To start with, the main argument that atheists have to split themselves off of theism is that the planet could not have been made in 7 days. This was a very young point of view, and now we can realize that in fact each day is just another step in the evolution of our planet, starting with the Devonian era and ending today. Also, scientists in Cambridge have theorized that the omega point could indeed harbor heaven, and that the omega theory could be pointing to God existing. The fact that religions supported and grew learning should also be noted, and they simply rejected change, especially in Europe, because they had created a largely sustainable lifestyle and did not want to leave it. Even if atheism, the 'scientific' religion, does replace Christianity and Islam as the dominant single global belief, it would be no different from Catholicism replacing the older, more ancient roman paganism. Natural order is just another word for God, and the omega point is just a scientific way of saying heaven.
Fact #1. The first universities evolved from monasteries
Fact #2. Without belief in a rational God controlling nature, most societies do not assume that nature can be understand in a rational way (a.K.A scientifically).
Fact #3. Religion supports assumptions in science (e.G belief in laws of nature being universal) in many placs in the Bible it talks of how God's law is immutable.
Religious people who understand science will say that science and religion go together, Religious people who don't understand science won't even join the argument. Agnostics and atheists mostly believe that religion is a fairy tale without learning about the religion the right way. They mostly see Christians as people who believe in Supernatural being with beard living in the sky, probably from watching cartoons or something. Fact of the matter is, religion and science go very well together, especially mathematics, physics, astronomy... Even that sentence in bible that says that God created Adam from dust, goes very well with theory of big bang, witch basically implies we're all made of star dust. Certain things in Holly Books couldn't be told to the people back then, when they had no understanding of science, so stories were told in a way that people can understand. No 3 or 4 year old child can understand that the earth is revolving around the sun, so you don't tell them that, that way. So, you need to understand both religion and science to see that they go really well together.
I think you mean "compatible", not "synonymous". They are two separate words that mean two different things. However, they are completely compatible, as science is the discovery of the workings of God's creation while religion is the search for God himself. Believing in both at the same time is the only way to reach a full understanding of our universe.
Science is not religion. Science tries to prove theories. Religion is based more on faith, and there is not as much proof of its beliefs. That being said, I don't feel that they fully disagree. In fact, when we look at the fossil record layers, the way living things emerged is in some ways in line with Biblical thought, as long as people don't insist that the Earth is only thousands of years old.
I think they are very different things, science one day will finally prove them wrong. Religion had its time and place,but so did the horse. You can't live in the past. There has been so many deaths in the name of God,just because we don't like what another person thinks. Science atleast can mostly be proven.they are not the same.
No, religion is just a way for people to use the supernatural to explain things that you can not explain yet. Science uses fact to back every theory that they have. I think religion is just made up so that people have a way to keep faith in something higher.
No, I do not believe that science is synonymous with religion, because they are not related things. There is a great deal of disagreement within the religious community about science. Some believe that religious people should ignore Western medicine. Others believe that evolution is how the world began. Science and religion do not predict each other.
Religion stays the same. It stays the same for thousands of years and never changes. It just stagnantes. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. Science is always growing by leaps and bounds, always finding new facts, and always admitting when it is wrong. These two cannoy be synonymous. It is merely impossible.
In terms of synonymous - completely different approaches. Blind faith and divine revelation vs calculated observation and inference and abject skepticism.
The approach people take with religious texts, even, drums down to a selective, subjective interpretation of vague passages in crazily bastardized texts that we don't even know who wrote, full of information that is directly debunkable.
Science, in contrast, is supposed to be tested over and over to make sure that it is right, with ideas being cast aside as they lose credibility, and evidence mounts against them.
Science is based on testable hypotheses, observable evidence, logical reasoning, and repeatable experimentation.
Religion is oftentimes based on blind faith and contentment with the status quo.
Scientists may have to rely on "faith" for a number of theories, but these theories oftentimes have strong evidence backing them up. The same cannot be said of religion, which usually requires a person to accept a hypothesis that cannot be proven or even supported (i.E. The existence of a god).
One is based off logic and reason, the other belief and faith.
One is based off objectivity and truth, the other... Belief and faith.
One is grounded in repeatable testing and supporting facts, the other... Well you get the idea.
Although the pursuit of the truth may have been born from the ignorance of religion, it most definitely no longer is.