Most (not all) religions claim to offer an objective set of truths. However, so many of them contradict that it is impossible for them to all be objectively true.

But people choose which religion to believe in various ways. Some are just born into a family which teaches it as truth, and they just follow. Others change to a different one, for various reasons.

But everyone selects reasons based on their own experience, their own beliefs. Each person selects their religion due to subjective reasons. That's because there is no objective method to do so - even so called personal revelation is due to our interpretation of the event; this is clear because there are so many so-called personal revelations that occur but yet don't agree with each other.

So essentially everyone choose the objective truth they believe in. Except those people who don't believe in objective truth, of course.

And of course science is different, because it's a list of the best explanations we have at the moment, and anyone who understands how it works knows that it doesn't mean it's any sort of objective truth. Any real scientist will admit that it's totally possible that you could apply your brakes on your vehicle tomorrow and have it speed up, crash into nothing, and explode with the force of a nuclear blast. Not very likely, but that it could happen, and they'd have to figure out why.

---

"And is it any different with politics?"

_{Added by request of dem bones...}

And is science any different?

They used to think the Earth was the center of the universe. The Earth was flat one millenia ago. There was this stuff called ether that was everywhere. And yet, after being logically disproven by Copernicus, Gallileo and Einstein, some scientists refused to admit the fact that they're wrong and continued to teach their "truth", their "science".

Isn't the quest for knowledge a journey of discovery, like what religion is supposed to be? Sure, many religions have been corrupted, but then again, there are scientists that have deviated from pure research and decided to work on stuff like Viagra instead of curing AIDS. Not many people live through life totally adhering to logic, and nothing else.

Not that it matters in the end. Ignorance is sometimes bliss. If believing that there is a God makes me happy, then I will proceed in life believing that, and no Carl Sagan or any other militant atheist is going to tell me otherwise. Just as some scientists were freaked out by the discovery that the Earth is not the center of everything, so they decided to stay in their little insulated bubbles and continue believing what they've been taught.

Some people are more comfortable with sugar-laced dreams than hard gritty reality. So sue them. Who cares if it is true or not? I can't prove if God exists or not, so live and let live.

Science is different. Science tries to look at reality and figure out the how's and why's. To do this, science implements a number of tools that are under constant scrutiny. These tools change every time someone comes up with a good reason the current tools are inferior to some other tool. Currently the most commonly implemented tool is the Hypothetical Deductive Method.
To compare, religions most commonly used tool is belif.
The Hypothetical Deductive Method is a relativly new method in science, being invented by Francis Bacon. Before HDM, one used a purely empirical method. HDM also uses empirical methods.

The scientists that refused to admit their error in the Earths movement and form, was intimidated by the Catholic church. The church burned people that said the Earth was round. They scared Copernicus so much, he made sure not to publish his groundbreaking work until he was dead. Simply to avoid persecution.
One of the things that makes Science so very special, is that different opinions exist within it. More so: Different opinions are expected. Without dissent, science would never evolve The wheel would never have been invented if someone didn't disagree with the way things were transported. While religions want its followers to accept the paradigms it puts foreward. Science needs its paradigms to be questioned. Allways. Which is why science is different.