It’s time to put an end to science’s demands for proof from religion/faith.
For a start, the very criteria by which science accepts proof: repeatability, independent verification, etc would, if met, remove any religious matter from the area of religion and place it squarely in the province of science. Any scientific proof, or attempted proof, would ‘ipso facto’ place the matter in the arena of science. So the demand for scientific proof amounts to no more than a covert assertion that science is the arbiter of all things. It would be confirmation that science cannot ‘accept’ anything beyond its own realm.
For example, should experiments concerning the efficacy of prayer ever meet the scientific requirements for proof, science could then claim that prayer was a ‘natural’ phenomenon. Scientists would/should then seek to find the ‘active ingredient’ in prayer; some particular brain wave pattern perhaps, as a part of normal scientific endeavour. Science could pursue the whole area in an attempt to use prayer for ‘useful’ ends.
I wonder how science would respond if it were asked to justify itself in religious/faith terms? It would see that as a ridiculous notion. Perhaps, rightly, because science is simply not equipped to operate in those terms but, more likely, because it just cannot (by definition?) acknowledge anything outside of science.
Let us not confuse ourselves by thinking that either science or religion can place demands on the other. However, that does not prevent individuals from understanding where each belongs.