Definitions:
1. Empiricism: A pursuit of knowledge based purely upon sensory experience, especially by means of observation and experimentation.

2. Fallibilism: The philosophical notion that scientific theories cannot be absolutely proven, but can only be disproven. However, they can still be well supported by evidence.

3. Dogma: The established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from.

3. Logic: The systematic use of reasoning and mathematical techniques to determine the validity and/or soundness of an argument/claim.

4. Faith: Is the confident belief in something of which there is no evidence of/proof for.


Types of evidence:
1. Empirical evidence: Evidence that can be observed through the senses, it can be seen, touched, heard, smelled, tasted and, to some extent, measured.

2. Evidence based upon logic/mathematics.
An example of logic:
Premise 1 - Socrates is a man
Premise 2 - All men are mortal
Conclusion - Therefore Socrates is mortal

3. Testimonial evidence: Evidence gained from testimonies from "witnesses" of apparent occurrences.


Some differences between science and religion:
1. Accepted scientific theories are empirically (and usually logically) evidenced, whereas religious claims rely upon testimonial evidence (hearsay) and faith.
2. Scientific theories are testable and hence can be experimentally supported or falsified (disproven), whereas most religious claims are not testable and cannot be verified. 
3. Scientific theories are often improved upon or discarded in the face of new evidence and facts, whereas religious claims are usually static and unchanging even in spite of contrary evidence.
4. Scientific theories are skeptically critiqued and peer-reviewed by many other scientists, whereas most religious claims are dogmatic, set in stone, and unquestionable.

The huge problem with testimonial evidence:
1. Anyone could claim to be a witness of anything. For example: they could claim to have gone back in time and played baseball with the dinosaurs.
2. People's subjective experiences can sometimes be distorted/false, and we can even have crazy hallucinations/delusions which do not actually reflect objective reality. Haven't you ever gone for a walk in the street (or somewhere else) and been sure that you've seen a friend/family member, only to eventually realize that they are actually a complete stranger, and that you were completely mistaken?

Conclusion:
On one hand, scientific theories are testable and empirically evidenced by verified experiments, are reviewed by many scientists, and are able to be improved upon (or even discarded) in the face of new evidence.

On the other, there is no compelling rational reason for an individual to place their belief in an unevidenced and untestable religious claim. Moreover, one could simply put forward a similarly unknowable assertion (e.g. that invisible dragons and sentient tophats coexist in an alternate dimension), so how is a religious contention any more likely?

Objective truth is irrespective of goodness or badness; the goodness or badness of a statement is not relevant to the actual truth of it.