Science is used to explain how the universe works. A religion explains how the universe came to be. They are not in the same category and can reinforce each other at certain points. And even though I finished my point, I have to keep typing to reach the minimum amount of words needed.
The way I see it, science and religion are simply two languages telling the same story; one is based on faith while the other focuses on evidence. The world has room for both. Perhaps people who argue that there is only room for one or the other are not comfortable with being ambiguous.
Not all the believers, but most of them are human-robots that can not allow their brain to work the way they want it. Anyway Hitler is calling me better go. By the way spongebob is a handsome character and if you are against it you are a fegit ok bye
Earth is an example of "What is." Truth. What you see is real, and as a result, true. Science is our way of drawing interpretations from that truth, the same way theology is a way of drawing interpretations from God's Word. The mistake Christians make when they assume that those with their interpretation of the Bible are the only true way to interpret the Bible, is the same mistake scientists get when they think that their interpretation of science is the only true way to interpret science. Christians have rational interpretations of the facts, and just because they're different from secular viewpoints does not mean that said viewpoints are incompatible with science.
The relationship between religion and science has been a subject of study since classical antiquity, addressed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others. Perspectives from different geographical regions, cultures and historical epochs are diverse, with some characterizing the relationship as one of conflict, others describing it as one of harmony, and others proposing little interaction.
Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness whilst also acknowledging philosophical and metaphysical explanations with regard to the study of the Universe. Both science and religion are not unchanging, timeless, or static because both are complex social and cultural endeavors that have changed through time across languages and cultures. Most scientific and technical innovations prior to the Scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Much of the scientific method was pioneered first by Islamic scholars, and later by Christians. Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world. Confucian thought has held different views of science over time. Most Buddhists today view science as complementary to their beliefs.
Events in Europe such as the Galileo affair, associated with the scientific revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, led scholars such as John William Draper to postulate a conflict thesis, holding that religion and science have been in conflict methodologically, factually and politically throughout history. This thesis is held by some contemporary scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg and Carl Sagan, and some creationists. While the conflict thesis remains popular for the public, it has lost favor among most contemporary historians of science and the majority of scientists in elite universities in the US do not hold a conflict view.
Many scientists, philosophers, and theologians throughout history, such as Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins, have seen compatibility or independence between religion and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould, other scientists, and some contemporary theologians hold that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between science and religion, while others such as Ian Barbour believe there are even parallels.
Public acceptance of scientific facts may be influenced by religion; many in the United States reject the idea of evolution by natural selection, especially regarding human beings. Nevertheless, the American National Academy of Sciences has written that "the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith", a view officially endorsed by many religious denominations globally.
Religion is the search for answers to questions that we cannot test to find.
Science is the search for answers to questions that are testable.
Because of this, the means in which they use to find the answers to their questions are different, but by definition they have to be. That does not make them enemies, just slightly different.
Even their ideas and theories aren't as conflicting as people seem to think. For example:
The Big Bang Theory: theory to explain why the universe is expanding
Creationism: theory to explain why the universe is a thing
They aren't sworn enemies, they're both the manifestation of humanity's innate curiosity.
As a man of faith, I would say They are completely compatible. I would not fight science, in fact I appreciate it. Religion and science both prove the same points along a line. I would say the only real difference is that the science "world" is expanding at a much more rapid rate than any other religious standpoint.
Science is always affected by one's worldview or the worldview of the culture. If you believe that the world is not real, you would not bother to study it. If you believe that a God created the world, you would see the world as his masterpiece, and would believe, as classical scientists did, that the world is rational, consistent, and meant to be studied. If you believe there is no God or any supernatural causes (and yes, that is a "religion", or worldview), then you would approach science from the assumption that everything we see has natural causes, and was not designed.
Science can effect religion. For example, you might be a scientist with a particular worldview. However, through observational study, you come across something that contradicts one of your beliefs. If you were an honest scientist, you might conclude that the only way to reconcile this is to change your worldview to match your observations.
Science and religion are not enemies. They affect each other. What you observe and study is filtered through your worldview, and your worldview is shaped by what you study and observe.
Religion makes factual claims about the universe and humanity that have been proven unequivocally to be false. Just look at the evolution issue in America where some people still don't recognise it because of faith or think that the earth is 10000 years old these are scientific claims and frankly they don't stack up.
To go by faith means to believe a claim without evidence. In religion, this is seen as divine truth. Science is much more skeptical to believe in a claim without evidence. One must back up their claim or it will be dismissed as false. When you question and test a theory, that is called science. When you question and test the church, it is called heresy.
I have been read The Quran and The Bible as an atheist, and I found a lot of verses were wrong in respect to scientific experiments. In the 21 centuries, we know earth has been born about 4.5 billion years ago, and we have understood the evolution is a fact. They have conflicts with science in some realm, and I prefer to accept science, because it has evidence and its weak rival has not!
Dating back to the Medieval ages, when Muslims had wondered how to make reason and logical proof agree with their religious belief no confirmation was risen of proof of resurrection, or rising of the dead. Religious figures had always shared conflict with scholars, which still tend to be the case today. Science has not reached a logical explanation of religious beliefs and will most like not in the future.