naive Wrote:Yes, it is all about faith in logic and in observation. Both can be wrong. You can no more prove that science is 'truth' than religion, although I would say it is much more useful. I would say that religion could also be described as science. Both are attempts at achieving greater understanding of 'truth', and require faith of accepted evidence. Scientists accept reproducible experiments, religeous folk accept ancestral stories. It's the same fucking thing with different sources.

Sorry, you don't believe in science?  Are Kepler's laws of planetary motion just gibberish?  The four laws of thermodynamics are just guesses?  Is Avogadro's number arbitrary and meaningless?  Is that stuff wrong?  What about 2+2=4?  What do you consider true?  What counts as proof for you?

When you say "You can no more prove that science is 'truth' than religion", do you mean that you think a guy walking on water, turning water into wine, spontaneously coming back to life 2 days after his death... is as true/provable as the gravitational attraction between two bodies being dependent on their masses, and the distance between them squared?