Provisional nature of knowledge (dogma, religion, science)

[stephenw]

It is often asserted that one of the strengths of the scientific approach is the provisional nature of the understandings that it generates. I accept this.
I often see it held up as something that science 'has' over religious approaches. I do not accept this. I am a 'believer' who acknowledges that my understanding is provisional. Most other 'believers' I meet seem to be on a journey of discovery that renders their understandings provisional. Of course there are many dogmatics in religion. There are many in science too.
I cannot see the clear line between the two that is often pointed out in debate. Am I missing something?

[mball1297]

The line between the two what?

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by mball1297

The line between the two what?

Between scienctific and religious approaches.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by stephenw

Between scienctific and religious approaches.

Ah, well, I think the line is drawn between using the senses and not using them, the five physical senses that is.

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Ah, well, I think the line is drawn between using the senses and not using them, the five physical senses that is.

Quantum physics is religion?

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by stephenw

Quantum physics is religion?

I don't really know anything about quantum physics.

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by mball1297

I don't really know anything about quantum physics.

Nor I, but it doesn't involve the five senses. Does that make it not science but religion in your view?

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by stephenw

Between scienctific and religious approaches.

Science uses testable hypothesis, religion doesn't.