
Most (if not all?) conspiracy theories rely on evidence, but the evidence they present is incomplete, misleading, or fabricated. Advance an idea, cherry pick evidence that supports the idea, and discredit evidence that falsifies the idea (often introducing supplementary conspiracies, some of which rely on the acceptance of other tangentially related conspiracy theories). It's a similar business model to the cross promotion within franchise fiction.
Most religions offer some form of evidence, even if it's obviously faked, merely anecdotal, and/or entirely unfalsifiable. Bad quality evidence is still evidence.
Religion is obviously the ultimate conspiracy theory, but many proponents claim that it's perfectly compatible with science and reason. Lots of religious people have won Nobel prizes in the sciences.
Science is not the narrow field you define it as, IMHO. There's a lot of science that goes on without any direct quantifiable evidence (several fields with the prefix astro, lots of pure mathematics, several fields with the prefix quantum, most social sciences, etc.)... Facts, like proofs, are subject to interpretation and change with new evidence, and that is the gift of science!
I'm fairly certain that all religions are false as their claims are arbitrary and parochial compared to the greater majesty of the universe revealed through science.
I'm fairly certain that the concept of evil belongs in fiction and theology but has no serious scientific application. It's a label given to things people would like you to stop thinking about, or just a value judgement suggesting something is irredeemably bad.
There are harmless forms of religion after all. Not all false beliefs have negative consequences.
( , Thu 15 Feb 2024, 16:47, Reply)