There is a tendency to portray Religion generally, or specific religions, as monolothic unchanging and clearly and uniquely codified. This is never true, and results from a mistake in buying how most religions describe themselves, and a wider reluctance from the scientific perspective to look at the development of ideas including scientific ones anthropologically. Not what do credoes say about themselves, but what do they do for people, in practice? Religion and science form a continuum, in attempts to form allegiances to methodologies for making sense of the world. Not as frozen catechisms, but as cultures of practice and communities. In this view, the big difference between science and religion is in their capacities for reform. Older polytheisms largely struggled to adapt to a post-tribal world. Monotheisms have chosen unity above overturning even non-biblical views, although in many cases eventually reforming. Some of those reforms, like Protestantism, may have undermined bonding rituals in the search for greater rationality. Crucially this perspective doesn't exempt scientific practice from critique, or put it on the pedestal that buying it's own catechisms would seem to require, instead of observing it in practice. Science is clearly far more capable of reform than previous coummunities of thought, is very good at crossing tribal and cultural lines, and provides clear benefits in resource-finding and technology. But there are dangers in valueing knowledge as morally neutral, because it isn't. There are ethical restraints, on weapons research, on animal experiments. But frequently moral thought and training are seen as outside the scientific curriculum. Very little energy is put into the supposed gold standard of science, repeating observational studies. And power structures impede and distort the emergence of new ideas. Perhaps the greatest danger, is in writing off all the lessons of human history on recurring moral dilemmas and healthy communities, which could be absorbed from reflective study of the attempts of one era to speak to another, which are religion. Do we ever really explain anything? I would argue ontology is in truth beyond our grasp. We decide only how much and what we want to question, before getting on with our lives. The success of science in practice will see it integrated into future community thought structures because of it's success in war, like capitalism. But we will need moral ethical and governance development too, if we survive. Science is one more step beyond religion, into exploring the unknowable and undecided, which are the universe and ourselves. We shouldn't see it as the end of development, in awe of where we are now, but look for the next steps.