Ah, the “dissociation from criteria” route. If there are no criteria for science - then what is science even? If this were true, it would prove my point even further: it would mean that science is merely a style.
You know as well as I do that the criteria of science are known by most intuitively; putting them in to words can be tricky (if not impossible). Some of the brightest minds that ever existed have tried and failed to put the “criteria of science” into words. Even Kant ultimately failed.
The intentions of science are simple, to be able to explain existence around us – but nothing can be known for certain; so no truths can be permanently established. At best, science can be a body of assumptions, which religion also has when forming a foundation.
In fact, God or gods and the absence of God or gods all have an equal probability of existing, because such knowledge is beyond the observable universe - and therefore claiming that there isn’t gods or a God would be directly contradicting the scientific method which relies entirely upon making observations.
We could say that religions have moral implications and science doesn’t, however this is not true either. Many early religions lacked moral implications and merely attempted to explain – and there are plenty of medical and science journals which are brimming with moral implications: “It is wrong to prescribe patients opiates/opioids long-term”, “It would be wrong to emit greenhouse gases if they do indeed have a permanent impact on our ozone layer”. The morality is merely implied in-between the lines in a science journal, since science is a much more democratic process than religion.
And “Next question please”? What are we giving ourselves catch phrases now? Alright, here goes:
You have been dismantled! That’ll be 20 dollars.