Quote:
Arryn said:
... let's pretend that religion is the prosecution side in a court of law. It's the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The only obligation the defense has (we can call it 'science' if you wish) is to point out to the jury (aka the public) whether the prosecution has made its case or not...
|
So why is religion the prosecution while science is the defense (rather than the other way around)? =)
[devil's advocate mode]
I know, I know....you're about to cite this as another example of attacking the attacker, but that's really not my point here. I'm not trying to prove or justify religion. I'm just saying that in a debate between science and religion (both of which as they've been used so far in this topic are VERY generalized and amorphous), science cannot be taken for face value either. Within "science", things are constantly being updated, discovered, and changed. Theories abound and things thought to be fact are constantly overturned as more is learned.
I agree with you on one point. "Religion" cannot prove itself. I cannot argue that statement. But, as you so vehemently point that out, keep in mind that science in general has trouble proving itself, too. Especially in terms of universal origins. There are theories and conjecture, some with supporting evidence, but nothing proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Yes, religion fails the proof test. But you're seeming to infer that science would stand up better under the same litmus test. But if you step back objectively, just the same way religion is, science is defined and "proven" by itself. Scientific fact, rather than being universal truth, seems to be more of a sense of "this is what fits our knowledge at this time". Constantly changing, filled with exceptions and anomalies, is it any less of a fallacy to put all of our trust in science? So in this case, I think the attacking the attacker shoe fits on both feet. =)
[/devil's advocate mode]
~Dae