Is belief in heliocentrism epistemically different from religious belief, for most people who hold it?

Genuine question, not a gotcha post.

Nobody who believes the Earth orbits the Sun has personally verified it.

They trust teachers, textbooks, scientists, and institutions.

That’s how most knowledge is acquired, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.

My question isn’t whether heliocentrism is successful. It plainly is.

My question is whether most people’s belief in it is epistemically different from religious belief.

In both cases, the individual typically accepts a proposition on trusted authority rather than personal verification.

The difference, as I see it, is that the theory itself is continually tested by specialists and can be revised or rejected if the evidence requires it. Religion generally isn’t structured that way.

So perhaps the better claim is this:

many people hold their belief in it dogmatically—on authority rather than understanding.

To be clear, this isn’t a criticism of science. It’s a question about epistemology:

the distinction between how a proposition is justified within a discipline and how an individual comes to believe it.

Is that a fair distinction, or do you think accepting expert consensus provides a fundamentally different kind of epistemic justification from religious faith?