An analogy that is best fitting; Religion and science being parallel to eachother, and then Politics going around the rim of the coin, holding both flat sides.

Religion is evidence through common ignorance.

Science is evidence through common knowledge.

Politics is the cord that attaches them to control by one, another or a group.

I think politics plays less of a role in what I'm going to say, as it has to do with the evidence part.

We see with our eyes; the neurologist would convince you that your eyes send signals to your brain, and then those signals make up your experience; however, we only believe the neurologist because we stop the looping circle. The looping circle I am talking about, is the logic in this; our observation of neurology gives us reason to trust that our optic observations are true; that is blatant circular reasoning, at least from a Nihilist's perspective. When I first realized this, I also realized that our definition of truth is secondary to what it should be; everything we say is true, is what is scientifically evident, because there is no convenience in stating an objective inherent truth.

Rene Descartes put it best by saying that "I think, therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum); not that the fact of me thinking is testament to my absolute existence, but that the fact that I can say that "I AM thinking" is what really gives testament to my existence.

What this brings me to is the existence of free will; neither science nor religion can claim to know exactly how everything is determined. I could debate for countless hours, and there would be no answer, because a debate brings out our knowledge, and no one has knowledge of free will. With an answer coming from science, can we really be satisfied?

Religion and science is less of a belief, and more of a trust. With an absolute answer, I can pretend to believe it, but I will never trust it completely.

I'm mid-way through theism and Nihilism (if possible), and I would really like your thoughts on this.