Science and Religion

  “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

-Albert Einstein

Statements about the world made by science and religion rely on different methodologies. Religions rely on revelation while science relies on observable and repeatable experiences.
Both science and religion represent distinct ways of approaching experience and these differences are sources of debate.Science is closely tied to mathematics-a very abstract experience, while religion is more closely tied to the ordinary experiences of life. As interpretations of experiences in life, science is descriptive and religion is perspective. For science and mathematics to concentrate on what the world ought to be like in the way that religion also can be inappropriate be descriptive can also lead to inappropriately assigning properties to the natural world. A notable example is the changes in scientific and religious thinking and may lead to improperly assigning properties to the natural world. The reverse situation where religion attempts in scientific and religious thinking brought about by Galileo and proponents of his views.
Modern scientists are less concerned with establishing universal truth which is seen, and dismissed, as the pursuit of philosophy, and more inclined towards the creation of functional models of physical systems. Christian Theology – excluding those fundamentalist churches whose aim is to reassert doctrinal truths – has likewise softened many of its universal claims, due to increased exposure to both scientific insights and the contrasting theological claims of other faiths. Scientific and theological perspectives. scientific ideas. The scientific advances made by Muslim scholars during the early period play a significant role. Even many 19th century Christian communities welcomed scientists who claimed that science was not at all concerned with discovering the ultimate nature of reality.
“Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions”
A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of- factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgements of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

            Like two sides of a coin, there may be conflicts also between science and religion, both science and religion complement each other like branches of  the same tree.