> Religion is by definition dogmatic
I'm not religious and I'm strongly in the science camp. But I don't pretend that my choice of worldview is not based on axioms that I myself cannot test.
This sceptical approach down to the core is fatal for religions, thus discouraged, thus dogmatic.
Science is hard to reproduce, true, but it is non the less encouraged.
Which I would sign, too.
(but probably not the specific truth, they found, I do not really know more of them, except that they were the base of Rudolf Steiners philosophy, I am not a huge fan of)
> Aply the verification approach to religion and you will see many inconsistencies and contradictions.
Inconsistencies and contradictions are found as much in science as they are found in religion.
I dont think its "as much" but anyway, science works to resolve these tensions, regardles of personal believes. You had to reach for the edges of scientific progress to come up with these examples, whereas i was speaking of the foundation of religion.
Religion lack that root, there is nothing but human culture in it, which is then mistaken for objective truth about environment.