Separation of Science and State

[Reenk Roink]

Make faith falsifiable in the same way scientific theory is and then the two will be comparable.

I think the comparison doesn't work because it is of two different domains. Also, using falsifiability as a demarcation principle between science and non-science doesn't seem to work at all, not in the least because scientific theories can be said to be not falsifiable unless you stretch falsifiability so far in which case pseudoscience like creationism and astrology can be said to be falsifiable.

The real contrast would be between the standards of philosophical argument and the religion method of appeal to authority in the form of tradition.

Appeal to (certain religious) authority is a much sounder epistemic basis for knowledge than philosophical argument. Not even close. Good thing 'philosophy' isn't too much at a disadvantage seeing as there have been philosophical schools since the beginning which can be nicely characterized as appealing to authority.

In any case, science is never "right" or "true" it simply postulates to fit the available evidence.

Science doesn't work this way (this is an naive inductivist ideal held by many scientists and more non-scientists, but the position has frankly been smoked like a bad cigar). I think that the evidence is actually fit to the theory more. See Chalmers' What is this thing called Science first chapters (3rd edition, the 1st and 2nd editions are actually better in regards to the first chapters though the 3rd improved the last chapters significantly and made them more accessible) for a really good discussion.

Postulates that fit the available evidence are often true

There are an infinite (potentially infinite) number of postulates that can fit the available evidence. What percentage true range did you have in mind for 'often'?

to qualify for the title religion though, imo no worshipping of deities is a requirement.

In its most literal sense, I'd agree with this statement, but I know what you're trying to get at, and I have to respectfully disagree here. Science shouldn't be characterized as a religion. First of all, I feel it is a great insult to religion to do something like that.

I know what the point you're trying to make here is something like: 'science and religion both rest essentially on metaphysical axioms which can't be distinguished from each other' and I agree to a point (though I do think we can distinguish, just perhaps not rationally or in a value neutral way).

However, going beyond that, I'd add these major differences between the two. Religion really has to have ritual tied to it. I think ritual is a necessary condition, otherwise I would say something was 'philosophy' (for lack of a better term). And I really don't think something like research programs could be counted as ritual.

Furthermore, religion and science are even more distinguished today due to the secularization of science. Lindberg, Grant, and Hannam in their histories of science do an excellent job of showing how premodern science was very closely tied with religion and ideas of the supernatural. However, methodological naturalism now is the de facto methodology and actual metaphysical naturalism is assumed quite often. This to the extent that you will have people nowadays argue that science as we know it did not exist until 400-500 years ago, or even later than that (and if you accept their definition of science, they have a point).

Also, the domains of science and religion are different. I definitely don't agree with people who say they do not intersect as there is some overlap, but despite that, science (nowadays) is almost wholly exoteric in focus. Religion is both exoteric and esoteric, and the latter plays a big part in its identification.