what is the conflict between science and religion?

Answer 1

The conflict between science and religion is superficial. There is not real antagonism between the two
Science and religion have apparently different aims and objects, yet in fact they are closely related and act and react on each other.
Religion without science degenerates into superstition, while science without the help of religion gives rise to materialism and lack of faith. Science, to speak the truth, has only purified religion, whereas religion has given a touch of beauty and mystery to science.

Answer 2

The Evolutionist (Science)
Will Argue The Egg Came First

The Creationist (Religion)
Will Argue The Chicken Came First


Therein Lies The Conflict
Between Science And Religion

Answer 3

What is this hoodoo between Science and Christianity? That the difference between the two is simply, with faith, if even one aspect of the God-figure is disproved, if even one page is shown to be bogus then the whole foundation begins to crumble. Simply put, it's impossible for faith to advance in any direction because of the attitude toward scientific findings.

Any Christian site one may go to on the internet is the same. They have all already drawn the conclusion of a deity, a genesis, and who is eligible and ineligible to belong to their belief system. Furthermore, they all use the same pseudo scientific method in an attempt to prove their claims.

The problem becomes immediately evident when it is proven wrong and void under methods of unbiased scientific testing. For example: The Bible was taken literally for many centuries. Unexpectedly, science puts forth not only the Big Bang Theory, but also implicates the steps that the earth went thru during its creation. Oh no! Suddenly a re-interpretation of the bible is needed to keep the faithful from straying. With that in mind, the popular story is NOW how God's days are thousands and thousands, and thousands of years long. We now have to warp the beliefs of the past that have stood for two-thousand years around the facts, as they're presented, in the present. That my friends is not research, by any definition, it is pure and simple indoctrination.

Answer 4

There's only a conflict if people decide to make a conflict. I was raised Catholic, but I always believed in evolution because I knew that the Bible was not fact but faith.

Many scientists claim a religion. Many religious people don't deny science. There is nothing crazier than saying scientific fact is wrong (as long as it's been proven continuously), just as it's crazy to say that there is no way a higher being created us just because we don't have hard proof of it.

Answer 5

Consider the history of science. How many facts of today were pseudo-science in the past? Too many. Scientists even said that it is impossible to go above sound speed. That is a proof of science's incapability of explaining everthing in presense time. Therefore i am almost sure that everything can be scientifically proved and in that time religon and science will be on the same point (but of course, which religion are we talking about? what i mean by religon is the sum of all divine teachings - spirit soul angels etc)

Answer 6

There is conflict between science and religion when people use religion to try and explain scientific problems or science to explain religious problems. The truth is they answer different questions. Science answers 'How?' and religion answers 'Why?'

Answer 7

Science seeks to discover and explain truths, while religion tries to hide truths.

For one, the topic of the origin of the world, the solar system, mankind and life on the planet is viewed very different. There is the example of Natural Selection, which explains how different animals developed according to natural phenomenons, such as natural selection during breeding and adaptations or evolved according to needs in their environment. The religious world would deny the world of scientific evidences and only teach religious views and superstitious matters without means of proof other than faith.

Or that a man looked up and commanded the sun to stop in its place in order that a battle could continue... (the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe back then) when in fact it is the EARTH that revolves and goes around the sun... and if the EARTH were to suddenly stop, there would be floods, earthquakes, etc. Galileo was put under house arrest and was under threat of being burned at the stake for this!

Religious leaders do not want the public to learn about evolution and the creation of species, thusly keeping the masses ignorant much like the myth of God keeping Adam and Eve ignorant in the Garden of Eden.

Throughout history, people and woman have been burned at the stake or tortured and killed for having views that differed with religious dogmas and have kept science from progressing due to superstitious fear meddling and preventing man from discovering cures and treatments (under threat of being labeled witches and being tortured and burned alive). What religion cannot explain off or take credit for, it would suppress by calling it sacrilegious or blasphemous to speak or read or to gain knowledge over. We would still be blood-letting if not for man's insistence and persistence in discovering the truth!

The conflict is a basic confrontation between beliefs of faith and proofs of facts.

Answer 8

There is no conflict between them. Science is about when and where, and religion is about why.

Answer 9

There are roughly 3 kinds of people:

1. Those that believe in religion totally and have no room for science.
2. Those that believe in science totally and have no room for religion.
3. Those that believe in a combination of science and religion.

1. and 2. are both bound for collision because they each think that they possess "the" answers.

Answer 10

Stephen Jay Gould, one of my favorite science writers, wrestled with that question for many years. He believed that there is no necessary conflict between the two, but that they represent different "magisteria" (ways of knowing/understanding). His book about the subject is called "Rock of Ages" and is really worth reading.

Amazon Review:
"...essayist Stephen Jay Gould has once again rendered the complex simple, this time mending the seeming split between the two "Rocks of Ages," science and religion... Gould begins by suggesting that Darwin has been misconstrued...
Gould eloquently lays out ... "a principled position on moral and intellectual grounds," central to which is the elegant concept of "non-overlapping magisteria." (Gould defines magisteria as a "four-bit" word meaning domain of authority in teaching.) Essentially, science and religion can't be unified, but neither should they be in conflict; each has its own discrete magisteria, the natural world belonging exclusively to science and the moral to religion. Gould's argument is ... convincing." --Paul Hughes

For a critical review of Gould's position, see:
http://www.e-n.org.uk/2028-Rock-of-Ages.htm