Often we assume that science and religion are at odds with each other, one states that it is based on reason and logic while the other is said to be based on faith and hope. But we often do not see how similar they are in their false promises and claims.
Science is based on rational skepticism and empiricism, which causes it to question all claims and to observe nature in search of regularities. Its inseparable connection to our common physical reality is what allows its conclusions about the nature of reality to be so useful. Science makes no promises, so it makes no false promises, which basically negates your central thesis.
Religion is faith-based, meaning that it is not anchored to anything except imagination, and thus can't be used for much except to comfort. It's not surprising, therefore, that the two methods generate different and often conflicting ideas about the nature of reality.
For example, Christianity teaches that external reality can be modified with prayer, a claim grounded in faith, not empiricism (evidence), but testable empirically nevertheless. Science has studied the claim, and found prayer inefficacious. Cardiac patients undergoing major invasive cardiac procedures were divided into three groups - those not prayed for, those prayed for but weren't told about the prayer, and those that knew that they were being prayed for. Those in the dark that they had been prayed for did no better than those not prayed for. Those that knew that they were being prayed for did worse than either of those two groups.
One of these two methods - faith versus empiricism - produced a false claim. Your attempt to equate them is ill-founded.
We are told both can be used to make the world a better place.
Perhaps, but let's look at their respective track records and see which has made the world better.
We can see how science benefits mankind. Science lights up our homes at night, has put men on the moon and brought them home, and has conquered polio and small pox. Science makes our lives longer (80 is the new 60), healthier (better nutrition, antibiotics), more functional (eyeglasses, artificial knees), more comfortable (air conditioning), more efficient (especially in communication and transportation), easier (electric motors and microwaves), and more interesting, as with this activity we're participating in now involving computers, fiberoptic and electric cables, radio communication, and satellites.
Science has given us incredible access to information. It's literally true that if the Library at Alexandria still existed and your home was between it and the Library of Congress (US), that I with my smart phone could have any answer accessible to you before your car rolled out of its driveway going to the library, and I would have access to much more than you did anyway - things such as pop culture ("Who is that actress and what do I know her from?" while watching her).
What are the contributions if any of the religions to the human condition that aren't available without religion? What does religion have to offer people who have learned to navigate life without it?
Once again, your effort to show how similar these two systems of thought is ill-founded. Their methods couldn't be more different, their utility is dissimilar (I can't find any use for religious thought in my life, but use science continually), their claims about reality, are radically different, and their arcs or trajectories through history are the opposite as one is becoming a progressively larger part of human life while the other is becoming less significant.
Once again, your effort to equate them seems unjustified. The differences are radical, and the similarities that you claim are there just aren't.
Promises, promises, promises.
Science promises you nothing, but keeps delivering nevertheless. Religion makes promises that can't be verified and don't need to be kept.
Once again, these are not similar but dissimilar.
Both these philosophies promise us "salvation"
No. Science knows nothing of salvation, and as I noted, promises you nothing, although it is not unreasonable to expect much from it anyway given its track record.
people who put their faith in the science community believe that someday science will solve all our problems
That Jetsonian utopia where mom pushes a button and dinner is served was once a popular meme, but I think that we're a little more realistic these days. Science can't solve the global warming crisis coming, for example. It can only inform and warn us. I think that that's pretty well understood. Science will solve none of our problems, but may give us the information we need to solve some of them if we use the fruits of science wisely.
But why would people expecting more from science than what science actually offers be a negative reflection on science?