science is a religion

I thank vi_spex for the opportunity to debate this topic. Since there are no regulations on rounds, and it appears that my opponent has made some kind of opening argument, I will therefore use this opening round to make arguments. Keep in mind that despite me making arguments, the burden of proof is on Pro to affirm the resolution, since he is the one making a positive claim. Negation Case P1: What science is The scientific method (i.e. science) “is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe” [1]. In science, there is potential to amend and build upon existing knowledge via tests. P2: What religion is A religion “is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence” [2]. Often, within this collection of beliefs, religions will have moral doctrines, religious figures (e.g. holy people) and many other features which cannot be found in science. A1: The ability to change Science reserves the right to change its narrative. Through tests, experiments and studies, science may alter or add to existing knowledge. This does not happen within religion. Once the religious doctrines/knowledge have been finalised, the doctrines/knowledge will not be changed. For example, the religion of Islam has “The Quran [as] the holy book which Muslims recite and turn to for guidance in all aspects of their lives. Its verses have remained intact since their original revelation by God in the 7th century” [3]. The ability to change the narrative is a key difference between religion and science, resulting in non-equivalence. A2: Is versus ought Science is solely focused on what is: science is descriptive. For example, the Big Bang Theory is an explanation of how the universe came to be. Religion is sometimes focused on the descriptive, but will become focused on the prescriptive in other areas, the latter of which science does not do. This manifests in things like morals. For example, Catholic Moral Theology specifies “how one is to act” in regards to “medical ethics, sexual ethics” etc [4]. The solely descriptive nature of science is not the same as the sometimes prescriptive nature of religion, hence another point in which there is no equivalence. Counter-Arguments “religion=to rely on, while self is one” In a sense, religion is something “to rely on”, as I have shown, as it does not change and offers prescriptive advice on how to live life. For these reasons, religion is not science, as shown above. “belief=be lie, as i dont know is true theism=belief” Do you mean “belie”: to give false representation? “Be lie” does not make sense, otherwise. Or perhaps you meant “be a lie”. If we consider either of these possibilities (not that there are not others), you have said belief involves not knowing what is true, and then you have continued to equate theism with what you do not know as true. As shown in my first argument, religion, in fact, involves knowing what is true, hence the inability for the scriptures/knowledge of the religion to change (and so the presumption is that the scriptures/knowledge are correct). It would be a contradiction to commit to a certain religion, yet think that the scriptures are lies or false representations. “atheism=(dis)belief agnostic=Non belief” I do not think these are all that relevant to the debate. If Pro could please explain why they are, then I will respond. References [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.whyislam.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...