There's a big difference in logic though.
Take evolution theory for example, there's tons of evidence supporting this theory.
Can we be 100%, beyond any doubt sure that this theory is accurate? You can say no.
But because of the massive amount of evidence, we assume it is.

Another example: do flying elephants exist? No.
Can we be 100%, beyond any doubt sure of this? You can say no.
But there is zero evidence supporting the hypothesis that elephants can fly. So we assume they can't

naive Wrote:There is plenty of evidence that religious mythology was true, even enough to convince *most* people in the world. Simply because most scientists do not accept the evidence as conclusive proof, does not mean they are false, it just means they cannot be definitively proved as true or false.

A lot of stories in the bible probably are somewhat historically accurate, many researchers agree. But when it says that Moses split the Red Sea, there's no reason to believe this is possible.
There's a lot of people, even religious people that say that religious mythology, biblical tales, etc... are not to be taken literally, but to be interpreted symbolically.

naive Wrote:If religion is considered a pursuit of truth, then it is also done through establishing accepted beliefs. Like I said earlier, the sources and methodology differ, but the goal is the same.

I think here lies the difference between science and religion. Science tries to understand the world as it is.
Religion originated from the fact that humans can't accept the world as it is.