One of the great advantages science has over dogmatic religion is that it doesn't ever presume to have arrived at the accurate, complete answer once and for all. Scientific conclusions are forever tentative. That doesn't meant they aren't usefully predictive. It means that when they stop being predictive, we fix the conclusion so that it regains predictive value. We study and discover, for example, that hitherto unimportant variations in the variables have effects we didn't see at first.
While an individual human mind is prone to error, collections of minds working critically over many years are less susceptible to error. Science does not rely heavily on "eureka!" discoveries so much as plodding, methodical investigation from different angles.
In contrast, a dogmatic religious view is purely propositional. The propositions are accepted axiomatically as true. The epistemology is foisted, albeit in a way that invites blind acceptance. Religion proposes a broad scope, which it touts as a great strength. But the foisted epistemology makes this scope illusory. As long as one has accepted that propositions in religion are dispensed from on high by an all-knowing deity, one doesn't question whether the scope is appropriate, testable, or useful. This means the charge that science is myopic (the cave analogy) is true only in a blustery sense. Religion has a broader vision only in the same sense that mythology or science fiction does.
Science changes its conclusions to conform to new observations. Dogmatic religion does not. There is no palatable resolution to a conflict between a religious "truth" and an empirical observation. Adherents generally try to spackle over the dissonance with suppositional platitudes such as "It's a trial of my faith." The culture of dogmatic religion promises rewards for maintaining belief over observation. Sadly, many adherents to dogmatic religion project their epistemology onto science, noting that it doesn't measure up in this respect or another. Skeptics don't hold to the scientific method the way religious adherents profess a faith. Skeptics don't hold to scientific conclusions the same way religious adherents hold to doctrine. The chief failure among religious critics of science is in the belief that science is just a different kind of religion. It is, in all respects, the anti-religion precisely because it can change its mind to accept new fact.
That simplifies my choice if I do decide to watch one of them.