[naive]

Sorry, you don't believe in science?  Are Kepler's laws of planetary motion just gibberish?  The four laws of thermodynamics are just guesses?  Is Avogadro's number arbitrary and meaningless?  Is that stuff wrong?  What about 2+2=4?  What do you consider true?  What counts as proof for you?

When you say "You can no more prove that science is 'truth' than religion", do you mean that you think a guy walking on water, turning water into wine, spontaneously coming back to life 2 days after his death... is as true/provable as the gravitational attraction between two bodies being dependent on their masses, and the distance between them squared?

It is one thing to accept knowledge as useful and to use it to your own benefit, it is another to believe in absolute truths. Most great scientific discoveries come from the fringe of science that challenges the very nature of our understandings of existence.  Is it hard for you to accept that you require just as much faith to believe in science as a a southern baptist requires faith to believe in god?

Conclusion:
On one hand, scientific theories are testable and empirically evidenced by verified experiments, are reviewed by many scientists, and are able to be improved upon (or even discarded) in the face of new evidence.

On the other, there is no compelling rational reason for an individual to place their belief in an unevidenced and untestable religious claim. Moreover, one could simply put forward a similarly unknowable assertion (e.g. that invisible dragons and sentient tophats coexist in an alternate dimension), so how is a religious contention any more likely?

Objective truth is irrespective of goodness or badness; the goodness or badness of a statement is not relevant to the actual truth of it.

Science can be tested, and once faith is strong enough in those results it is accepted. All I am saying is that it's a shared system of faith. Unlike science, religion does not have the luxury of being easily tested, but it is very compelling (possibly rational) to believe that for thousands of years your ancestors have been telling the same stories for perhaps some truthful purpose seeing as there is no testable theories available to disprove this hypothesis.

There are potentially many compelling reasons for individuals to believe in things without enough evidence to prove their truth. Most good theoretical research scientists would fit into this description Science and religion are very very linked by the shared systems of faith and are most definitely not mutually exclusive concepts.

Goodness and badness have nothing to do with objective truth, but neither does out ability to observe it.

Is there a scientific stigma against faith that I am misunderstanding or something?