is science different from religion?

I've probably spoken to some of you about this in the past few months, but it has been working on my mind for quite a while. So here goes.

Is science really different from religion, seeing how the lay person uses either?

Primary premise for religion – thou shalt believe.

Primary premise for science – thou shalt empirical evidence.

Is this how we operate? For example, when we feel a fever coming on, we take a Crocin. I do, because that is what my dad gave me when i caught a fever. Because it has worked in the past. But does a crocin help EVERY single time we get a fever? It doesnt, but we still unfailingly take it. Isn't that a bit like religion? We pray – it may or may not work, but we trust every time that it will. If you find that behavior unscientific, observe your attitude towards doctors – a great majority of the time, doctor visits may not bring any relief , but we go to a doctor all the same – believing that he can cure us. See how it is belief that guides our behavior here, and not empirical evidence?

For the most part, science is accepted at the lay level as a set of belief systems.

This is even more interesting when you consider that the "scientifics" display the same ethnocentric attitudes as the religious do towards another – When someone questions science, he is met with ridicule and chastisement – just as someone who questions religious beliefs among its practitioners would be treated. This behavior is so strongly governed that we are often afraid to question anything that comes labelled as science.

Science does not necessarily provide easier to understand (or even seemingly logical) answers to some questions.

For example – one of these is a world view held by some indigenous people of papua new Guinea, the other is popularly accepted science.

1)The earth is a flat piece of rock covered by a blue bowl – the sun crawls up the inside of the blue bowl from east to west, and disappears under the wester rim in the evening. In the night, it travels across the outer surface of the bowl back towards east, so that it is ready for its inner surface travel next morning. The bowl however, is full of tiny perforations – therefore, in the night when the sun travels on the outer surface, you see the light filtering through as stars.

2)The earth is a ball that hangs in space. Space is a large emptiness. The earth is held in place by its attraction to the sun, which is another large ball , though of fiery gases, that stays hangs in space but stays put. The earth travels around the sun, of its own volition, guided by something called gravity – a type of attraction. This attraction dos not lead the earth to crash into the sun though, as it would seem likely. Only around and around the sun, endlessly.

Which seems more plausible? Why do you choose to believe in one and not the other? If you had no formal scientific or religious education ever, as a healthy thinking adult, which of these would sound more logical? And how much of your choice is guided by your own original thinking, and how much by faith?

Consider, further, that 'scientists” and “priests” have certain shared qualities;

1.Both have to undergo several years of intense education in their respective methods before they are pronounced fit for their label.
2.Both use language and terminology that is not straight-forward to the lay public
3.Both, either directly or indirectly, end up believing that a person who doesn't subscribe to their views are ignorant, dangerous or both.
4.While they are willing to accept what seem absurdities of enormous proportions in their own field, they tolerate no such thing in the other's field.

Let me make a final point with, say, the virus theory as example.

1.Do you believe that viruses cause illness? Why?
2.Have you seen a virus? How probable is it that everyone who believes in their existance has seen one?
3.Do you personally have methods to prove that viruses do exist and do cause illnesses?

Most of us have to resort to our unshakable faith in scientists / doctors - it boils down to trust, in the end.

Now consider this:

1.A person educated in his religion believes that illness is caused by evil spirits / evil eye.

2.He hasn't seen a spirit himself, but is convinced there are other people who have. (his shaman / medicine man / amman koil poosari, for example).

3. He has seen exorcism give relief to others, maybe even to himself, and takes his witch doctor's claims as bonafide.

His world view here boils down to his trust in his witch doctor's special skills / education.

How are we different from this person?

If you catch yourself saying that you know trustworthy scientists that personally know how viruses work, remember that millions of people believe that the pope speaks to god.

Most significantly, believers in science will tolerate anything but disbelief in science. Even questions like the ones raised here are often treated with alarm, and as a kind of blasphemy. as soon as they meet some one who is blatently unscientific, there is a zealous attempt at "conversion", "education" and "enlightening" that rivals any religious missionary. It is here, ironically, that the 'scientifics" resemble their enemies the most.

reactions please.