Are science and religion really two different things?

yes they are, science phrases a theory and then conductes experiments to prove it. and if the theory fails it is abandoned.

religion holds to a theory and denys the evidence to the contrary.

gaps in scientific discovery are filled in over time. we had to learn to make a combustion motor before we could make a helicopter. our lack of understanding in certain areas is not proof of god, just proof that we have more to learn

It's more like philosophy and religion are the same thing (science is, technically, a branch of philosophy). Western religion is a derivative of a very archaic form of philosophy called Platonism, one which asked important questions and gave answers which, at the time, were marginally reasonable. However, even though Aristotelianism has been proven time and time again to be the correct philosophy, people still cling to the Platonic idea of forms (Basically, that the essence of an object exists outside of it, in a sort of 'magical' way). It's an old, defunct philosophy which refuses to die gracefully.

Aquinas brought Aristotle to Christianity, just as Avicenna and other great scholars introduced it to Islam. These philosophical shifts resulted in the Islamic Golden Age and the Renaissance. Such flashes of brilliance, however, were short-lived, as the basis of Aristotelianism, the Law of Identity, contradicts any sort of mystic belief. Islam reverted back to the mysticism and brutality of irrational Platonic thought centuries ago. Christianity is now in the final phases of the transition.

Aristotelianism is the root of science. The three basic laws of Aristotle are: The Law of Identity (each existent (thing which exists) has a basic immutable nature. In other words, A=A), The Law of Noncontradiction (Contradictions cannot exist. A cannot equal non-A. An entity cannot contradict its nature), and the Law of the Excluded Middle (If a statement is true, it's negation is false. If a statement is false, it's negation is true).

The point of science is to discover the natures, or identities of existents. It does this by drawing on the Law of the Excluded Middle. As Richard Feynman put it, the central principle of science is that 'the exception disproves the rule.'

Example: our hypothesis is as follows: this solution is acidic. If we test the solution, and find that it is basic, then we know from the Law of Non-Contradiction that it cannot be acidic (something which is both acidic and basic is a contradiction, and contradictions cannot exist). So, this means that the statement 'this solution is not acidic' is true, which would make its negation, 'this solution is acidic' false, in accordance with the Law of the Excluded Middle. The exception has disproven our hypothesis (the rule).

"Philosophy is the goal toward which religion was only a helplessly blind groping. The grandeur, the reverence, the exalted purity, the austere dedication to the pursuit of truth, which are commonly associated with religion, should properly belong to the field of philosophy."

- Ayn Rand -

I believe science can explain a lot of things. Although I am not an atheist, I don't believe that religion or science make up for any gaps in those things we cannot explain. I believe that there are some things (and people) that just cannot be understood or explained. Science is based on logic and proof and is upheld literally because peers and time can tear down your findings. If your findings can be replicated, then you have credibility. However, science is very fluid because there are so many things that we come to understand in a different light with continued research.

I also believe that the Bible is not made up of solely the words of GOD or Jesus because it has been translated, watered down, edited, and rephrased thousands of times over the years. That said, is cannot have the same potency that it was to have if it came directly from GOD. Also, I find it highly troubling that the same people who claim they are religious, use religion to mistreat others and I'm talking about people from various faiths, not just those that some would like to consider on the fringe.

So, I guess I don't give you the quick and dirty answer you may have been looking for, but that is my experience. Religion is faith, hope, and feel good as opposed to Science's research, testing, conclusions, and the ability to see, touch, and prove or disprove. In the middle lies the unexplained.

Science can't explain everything, and scientists do acknowledge this. Weird things happen every day that science can't explain. God's existence can't be proven or disproven using scientific means.

The same goes for religion. There are good Christians who pray daily and attend church who are dying and starving in other countries while I'm sitting here on my fat behind typing on a computer in my air-conditioned living room. I didn't even go to church this week (my bad!). So, can religion explain why so many bad things happen to good people? Nope. Not really.

I think that science and religion can go hand-in-hand because neither one can disprove the other. I believe in the Big Bang Theory, yet I still believe that God created the universe.

Science has taught me reason and religion has taught me righteousness. I don't want to give up either of the two!

It's a fundamental human desire to understand our world. When we were incapable of doing so, we made up answers, because we need answers.

It's true that religion, and science both attempt to explain how the world is, but only one of them is based on fact, and religion also has many other functions, community, control, etc.

As for your question whether I think there is anything science can not explain, my answer is no. Because we may not have all the answers now, but anything that exists, should be able to be explained scientifically. I can't comprehend the idea of something that could exist outside of nature (since everything that exists is nature), or outside explanation.

What is the difference between belonging to a church and belonging to a political party? What is the difference between a pastor on a pulpit and a politician on a platform? What is the difference between bowing down to a cross and standing up for a flag? There is NO difference, except ones devotion to a favored canditate or a favored deity. So if people are attempting to worship a god in church, who are they worshipping in politics? Science is not the proper term for questions based on morality. That is called politics. For example, man discovers inertia, but should should society fasten their seat belt when driving a vehicle? The word science etymologically means "knowledge." But it is knowledge confined to the physical universe. Not knowledge regarding morality. Religion to society generally symbolizes God's ideas. Politics to society generally symbolizes man's ideas. So do problems emerge when religion infiltrates politics, or when politics infiltrates religion? Science and scripture are not at odds. We don't have to have one OR the other. What the Bible explains is morality, but when men politic its meaning, then there is detrimental religion. But science cannot explain how man should govern himself. Because if everybody believed in science without God, scientists would become politicians. And politicians are just as harmful to society as the majority of religions that exist today.

People want you to believe that science and faith are not the same thing and that they're in conflict with each other, but I agree with you - they're just different sides of the same coin.

For instance medicine can go so far to curing a patient of a serious illness, but if the patient doesn't want to get better it's unlikely they will. The medical care they receive may be the same, but there's something more than just science involved. Doctors and nurses recognise it, and recognise the need for holistic care. You can accept either one or the other, but you'll never have the full truth until you put them both together.

Yes, they are.

The "delineation" between science and religion came about because religions refuse to use the proven-reliable scientific methods to arrive at facts about the universe, and science does.

There is nothing that science cannot *possibly* explain -- there are only things it hasn't yet explained. Religions, however, don't actually explain anything, even when they (by sheer dumb luck) happen to be right about something...because it doesn't work by evidence and facts.

Peace.

Totally different, science is a study of our world and religion is stories made up to explain it. There is nothing we know about that science hasn't attempted to explain rationally through research and experimentation. When it fails to explain, it says so. But religion makes up stories to explain things.

they're 2 very countless issues. the priority comes whilst human beings attempt to apply one to describe the area of the different. basically, technology tries to describe how issues are and faith tries to describe why. One won't be able to instruct or disprove the different, because of the fact technology, by ability of definition can purely clarify in the universe (the comparable actual regulations does not function externally) and faith/God, by ability of definition, exists the two interior and outdoors the universe, and does not have a rigorous approach of information.