Even the statistical device of "P" scores or levels of significance of observed correlations is a matter of judgement. There is no absolute certainty; I don't know why we are even talking about it (in the context of scientific knowledge).
Belief, on the other hand is not the same thing as the"scientific" notion of knowledge. Believers enjoy a subjective "certainty" that can never be a privilege of the "knower." Beliefs, in the religious sense cannot be falsified (speaking of Popper's contribution); knowledge is always provisional and open to revision. Hence, the ideally "progressive" nature of Science, but not religion--notwithstanding Kuhn's interpretation of the more messy process of scientific revolutions.
Last year I claimed in a (Cyracuz) thread that I was not making an ONTOLOGICAL claim that there exists or does not exist an absolute objective world (a Kantian thing-in-itself). I said I was making an EPISTEMOLOGICAL claim that we cannot "know" it except in terms of our constructions (i.e., concepts, formulae, models, paradigms, interpretations, etc.) . In short we can only "know" the world in OUR terms, not in God's.