Thanks for your post!

The third option you mention is implied by the second option I mention. The one that remains, when all others fail, is the one that works. The way you describe is has a problem to it though (I must say I like the 'Murphy's law' feel of your description). The problem is that in most cases (empirical and theoretical) there are multiple ways the define or explain a scientific finding and all of these ways have there own downside.

The way you perceive religion is often called the supermarket-model. This model pictures a supermarket with all religions as products where you can shop en put parts of religions in your basket to form a new whole.
This look on religion assumes that all religions basically are the same thing (see one of my post on this subject: dib0.nl/.../...). Also, this view assumes that all religions have a different look on the same truth. Therein lies out difference of opinion. Both your description of science and your description of religion rest on the same assumption that there is one general and universal truth. This is the truth we all try to know through science or religion.

The existence of such a truth is denied by post-modernism. Well... actually such a truth may well exists, but we humans are unable to achieve it, therefore the existence is rendered irrelevant. The point I tried to make in my post is that truths with different background (epistemologies ) cannot go in to a discussion with each other. Arguments in one religion on a subject are irrelevant in the context f another religion. Argument from a scientific theorem are irrelevant in the context of art. And vice versa. All these types of traditions have their own unique truth.

This is where your last remark comes in. I understand that the conclusion can be a bit too rigid. It's not that I don't think these different truths are able to learn from each other. My point was solely that arguments from one epistemology are irrelevant in another epistemology. Post-modernism sees these differences as enriching (to which I wholeheartedly agree). Difference in traditions, groups, cultures, people and ideas lead to a situation I which we can learn from each other. Differences lead to creativity. Creativity in thinking and acting. This is where the influence, you are talking about, lies. And influence in this way is a good thing.

I noted your topic request! Thanks! It inspired me to note a second future topic: Evil. If anyone has a topic request, please tell me!