Quote:
Originally Posted by This_person  They both (science and religion) take observable data and extrapolate to explain. They both take the origins of life and the universe with the same amount of proof. Thus, the theories are equals. |
What observable data do you see religions using? Religions don't theorize. They don't revise their claims based on new evidence. Instead, they claim to possess certain knowledge, and many of them brand skepticism of their claims as blasphemous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by This_person That bounds the rest of humanity in no way whatsoever. |
While that's technically correct, the fact remains that the religions believe that the rest of humanity is so bound, and they've often gone to war with each other over such notions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by This_person And, that burden is no more nor less on the people who put their faith in science. |
Science is about skepticism, which is the opposite of faith. When looking at any theory, if new evidence showed that the theory to be false, science would drop the theory in a second. The same applies to the scientific method itself. That method has lasted because it has given more useful results than any scripture or any religion's claims. If it ceased to do so, the entire method would almost certainly be discarded in favor of another one more useful. If science was really based on nothing more than personal convictions, it's likely we would have never advanced beyond the Stone Age.
Obviously, no scientific theory about the origin of the universe can be proven. It doesn't need to be because it's not presented as fact, whereas religions do present their claims as fact. That's the key difference - religions present false certainty while science presents true uncertainty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by This_person (well, as described above, there's some scientific verification of Biblical stories, but that's not really proof for anybody, is it?). |
I couldn't find the post in question. Which one was it?