> how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another
It's even worse than that. For religious scientists, often belief is directly contradicted by the evidence at hand. The reason this still somewhat works is because humans can exist (and sometimes thrive) in a state of profound cognitive dissonance.
I don't remember right now who said this first, but the phrase "religion poisons everything" comes to mind. Like a trojan on a computer, religion fortifies the brain against external influence. Most insidiously, religion poisons the ability to freely reason about data specifically and the environment generally. If there is such a thing as a poisonous meme, this is it. To use a biochemical phrase, religion has evolved to competitively inhibit the brain's logical and moral facilities, and in doing that it has developed heavily optimized strategies for maximizing infectiousness and resilience.
It's even worse than that. For religious scientists, often belief is directly contradicted by the evidence at hand. The reason this still somewhat works is because humans can exist (and sometimes thrive) in a state of profound cognitive dissonance.
I don't remember right now who said this first, but the phrase "religion poisons everything" comes to mind. Like a trojan on a computer, religion fortifies the brain against external influence. Most insidiously, religion poisons the ability to freely reason about data specifically and the environment generally. If there is such a thing as a poisonous meme, this is it. To use a biochemical phrase, religion has evolved to competitively inhibit the brain's logical and moral facilities, and in doing that it has developed heavily optimized strategies for maximizing infectiousness and resilience.