When I compare science and religion in best-fit descriptions of the world, I personally choose science since it is grounded in empirical evidence I could potentially falsify through my five senses. With religion, I feel no opportunity to do the same and when I meet something that seems to contradict religion's description, I have no way to cope with the discrepancy other than to deny it. With science, the description can change to better-fit the world, and it fits better with me.
It is entirely possible for me to be ignorant of one or more larger aspects of the world if they are not physical in nature, but since I haven't experienced them, I can't make a value statement to confirm or deny them either way...but they don't best-fit the world as I experience it. Thus I stick with science.