In the case of God, yes you do. In fact you write as though you won't accept anything less.
You're quite mistaken, and I challenge you to find where I said this. I don't need the whole completed puzzle to see the picture. But in terms of evidence for god, I don't even have a single piece.
You accept and believe evolution without the whole picture quite easily.
Neither you nor anyone have even come close to providing as much evidence for God as there is for evolution.
But what if I don't know that I am wrong? Same goes for you.
Hence, tentativity of belief. I don't go around saying the things I believe are absolutely and eternally right. All I say is, "the current evidence points to such and such a belief."
What's you take on things like ghosts, palm reading, horoscopes, fortune tellers etc. Are these all just things made up in our minds? Do you believe in any kind of 6th dimention? Unexplainable circumtances etc?
Not sure why you ask, but: Ghosts aren't real. Palm reading, horoscopes, etc. are well-understood con games (cold reading, etc). Yes, they're just made up in our minds. The mind is a tricky thing, especially under stress or when it expects to see something.
6th dimension? Don't know what you're talking about, exactly. I know that superstring physics posits the existence of an additional six spacial dimensions above our own, only they're compressed to singularities so they can't be observed. I'll believe that when I see it, myself.
In an incredibly large universe, there will always be things that defy certain explanation, usually because you can't go back and test the circumstances once you've developed a reasonable explanation. We can only speculate on unexplainable events in the past.
In answer to that question you said and I quote "I'm totally open to that idea. That's the nature of science: tentativity. Any findings of science are availiable to be rewritten in the light of new evidence."
What's your point with this? Have I ever claimed to have absolute knowledge? Have I ever claimed to need it?
My beliefs are tentative. I could be wrong. I likely will be (about something, anyway) when new evidence comes to light. But when that happens it just means I get more right.
(also - and you've been doing this for a couple posts - you're occasionally quoting other people's words as mine, and responding to them in posts to me. I'm more than happy to debate any propositions you care to - including other peoples - but it's a little impolite to quote other people's words without making it clear who's words they are.)
™ Version 4.2