honorentheos wrote:The challenge is that no one - not the religionist, not the scientist - knows that they have something absolutely right rather than are merely fortunate in having certain effects occur after certain causes that they have misdiagnosed as far as the relationship is concerned. The benefit the scientist has over the religionist is that the culture surrounding science and the application of the scientific method reduces the probability of human bias but it doesn't provide unique access to objective reality like some people seem to imagine it does.
No argument here. It's a matter of degree, in my opinion. Science may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better basis on which to form a worldview than the wholly unfounded belief of religion.
honorentheos wrote:Skepticism. It's the only justifiable position.
The best way to proceed, as far as I can tell, would be based on established science (no good reason to be skeptical of gravity or evolution) with a dose of healthy skepticism toward emerging science (as in some branches of theoretical physics), a good grounding in math and logic (helps protect against endorsement of religious nonsense), some understanding of philosophy, and avoidance of religion as anything more than an aspect of history, a cultural pass time, or casual entertainment.