Both but I wouldn't use the word 'some'.
That's pretty much an anti-science position because you're saying the thing science does it doesn't do. I've also explained to some degree how two branches of science contribute to debunking various claims of an afterlife, divinity, etc.. and it's by understanding on a deeper level.
I wanted you to clarify what you meant in exact terms and is best not to get caught up in semantics of word usage.
I am not anti science at all I understand full well we can explain everything that happens with science by formulating rules based on observation. Remember at the start of the conversation I mentioned it may not be fruitful due to it being a discussion where one party is alluding to something that the other one is not aware of?
This has happened.
You do not understand the limit of science as I described and it is not anti science as well it requires a deeper understanding as a whole.
That is ok though I did like seeing your perspective but since you seem unwilling to clearly define what you mean by the terms you use so I can respond I do not think there is much for me to do.
You actually never explained anything and merely made claims to explanations and these were explanations which I mentioned do make sense for describing the rise of the phenomena of belief in an after life yet you seem incapable of understanding why they do not actually prove or disprove the actual existence of such a thing.
You have erred by misunderstanding science itself and how it actually does not explain anything beyond creating rules which explain the causality of matter in its various states but neglects why anything is the way it is and further is unable to test the noumena.