The First Cause? Prime Mover Argument

[Hatshepsut]

The problem, however, for those that refuse to accept science's validity as the best source of knowledge is just how functional it is in the real world...

Only thing is, we are making attributive use of "the good" (in its superlative form) for science here, while rejecting the possibility of making such an attribution on objective grounds in another thread, "good and evil." Of course the functional value of science in explaining measurable natural phenomena is beyond dispute, as the various pills and potions forestalling my demise can attest. But can we conclude from this that science is the best way for getting at any kind of knowledge? My hackles rise at such an expansion of its purview. I'm not sure the origin, if any, of the cosmos is an observable event, which puts it outside science altogether.

The OP, however, must be careful to note that the existence of something which cannot be analyzed scientifically doesn't rescue the gods, who remain comfortably ensconced on their reed mats. We've admitted reason (logos), and an outgrowth which combines reason with observation and experiment (science), as ways of knowing. There is at least one other way of knowing, called faith. Lest I immediately fall beneath jackboots, I agree that faith ought never to be used as basis for involuntary impositions as so often it is. Yet rejected by modern positivism, it is making a comeback among the post-moderns.  

All arguments for rejecting science that I have seen lead to some form of solipsism.

Faith, directly accessible only within the self, nonetheless empowers community. While rejection of science might lead to solipsism, faith need not lead to rejection of science.