There really needs to be a term for this widespread inability to differentiate between 'the science' as in the correct application of the scientific method to arrive at empirical conclusions about the world around us and 'The Science' as in the socio-political institution of various experts and technocrats. One is a powerful tool in humanity's toolbox for getting shit done, the other is subject to all the fallibility of human social institutions - perhaps even moreso because people will blindly trust it meaning there's fewer checks on it than other social institutions. Usually people going up against 'The Science' are cranks which means there's a tendency for people to believe anyone who goes up against the status quo is a crank.
You see this in commentary about climate change, people blindly trust 'The Science' to fix everything in a glorious deus ex machina without the tiniest scrap of evidence 'The Science' even has the power do to such a thing in one fell swoop. That's not saying we shouldn't pursue efforts like geo-engineering etc but we should at least keep things in the realm of what the current scientific evidence is saying which is we need to heavily cut our emissions no matter what rather than relying entirely on speculative mega-projects.
Ultimately you should never trust anyone who claims to have a monopoly on truth or that $group or $profession has a monopoly on truth.
The issue is that, at least in the US, it has become politically advantageous to claim that the socio-political institution of 'The Science' has given its imprimatur to the policies they wish to enact. It's advantageous to combine the institution with the process, so why would anyone stop?
Couple that with a media environment that seems fundamentally incapable of reading beyond the headline of any scientific publication, and the proliferation of p-hacking and less then replicable studies being churned out by academics who need N articles to have a chance at tenure this decade and...you get a situation where 'The Science' is whatever a bureaucrat in a lab coat says it is.
I suspect that pretty much everybody who does experimental physics, a whole lot of astronomers, and a multitude of other observational scientists might like to have a word with you regarding the scientific method.
But that could just be me.
Independent people have and can discover the same truth while in religion everyone who invented one, believe in something different.
Science is universal. Religion is stupid.
Religion on the other hand can have true statements because they are deduced from a priory axioms that a matter of beliefs. For example, given some axioms about God, one can deduce that the world is such because God is made it so. This will be similar to Banach–Tarski theorem [1] which is true as long as one believes in the Axiom of Choice. But such statements are not a scientific theories precisely because it is not possible to design an experiment that will disproof them.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox
That should be doable right?
Or what would be a better description on what science make unique and better than religion?
No, religion cannot explain anyrhing reliably as it's based on dogmas and not facts.
In the meantime, I recommend the book The Evolution of Religion by Robert Wright, a very sane author that's written a lot of great books, in my opinion.
No, building a reality based on a dogma is the most close-minded thing you can ever do.
It can only explain things inside it's belief system.
If you haven't encountered this kind of fanatic, consider yourself lucky. These days I'd feel safer drawing a picture of Mohammed than blaspheming The Science by asking heretical questions or making unholy observations. You never know when the secular-inquisition will come for you, but you always expect it.
What is the point you are trying to make?
My back yard rain gauge is not sciencing either.