What is the most important difference between religion and scien ce that makes seem to be in conflict?

Question

Like , for instance, if Religion and Science were two humans, what would their greatest problem in dealing with each other be?

Answer 1

An interesting answer here if you care to look:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2006/11/faith_and_an_undivided_world.html

Answer 2

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" (Albert Einstein)

"Difference between Science & Religion" is indeed a question that has sparked many intrguing philosphies over ther years, with both sides laying claims to be right.

I guess to achieve the right answer to this question might not be to find the difference, as they are like apples and oranges, incomparable.

Religions never explain how things are done explicitly, they are always explaining things in generic sense in order to appeal to all mankind to achieve a higher gaol in spirituality, as Sceince explains the ways it all happens, the intrinsic details, as to understand how it all happens in order to one day imitate and create on its own, that has already been created.

Science can never claim to have achive something that has not already existed before, and it is always dependent on the laws of the universe that already exist.

Religions say that the Almighty creator has created everything , even the laws that govern the universe, and the creator is not bound by the these laws.

So now you make the decision, is there really a difference between science and religion ? Or is it just we are trying to compare different thigns ?

Answer 3

Both make hard claims about things that happened so long ago that we have little chance of putting together enough solid evidence for either side. I have a background heavy in biology and physics, and so I realize that the evidence can be seen both ways. Its really hard to find that key piece of evidence, even for modern prosecutors. We tend to want that DNA absolute type evidence, but any theory on theta beginning of our world is going to be faith and perspective based. So one is the begging of the world the next is that they both are wrestling to be the predominant perspective for our culture. It is not so much science and religion as it is Philosophical Naturalism and Christianity. Both of which are basically faith based views. I tend to always go with the guy that came back from the dead, He may know something I don't.

Answer 4

1. Most of the time, Science would have in a long process of proving something that Religion already said/did in a blink.
2. Science somehow could not return from its thoughts at times which would annoy relgion.
3. Science would be a non-social personility with bald head who could not compete with social personality of religion.
4. Incompatible way of communicating

Many more....

Answer 5

Science is based on substantiated evidence and facts.

Religion is based on blind faith in a old collection of writings.

Scientific knowledge and much of the content of that collection are irreconcilable.

Science could not budge from it's position even if it wanted to because it is based on fact and mountains of evidence.

Religion cannot budge from its position because, if they open up to the possibility that science is right and something in the bible is wrong, they remove the linchpin holding their belief system together.

Answer 6

I agree with Kazoo. Science is based on evidence and it proves more and more things that contradict the literal interpretation and the apparent bigotry present in the Holy Bible, and while not excluding God, it offers a smarter solution that the believers consider heresy.

Answer 7

Please read this response carefully. There is No difference between the "biblical" / "scientific" reasoning(s). If anything, science has "confirmed" the "biblical" references and teachings of the Bible. The only question that has "haunted man" and will continue to - is Life - and the only way you and I and everyone else is going to find out, is when "The Creator" calls us home. So there really is no argument at all. Merry Christmas.

Answer 8

All of religion is in basic terms perception. technological awareness deals with information. no longer something in faith would be shown. technological awareness demands information. faith believes partly human, area poultry beings, technological awareness says that's impossible. faith says which you would be able to mumble a prayer, and somebody zillions of miles away "God" can hear it. technological awareness says,"No way". faith believes in a soul. None has ever been stumbled on. faith says that a sub-microscopic soul can inflate to an entire sized human. technological awareness won't be able to even think of the type of element. the entire thought of religion is which you do no longer definitely ever die. To a scientist, we are comparable to all the different issues in the worldwide. dying is the terrific end for us, the different animals, wood, weeds, bugs, each thing.

Answer 9

One human would say God made me. The other would say I came from a common ancestor to the ape, and before that maybe some sticky mud. Neither side would be able to prove without doubt either claim, and off they'd go.

Answer 10

Science keeps proving that the stuff in the old texts isn't accurate. It doesn't exclude a god, but it does point out that the texts are not divine. That really pisses off the believers.

Answer 11

Mr. Religion would only make decisions based on how he felt. Mr. Science would make decisions based on what he could see and touch.