> Except science isn't based on lies and deception, doesn't ignore self contradictions and false beliefs, is evidence based, is falsifiable, changes when new fa

> Except science isn't based on lies and deception, doesn't ignore self contradictions and false beliefs, is evidence based, is falsifiable, changes when new facts come in, and corrects mistakes when they're found. ...At its best. That's not uniform across different fields; "social sciences" such as psychology are inherently a lot less rigorous than, say, chemistry. Also, there have been a few recent HN headlines about prestigious researchers withdrawing publications due to accusations of fraud. Let's not get into confirmation bias, tribalism, and whatnot, OK? > But if you're into religion, then logical consistency and truth seeking isn't your thing anyway It depends. Some claims based on religious beliefs are falsiable and happen to be scientifically dubious. However, many things are more philosophical in nature and aren't examinable by science. It seems there's pretty good evidence that Jesus died and resurrected, if only because the Roman soldiers probably wouldn't obscure details that would damage the credibility of Jesus' religion. Does this mean God exists and is as is described in the Bible? No, not necessarily. But you'd do well to consider that "science" isn't the end-all be-all answer to the universe. "Science", as we often deviate significantly from the spirit of scientific inquiry, which still isn't the key to omniscience.