The scientific method lacks two features that distinguish religions from other human activities: 1. A doctrine whose source is authority (usually but not alwa

The scientific method lacks two features that distinguish religions from other human activities: 1. A doctrine whose source is authority (usually but not always a deity) rather than observation and 2. Rituals based on that doctrine One might argue that the actual human practice of science sometimes involves the acceptance of authoritative doctrine (e.g. peer-reviewed papers) and associated rituals (e.g. conferences), but that is not quite true because the rituals are not based on the doctrine. Scientific conferences are not held because there is a peer-reviewed paper that says that they should be, they are held because empirically they help to advance the scientific process (or at least did in the past). Religious rituals exist entirely because of authoritative doctrine. There is no reason for (say) communion or baptism other than what is written in the Bible or proclaimed by the church. > science similarly includes a lot of areas where our predictions are not "extraordinarily accurate" Sure. Science isn't perfect. The view it provides us into the future isn't flawless, it's just vastly better than anything else humans have ever tried.