrive at" all of the answers.
   This does *not* automatically imply the grandpa of Science,
   religion, is the alternative. It's ALSO not implying that
   Science is wrong. It's good at what it's good at. It's not good
   at everything. == You are attempting to analyze your own system
   utilizing the same methodology that's contained within the very
   same system. Can't be done. Snake eating its tail   = Pragmatic:
   I trust this bridge is sound based upon known evidence. Faith: I
   walk across this bridge blindly because I believe this bridge is
   sound. One piece of evidence that's unknown: an unseen tripwire
   across the bridge, will knock you off. Putting full exclusionary
   faith in science with eyes closed is as dangerous as any other
   blind faith. = Indeed. I blame the University system, as started
   by the Scholastics in medieval times, partitioning knowledge
   into exclusive, defined domains. It's USEFUL but then at some
   point, they have to be brought back together again. == The
   trouble isn't scientists or practitioners of science. At issue
   is the fans of science who are religious about it. ==