The idea I am trying to get across is that there is a methodology to religious belief, to scientific, and to judicial systems.
The methodology of the modern judicial system is to examine the scene of the crime, to gather physical evidence, to create a hypothesis of what occurred, and to determine the primary actors. The incident is then brought to trial where the physical evidence is evaluated, the primary actors testify as to their interpretation of events, testimony of principal actors are elicited, competing hypothesis of reality including potential motives are evaluated, then a verdict is rendered.
In trials by jury, one is supposed to be judged by their peers. Such peers are supposed to be free of prejudicial bias and be able to understand the communicated testimony to be able to render a just verdict.
In the methodology of modern science, one examines the observed phenomena, gathers physical evidence, creates a hypothesis which explains what has occured/is occuring, compares such a hypothesis to primary authorities in the field (literature review, which usually happens at an earlier stage). Then the hypothesis, physical evidence, supporting observations, and documentation are submitted for publication before a board/jury of peers who are supposed to be free of prejudicial bias and be expert enough in the given field of inquiry to be able to render a verdict resembling truth. The hypothesis is then subject to continuous testing in order to replicate results and/or falsify the theory.
Do you see the similarity between modern judicial procedures and modern scientific procedures? The largest difference appears to me that court judgements may be appealed a discrete number of times while scientific theories are subject to continuous examination and judgment.
As to the methodology of modern religious belief systems, there is a lot of varience, however for purposes of this argument, I would like to focus on the fundamentalist viewpoint of textural literalism and inerrency as opposed to less fundamentalist systems.
As best I can tell, the methodology of the fundamentalist religious belief system means taking a given text as literal and inerrent. All examination of phenomena must fit the text, any hypothesis concerning phenomena contrary to the text is discarded. All physical evidence is subordinate to the text, therefore any physical evidence that may contradict the inerrent text is discarded or interpreted as supporting the text regardless of how much convolution of interpretation is required. There are no peers, no evaluation, no discussion, only assertion based upon the literal reading of the inerrent text. The judgment of reality is thus rendered.
Do you see the difference between modern judicial and scientific methodology and fundamentalist religious methodology?
I have served in juries twice, the first time was a combined DWI, reckless driving, open container trial. In the trial, the arresting officer testified the driver was speeding down the interstate, lost control, and then skidded off the asphalt and through a pasture for hundreds of feet. Upon exiting the vehicle the defendent was disoriented. The defendant testified he was not drunk. No physical evidence was shown, it was the officer's word against the defendant.
When we deliberated, four said not guilty because the officer failed to provide results from a breathilyzer or blood test common in such incidents, therefore it was simply the matter of one person's word against another, and therefore under the ideal of presumed innocent until proven guilty the defendant was not guilty of DWI. The argument swayed the fifth juror within five minutes but the sixth held out for conviction. Her argument was that she hated people who drove under the influence, therefore anyone accused of such a crime was guilty because to do less was to support such behavior. It took several hours for the five of us to convince the sixth that accusation does not equal proof, that the officer could have easily administered tests to provide colobarating evidence, and therefore it was a matter of one person's word against another. The verdict was innocent of DWI and open container but guilty of reckless driving.
Months later I met the officer at the local bar, and apologised for not being able to render a verdict in his favor but that it could not be done without colloborating evidence because of the presumed innocent clause. He replied that we should have ruled in his favor as he was a policeman and the defendent was not, therefore his testimony was true and defendants was false.
Under a fundamentalist judicial system, would the presumption of innocence disappear? Would the testimony of an authority figure be more trustworthy than that of an ordinary citizen? Would the verdict be known before the trial began, the purpose of the trial being solely to bring forth testimony and evidence to support the predetermined verdict?
This is the way the justice system works in many nations outside of the USA, now and in the past. Authority figures are always right, verdicts are predetermined, showcase trials are used to bolster the case of the state not to aid the accused, and the presumption is one of guilt, not innocence.
Some fundamentalists appear unwilling to compatementalize their faith-based system of literalism and inerrency and argue that science should change its methodology to fit fundamentalist methodology. Since they obviously are against the methodology of science, are they not also against the very similar methodology of the modern justice system?
™ Version 4.2