Great questions CLK! I have to periodically remind myself that, to believers, the propositions of their respective religion are more than something which is subjected to independent inquiry and the conclusion is then evaluated in light of the evidence. The propositions are coupled with emotions, practices/rituals, community and other utilities. Due to the many connections which religion has in an individuals life, the propositions of any given religion are treated by the followers differently than brute scientific investigation. While a scientist may favor a hypothesis,it would be immoral for him or her to suppress evidence which may not be supportive, as well as a clear violation of professional ethics to not subject the hypothesis to certain methods of inquiry which would damage or destroy the hypothesis. With respect to religion, few believers believe because of a cold scientific evaluation of religious claims. Of course, the reasons individuals believe are as individual as they. Also of course, there are common threads...fear of death, coping mechanism, indoctrination via family, sense of purpose etc. The result is that the propositions of a religion are treated not as independent propositions deserving of inquiry, but as the defendent in a trial with the believer acting as defense counsel with the goal of "proving" a predetermined conclusion. I.e. the propositions are true until proven false. Acting in such a manner, a believer can suppress or avoid evidence, make impassioned emotional pleas, attempt to shift the burden of proof, be under no obligation to carry out investigations which are likey to damage their case, etc. And there is nothing immoral about such actions, given the circumstances. There is, however, an inability to arrive at a broad-scale conclusion of the truth of a religious proposition.

"Stupidity is the basic building block of the universe."

Zappa