Religion
In reply to the discussion: The dictionary is wrong – science can be a religion too [View all]patrice
(47,992 posts)of in-what-manner.
That is the manner in which ________________ is evoked from what is. For example, in regard to that which is referred to as "meta-physics", the OED on that prefix 'meta' refers to Greek for that which stands behind, like the ground from which a base-relief is evoked. The manner of being, the how, evokes the order of the steps which manifest knowing/truth/reality with more or less validity.
One set of steps is religion/religious.
Another set of steps, no less open in its nature but still an essentially different how, is science.
When outcomes are of the highest priority you don't HAVE TO discount either process, religion:science, you can even have both if you don't feel that violates one's integrity (I belong to this cohort, myself), but if consequences are dangerous so you need the best chance at validity as possible, it's probably advisable to err in favor of science.
With the caveat that any attempt to make an absolute out of science negates the nature of its HOW identify, i.e. it becomes that which is not science, i.e. religion or superstition or something like that. For example, should we govern the nation's long-term-care resources as spreadsheets and data-bases, exclusively numbers, and/or should we seek consensus(es) evoked from specific living experiences?