I'm not so sure about that. You may be thinking only of a certain religion or sect, but there are Divinity schools even in the Ivy League. And the long tradition of Judaism surely promotes research and knowledge. In fact, there are certain texts men are not even allowed to read until age 40, to make sure that their minds are receptive and probing enough to read and study it.
No doubt, in the past history, most inquiry of a scientific nature was endorsed by the religious organizations, especially because those 'educated' were mostly done so to be spiritual leaders, hence, most likely to take on inquiries of other abstract/intellectual nature as well.
As well, there are of course, scientists who do follow a religion, just like a school with a great research center can also have a divinity school. This is actually one of my points of why Science cannot be a religion. Because they are not mutually exclusive. Science makes NO commentary on religion, either way, good or bad. What we infer from the findings of Science, does.
My main point with falsification was that there is not one organized religion that has malleable basic tenants. I.e. every one of the main organized religions have some basic 'codes' that are given to be the 'truth' - immovable, indisputable, not up for falsification. While, EVERYTHING, in scientific inquiry, by its very definition, is up for falsification - there is no faith in Science.
I believe that most religion encourages questioning and research. It's only when it is filtered down through people that may otherwise want to control you, or large groups of people, that questioning is discouraged.
I won't disagree.
Just because science isn't successful, it doesn't mean that it doesn't try to be successful.
Anything that aims at an action is
trying, otherwise, they wouldn't engage in the action in the first place, if not to
try, and hopefully, succeed. But,
trying is most usually the common motivation.
A main purpose of science is to provide explanations. And because you feel that religion is arrogant doesn't discount that it is also there in order to provide explanations. The only difference is that many religions claim to have all the answers, while science has only claimed to have some of them.
The bold, sure, that may be the case, but, imo I'd say its a more deeper fundamental difference. That of
a priori versus
a posteriori in terms of promoting a certain knowledge. Religion the former, science the latter, hence, my usage of the word, 'arrogance' for the former.