Interesting, I did not say Science proved, I said Religion did not.
I thought you were implicitly saying that one did what you said the other did not. I still think that's what you meant and this post is backpedalling.
Science does not require belief.
The whole point of my syllogism was to demonstrate that science does require belief.
Belief is acceptance of something that is not provable.
This is not what my dictionary says, but even if it did, I don't think it invalidates my syllogism. Nothing is provable, which is why knowledge is defined as justified true belief rather than "what can be proved" or something of that sort.
The closest science has to belief is to "postulate", in other words, "If we assume this is true, then...".
If you assume something is true then you believe it.
Religious is under no such requirement and can make statements about things with no more rational thought that "we say so"
Scientists are under no such requirements if they don't care about being taken seriously. A biochemist with a Ph.D tried to sell me a Kangan water machine and gave me some elaborate scientific mumbo jumbo about its benefits. Is it a problem that bogus, irrational religions are so popular? I think so. But I also think that it's a problem that my girlfriend thinks that vitamins can cure ailments because some doctor is quoted on the bottle or that organic foods are better for her because science.
It's not science or religion that is bad and pitting the two against each other is a false dichotomy that distracts people from the real problem: poor logic. Poor logic begets poor science, poor logic begets poor religion.