This. Also, here's an example of the fact that religion and philosphy don't have agreed on language:
When discussing what contributes to a population of humans possessing a higher level of happiness with a philosopher, I received the answer:
"Well what makes someone else happy is different than what makes me happy. I'm sure X phenomenon, which you say makes no one happy, has made someone happy in the history of exisstance. Because happiness is so personally defined, there's no way we can know for sure what will make a bunch of people happier. All I can know is that makes me happy."
However, if you ready psychological literature you find:
"Happiness is defined as Sense of Well-being and is measured by these things. A raise by this percentage contributes this much" So already I know what someone else is talking about when they say happiness, i know which phenomenon their discussing, and they have data coming from outside of themselves rather than "I personally think this".
As for Einstien and Hawkings being gods of science, that's hilarious. Einstien tried to disprove his own theory of relativity many times and so has everyone else. Hell, we're still checking atomic clocks coming off of airports to see if he was right!
Also, if it wasn't for the questioning of previous data through science, einstien would still be following newton's reasoning about everything. But instead of accepting the "gods" knowledge, he tested it and made adjustments to what he found.
Irene Pepperberg questioned the "fact" that only mammals were capable of cognition and proved it wrong (that happened in the last 10 years) and there are billions of other examples of "facts" being constantly questioned.
No one's proof is good enough, not even the big names in science. For every big name, there are thousands trying to disprove.