Yes — that distinction is very fruitful, but I'd sharpen it.

Religions are primarily dispositional; sciences are primarily propositional.

By dispositional, you mean that religion is fundamentally concerned with what kind of person you become and how you are disposed to perceive, feel, act, and respond, rather than merely with what propositions you affirm.

Science, by contrast, is principally organized around propositions that can be tested against evidence.

Religion: “How should I be?”

A religious tradition may contain propositions:

God exists.
The Buddha attained enlightenment.
There is an afterlife.
Karma operates.

But those propositions aren't necessarily the point of the practice.

The deeper objective may be to cultivate dispositions:

• compassion rather than cruelty
• humility rather than arrogance
• gratitude rather than resentment
• detachment rather than compulsive desire
• courage rather than fear
• forgiveness rather than vengeance
• attentiveness rather than distraction

So you could know every theological proposition in Christianity and nevertheless be, in the religious sense, profoundly un-Christian.

Conversely, someone might have relatively sophisticated theological uncertainty while nevertheless embodying the dispositions a tradition considers virtuous.

That's a very different conception of knowledge.

---

Science: “What is the case?”

Science is much more explicitly propositional.

For example:

Water freezes at approximately 0°C at standard atmospheric pressure.

That's a claim about the world.

It can be:

• measured,
• experimentally investigated,
• challenged,
• replicated,
• refined,
• falsified under appropriate conditions.

Science doesn't fundamentally ask:

“What kind of person should this knowledge make you?”

It asks:

“What is the case, and what evidence would distinguish this proposition from alternatives?”

That gives science its extraordinary epistemic power.

---

But there's a fascinating overlap

Religion can contain propositions that function dispositionally.

Take:

“Love your enemy.”

Grammatically, that's not even really a proposition. It's an imperative.

Its truth isn't primarily demonstrated by conducting an experiment.

It's something you practice.

And practicing it changes the person doing the practicing.

The same is true of Buddhist meditation instructions:

Observe your thoughts without attachment.

The important question isn't initially:

“Is this proposition true?”

It's:

“What happens to consciousness if I actually do this?”

That makes certain religious traditions resemble technologies of consciousness more than systems of propositions.

---

This gives you an interesting three-way distinction

Science

Propositional knowledge

What is true?

Religion

Dispositional knowledge

What should I become?

Philosophy

Reflective knowledge

What do I mean by truth, knowledge, goodness, self, reality, etc.?

Of course these overlap enormously.

But the distinction is useful.

A scientist can tell you that chronic sleep deprivation impairs cognition.

That is propositional knowledge.

A religion might tell you:

Don't allow your desires to govern your life.

That's a dispositional instruction.

And philosophy can ask:

What exactly counts as governing one's life? What is a desire? What makes a life good?

---

And this connects directly to McKenna

It also explains something about the cultural critique we were discussing.

Modern society is extremely good at producing propositional knowledge while being comparatively confused about dispositional formation.

We know enormous amounts.

But knowing:

“Social media algorithms exploit attentional vulnerabilities”

doesn't necessarily make you less susceptible to them.

Knowing:

“Material consumption doesn't reliably produce lasting happiness”

doesn't prevent compulsive consumption.

Knowing:

“Anger is psychologically destructive”

doesn't make you less angry.

In other words:

Knowing a proposition isn't the same as acquiring a disposition.

And perhaps this is one reason ancient religions can seem strange from a modern perspective. They weren't necessarily trying primarily to give people information. They were trying to reconfigure the person.

Ritual, prayer, fasting, meditation, confession, pilgrimage, chanting, contemplation, communal worship—these are technologies for producing particular dispositions.

The proposition is sometimes almost secondary.

---

There's an even deeper formulation

You could say:

Science attempts to change what you think is true about the world.

Religion attempts to change how you inhabit the world.

And the really interesting question is whether modernity has become extraordinarily sophisticated at the first while becoming uncertain about the second.

That's also why someone can be scientifically educated but existentially unformed.

They can possess an enormous inventory of correct propositions while having no coherent answer to:

What should I love?
What should I become?
What deserves my sacrifice?
How should I respond to suffering?
What is enough?

Those aren't straightforwardly scientific questions.

And that gap between knowing what is true and knowing how to live is arguably one of the central problems of modernity.