galiel

I disagree that the difference between science and religion is a matter of degree or the amount of presupposition.

Science and religion take diametrically opposite paths.

Science:
Action ----------> Principle

Religion:
Action <---------- Principle

Science begins with a testable premise, then conducts experiments, research, and analysis in order to derive useful theories--which are practical models to explain certain universal behavior. Understanding of these principles, in turn, leads fo action as well, as they are applied to effect the human condition. The explanatory theories are always subject to review--new empirical evidence drives the development of new hypotheses and the cyle continues. Final point: science is open to all, may be practiced by all, even at the highest levels.

In contract, religion starts with divine or revealed knowledge. In the case of organized religions, this knowledge is obscure and nonintuitive, and must be filtered through and interpreted by an exclusive priesthood. This priesthood then prescribes rituals and behaviors which are carried out in order to follow the a priori knowledge. Laity is not expected to independently interpret doctrine--at least not in the dominant organized religions.

One could hardly think to two less similar practices.

Synaesthesia

I think the big problem with presuppositionalism is not the idea that all theories require background theories, that's true of course, but the idea that these assumptions are not themselves revisable.

Science is driven not only by new empirical evidence but by theoretical evidence, revisions in our interpretation of evidence. Principles revise evidence, evidence revises principles. Abandon the possibility of either and you no longer have a viable science.