[Michael Chui]

Ouch. I really did do badly.

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

1) Science is the body of knowledge that points to increased repeatability.

No. The important bit about science is that it's an association of repeatability and predictability with the truth of causation. Science seeks an answer to the question of, "What causes this to happen?" by isolating possibilities.

Science is a method for determining truth.

Science is, in and of itself, an assumption. That it is possible at all is a matter of faith: a self-evident proposition. Some persons argue that God and/or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is "right there, changing the results" as scientists do carbon dating and such. That this does not happen is an article of faith: we assume by faith that external and invisible powers, professed and believed in by other persons, do not affect the empirical results of the tests we perform.

The specific bit about changing results is, "But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage." (source)

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

2) Logic is the process by which we can judge the value of truth in a line of reasoning (but truth can be broken further into assumption)

Close. Logic is the process of "If truth, then truth; if false, dunno."

The truth isn't in a line of reasoning: the truth is in two places: at the beginning of the reasoning, and at the end. By agreement in the beginning, and by agreement that the line of reasoning is not fallacious (illogical), then we necessarily agree that the conclusion is true.

If I assume God, then I can draw conclusions from this. However, someone who doesn't assume God will have grounds to disagree with my conclusions.

But the initial assumption of God is, in and of itself, just that. An assumption.

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

3) Faith is a self-evident proposition like science and logic.

Mostly correct. Faith is not a self-evident proposition. Faith is a synonym for "self-evident proposition". Faith is a belief without basis, unproven, unfounded, unarguable, but assumed to be true. That is the same as a self-evident proposition, which is a statement assumed to be true without proof or evidence beyond, "Well, duh!" which isn't evidence at all. "God exists" is such a statement: it is either true or false, but you cannot prove it under common definitions of God.

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

Everything we know ultimately comes down to assumptions. Science, logic, and faith are self-evident propositions that derive from assumptions.

Good enough, but this shows me you don't understand.

Self-evident propositions cannot be derived. A proposition is either self-evident or derived. It is not both. There is a fuzziness here: a proposition may be self-evident to one person and derived to another. The distinction typically lies in whether or not the person has questioned their assumption.

I can say, "The sky is blue," and assume it to be true. But someone can tell me, "What you think of as the sky is incorrect, and what you think of as 'blue' is incorrect. In fact, the sky is green." In this case, he is making plain that the self-evident proposition was, in fact, derived from other assumptions: namely what the sky and blue are.

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

I would go further than just saying all three are highly intertwined. In fact, based on your writing, I would go so far as to say the jump from assumption to truth can be described as faith.

No, they're intertwined like so:

Assumption (matter of faith): Logic works.
Assumption (matter of faith): Science is valid.

Alternatively, "Causation is meaningful." Alternatively, "Logical constructions yield truth from truth."

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

This description serves to do exactly that, describe. Nothing else. It is certainly a sound description of what happens. But in terms of giving value and judgment, it is useless. Thus, I think making any beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God from this description provides no value.

Of course. Where did I even begin to suggest that you "make beliefs" about anything from this? The point of the Smoke and Mirrors essay was to point out to people how you make beliefs, and thus make it possible for them to have an avenue towards constructing them without relying on authority figures.

It is, in a sense, the Protestant revolution. The Bible is free for everyone to read: not just the clergy.

Is it really so hard to believe that a person would describe without ascribing value or judgment? That they may state facts without demanding that you believe as they do? Please tell me you're not that cynical; there are good people in the world: I like to think I'm among them.