A little time to myself after work

This isn't really a debate about semantics. (Someday I'll kill that word.)
I think that religious people, more often than not, don't bother to study and engage in a rational examination of what they believe. I don't think most people bother to do it either for that matter. Since religious world views are hard, if not impossible to test it's easy to assume that they are not governed by or according to reason. As I admitted often they are not. This does not mean that religious beliefs are somehow different from other beliefs. When someone decides to add something like apples to a red pasta dish they are making they can have various reasons to do so. Rationality is, in some sense, how well they can justify adding apples to someone who is observing. They might be a chemist and a weird one at that, who can talk about the acids in the tomatoes, the acids in the apples and how the onions and all that shit will work together. They might laugh if you said something about how you never thought a fruit should be put in a pasta sauce and point out the tomato fruit fact. This person would seem very rational and unless they make the sauce then we don't ever get to know if they were a better chemist than cook. The idea that seems to come up with talks about science and religion is that religion cannot be tested. That is what some people say at least. Which isn't a very scientific viewpoint by the way. Just because we can't do something now doesn't mean it can't be done. No negative proofs. Back to my pasta sauce. What makes it scientific? What is Science? I don't want to dictionary definition. The chemist says the sauce will be good. Lets say the sauce is good. Is it because of science? If it's bad, does it make his science wrong? We have had scientists be wrong with their predictions and still get good results. The do the tests to see if they are right. Performing the test is an assertion that is based. They don't know the outcome. If they didn't think it would work they wouldn't perform the test. Since science only has faith in the oberservable and testable, maybe more things but I'll stick with these 2, it has nothing to say about a great many subjects. When it does try to get involved in morality and ethics or any number of other social fields that are essentially Asthetics science is a miserable failure. Wittgenstein, I am told, has a very good scientific arguement as to why this is true on logical grounds. There are people who disagree with him but they cannot prove Wittgenstein to be false.
The fact that science was used to prove the sun went around the earth for a long time doesn't invalidate science as a belief. It does tell us assuming that we have arrived at final truths, just because we can make predictions and build impressive models, is not scientific. Science doesn't assume finalty, it's strange because without the assumption of finality it can avoid it being faith based. It's agnostic to borrow a phrase from another arena of debate. When science and by that I mean scientists assume truths and make Laws they are operating out of faith in their science. There are competing models for all sorts of things within the field of astrophysics, I think that they use science in the field, and the competing scientists have faith their model is right. I can't see how anyone could rationally believe otherwise. All humans have beliefs which are almost always faith based. Faith is well grounded in bridges, I'll agree to that. Partially because I have faith in the science behind bridges, but even more important to my faith in them is because I have been on them many times.

Paul