“By contrast with religion, however, counterintuitive results in science invariably evoke attempts to remove the counterintuitive parts. A result that does not meet expectations must be explained. A theory that makes a wrong prediction must be revised. At this level, science resembles an assimilative process, dependent upon critical, even disconfirmatory, processes (Tweney, Doherty, & Mynatt 1981). Furthermore, these processes are continuing; within the context of a scientific community, there is an ongoing shift from assimilation to new anomalies to further assimilation, and so on. By contrast, religion demands accommodation from its believers; doubt must be resolved in the right way, or heresy is the result. In established religions, although many aspects of dynamic change are preserved, the community of believers is asked to accommodate to a fixed, unchanging, even eternal order. In this sense, the counterintuitiveness of religious concepts is maintained over time and across believers. Such differences in the cognitive and collective dynamics of science and religion are worthy of further investigation.”
— The Cognitive Science of Religion: A Methodological Introduction to Key Empirical Studies (Scientific Studies of Religion: Inquiry and Explanation) door D. Jason Slone, William W. McCorkle Jr.