Science is very much based upon opinion and unproven hypothesis rather than actual fact.
I find it somewhat amusing that you would make a complaint of this nature, and then show preference to something that is
entirely based upon speculation and opinion with
zero in the way of fact - the very thing you seemingly have a problem with. That is hypocrisy of the highest order, no?
To help try and add weight to your statement you use an example, which is always a worthwhile thing to do, but the problem with your example can be seen in the following sentence: "Well, in the first half of the 20th century"
The thing with science is it progresses. It does not claim to know everything, and many things will change and adapt as time goes on. Religion does not. It sits in it's own filth, stagnating and slowly rotting.
I often use my bathtub analogy: Science will look at a bathtub full of water. One scientist will look at the bath and say it's clean. Then other scientists will come along and use all kind of instruments to measure it's cleanliness. These will be continual tests done by a vast range of scientists.
A religious man on the other hand will say the bathtub
is clean, and jump straight in it. As time goes on more and more religious people will just jump right in saying it's clean - without ever actually looking at it, studying it, or testing it. They will close their eyes, shout "faith" and dive into the filthy tub, without ever pausing to question.
I wont say science is perfect by any means, but religion cannot even claim to be in the same league. One will admit its mistakes and learn and progress from them, while the other claims there are no mistakes period, and can never progress merely by its own setup and original claims.
We simply don't know yet it is an article of "religious" faith in the Physics community and anyone who questions it - even with experimental evidence to back them up - is automatically shouted down without a hearing.
That's not an accurate depiction really. Maybe in your example from "the early half of the 20th century" it is, but see... science has progressed.
As for shifting the burden of proof. I can think of two points: first, there are always things we must take as an article of faith without question. These things are called Postulates and many of them are based upon the Religion we learned in youth - things like it is bad to murder people (is it really? If so, why?). For me, those things are the 10 commandments (which immediately tells me it is bad to murder). For a Muslim, those things would come from the Koran.
There is a vast difference between "having faith" that killing someone is bad and the having faith of an invisible, unwitnessable, untestable, only written about by knowledgless nitwits, sky being.
Second, Science works in exactly the way I have described. A scientist puts forth a theory and the reasons or evidence to support that theory. If no one challenges that theory, then it eventually becomes something like a Scientific Law.
Your sentence is misleading, and is either due to ignorance or a deliberate twisting of accuracy.
The theories are always challenged, to a massive degree. It is only when all challenges arrive at the same answer that things can progress - which certainly beats accepting the say-so of a 2000 year old shepherd. Further to which, science doesn't hide in the closet - it is fully testable. Want to test gravity? Throw an apple in the air. Have a problem with someones theory? You can happily use your own methods with which to debunk it - and if there is a way to debunk it, science will find it.
Religion says something is true because it says it's true, whereas science says something is true because everyone agrees to it being true - after having pulled it in each and every possible direction, after having dismantled it, analyzed it, and gone over it with a fine toothcomb until there simply is no question of its validity.
Our courts work the same way. I don't have to prove I'm innocent. Everything I say is considered, by the courts, to be true, until someone else proves it is false.
You don't have defence lawyers in your country? The prosecution makes the claims, your
defence lawyer, tries to "defend" you from the claims and show they are actually false.
I have taken this tact with the Bible since I have not been able to prove it false.
Ok now I have a quick experiment for you.. Take the same tact with the Enuma Elish and prove that false, take the same tact with the Mahabharata and prove that false, take the same tact with the Lord of the Rings and prove that false.
The inability to prove something as false does not instantly make it true. Unfortunately you seem to be taking the position that it does.
I do not have to prove God exists.
No you don't, but that sentence only survives due to the fact that you can't.
I accept the truth of the Bible until someone shows me it is false - especially since there is nothing better.
That really is quite shallow, and says more about who you are as a person than any other statement I've yet seen you make. Should I assume that the "especially since there is nothing better" statement means you've read everything else?
I will not accept aTheism since Something or Someone MUST have made/designed/created this place
Why? All the capital MUST's in the world, don't actually say anything. The only worthy statement you could give would be focused on the "why" someone MUST have made this place.
However, I doubt you'd be saying the same thing if you were standing on jupiter.
Here's a webpage worth reading which will hopefully highlight some things for you regarding this matter:
Here
and the absence of God is the opposite direction from what is staring me in the face each day.
Such as what? Pubic lice, bowel cancer, the disease that causes someone to never grow skin and spend their life wrapped up like a mummy in extreme agony 24/7? Perhaps you mean the mosquitos and flies that infect millions upon millions, killing poor little African kids on a daily basis, or the gazillion and other one things that kill as painfully as possible without discrimination, or consideration each and every single day of the week?
Or were you just thinking about flowers and other things that look pretty?
