Comparing Science and Religion

What is it that makes the fundamentals of science and religion so incompatible with each other? Well to answer this I think we first need to know what science and religion are. Without diving into a dictionary or Wikipedia I would generalise science as being any process that follows the steps of the scientific method. The scientific method is simple: In its most basic form it comprises the steps of 1) determine a problem or question to be asked 2) Make an educated hypothesis as to the answer 3) test with experiments and observation 4) revise the hypothesis and retest if necessary 5) Conclude results in a legible and meaningful fashion for others to follow and repeat.

These steps are so simple that everyone does science everyday without realising it. For example: 1) What is the fastest way to work? 2) Hypothesis: taking the train 3) Test the time to work on the train 4) Train takes 1 hour, maybe the bus is faster- test the bus. Test all modes of transport. 5) Bicycle turns out to be fastest; tell your friends.

Okay, this is not exactly rocket science, but I believe it is science nontheless as it follows a logical path along the scientific method.
Religion on the other hand, in its basic form, is a belief system usually handed down from person to person with precise rules on how to live life or how to properly worship the chosen being or entity.
For one thing, as Socrates said in my very first post, this hardly stands up to the scrutiny of the scientific method. If religion were looked at through the scientific method it would come under the knife immediately. It doesn’t even pass Occam’s razor.

I know that religious people claim their religion as faith and often see science as the enemy to their path. However as I showed earlier, science in essence is the basis of every intelligent person’s everyday decision making process. What happens to the intelligent decision making when it comes to religion?

The main problem is the way it is transferred. One of the most important parts of the scientific method is the reporting of results so others can repeat it. This encourages a collaboration of minds which gives science its general path. If science begins to head in a questionable direction (which it will invariably do) there will be enough checks and balances from other scientists to disprove falsehoods, correct errors, and realign any misguided ideas. Basically science itself evolves through minute changes (some greater than others) by a myriad of scientists and their helpers testing and retesting hypotheses until general laws can be formed (and even then these can be thrown out).

To the religious this is the weakness of science. It can never know everything and is often wrong or unsure of itself. That is its nature. However this is where the strength of science and the weakness of religion lie. Science is open to scrutiny: in fact it welcomes it. Anyone, from any walk of life can contribute to the ideas that make up scientific understanding, and although they may not like it, scientists are always open to the idea of being wrong. Religion, however, never appreciates scrutiny. You will never find members of different religions discussing ideas, and using the evidence to discount parts of their own belief. Religion relies on written or verbal accounts passed down by ancestors, and is considered indisputable; any evidence to the contrary is disregarded out of hand with no sense of investigation. Religion never even entertains the idea of being wrong.

Herein lies the crux of the point: Science strives for truth by the evolution and selection of right from wrong over many generations. Religion just claims to be right.

Which one makes the most sense?