Re: Try that with mythology (aka Religion)
Wrong analogy - faith isn't within the domain of science and there are many scientists who have faith and for whom faith was encountered and confirmed by entirely reasonable means. These areas are concerned with different questions and have different methods of evaluating evidence.
Science is concerned with statements by witnesses which are reproducible. The law, like history and faith, doesn't follow that standard and neither can nor should. These areas are concerned with statements by witnesses which tend not to be reproducible. Few witnesses of the Kennedy assassination are still alive and this case is still disputed. We almost all reasonably believe JFK existed and was assassinated and we'd think anyone who disagreed with either point to be either fully ignorant or fully unreasonable, but who was behind this assassination is still disputed. If you sit on the jury in a court of law deciding whether someone is innocent or guilty, you have to make your mind up about the reliability of the witnesses, and either the defendant gets to suffer the consequences if you find him or her guilty or the claimed victims see the defendant go free. You don't get to visit the scene of the crime yourself in person at the time it allegedly happened, because history can't be reproduced in that way, but you have to decide what happened anyway.
When you carefully evaluate statements made by those who led faith movements or were witnesses to their origins (as opposed to dismissing these with prejudice), you also decide for yourself the reliability of the witnesses, and you get to benefit from or suffer the consequences. Sometimes this may not matter, but when someone tells you the building you are inside is on fire it might.
Witnesses to faith are not restricted to those who lived thousands of years ago. If you have ever personally had an encounter with someone then you will either believe them to exist or believe your memory deluded. You may be unable to pull them out of a hat to satisfy those whose prejudice demands reproducible as opposed to legal or historical standards of proof. I'm satisfied with the personal qualities and reliability of the long standing witnesses to my faith. But in my case it took a personal encounter before I chose to go beyond the prejudice which had blocked my impartial and honest evaluation of the key witness statements. Better for those who believe without first having to encounter for themselves.