The tug of war between religion and science is not a new trend, the battle has raged on since the beginning of the twentieth century or probably far beyond that. Both concepts are borne out of the need to provide answers to what is seen and conceived. Religion is defined as the philosophy of the supernatural while Science is the philosophy of the natural. The latter gives answers to what is seen and tested. The former ascribes nature to a non-physical syntax or to a higher cause called God. Atheism dwells solely on scientific evidence in contrast to faith and while it tends to dismiss the ideas of an intelligent cause, at times it accepts that the universe had a beginning but was set in motion by a mindless cause. Religious folks say the opposite. While Science tries to answer the question of "how" the cosmos was caused, Religion tries to answer the questions "how" and "why". The conception that nature caused itself is resounded in ancient cultures of the Orientals. In fact, the Chinese character for nature is an ancient term meaning "create itself".

"Who can tell of creation from whence it came? - Rig Veda.

Those words were written three thousand years ago by a Hindu poet in the Vedas. According to the poet, no Hindu god can answer the question because they came after creation. In the Bible, we have a God that is outside creation and one transcending a material universe. Atheists do not agree with the idea of a conscious cause. The sole purpose for the disbelief of Atheism is the multitude of crimes committed in the name of religion. The Deists have tried to define this conscious cause in another way. Albert Einstein spoke of a cosmic religious feeling, a God who knows no dogma and not one portrayed in the similitude of men. Kenichi Fukui called it the link between man and the cosmos but he termed it "the idiosyncrasy of nature". Others, strict scientists to be precise propose a cosmos originating from singularity or the inflation of submicroscopic matter but one thing still remains, what was outside the singularity? Religion tends to invoke a Supreme being as the cause of the universe and this is what militant science is at odds with. They both agree that there was formerly no life on earth. Science doesn't dismiss Religion but it disagrees with it's tenets from which oppression of masses has sprung up. Those who disagree with her belief system are seen as evil or as undeserving of life and that is where the clash begins. Religion, militant religion to be precise is an opium, a thorn in the flesh. While the founders of certain religions were peaceful men, their followers are not. The truth be told regardless of my religious beliefs or background. Religious folks act as the devil's trap to lure people away from understanding the truth whether scientific or religious and not the other way round. The universe was caused whether on purpose or as a result of clumsy cosmic experiment, but views do not have to be a reason for mutual hatred.

Even though i agree with majority of what you said, i must say i disagree with certain aspects.

1. There was a line where you said "The sole purpose for the disbelief of Atheism is the multitude of crimes committed in the name of religion. ". I disagree with this, Even if all religions were peaceful, there would still be atheists and thats because the sole purpose for disbelief is the lack of evidence.

2. I also disagree with Religion and Science being siblings. I would say Science is a prodigy of Religion, it is a child sort of. Religion is our first attempt in understanding the natural world and precisely because of that, it is our worst attempt, Science builds on the failures and errors of religion and it is better for it.

3. There is another line in which you state that Religion tries to know how and why the universe exist. I also disagree with this, Religion has always focused on human life and how we are supposed to conduct, and even though it make claims about the Natural world, it has no basis in reality and there is no reason to take it at face value.


While we might not be able to know as of now what was before or even caused the big bang, the idea of a conscious intelligence is a far fetched one and there is no reasonable evidence to suggest this is true.

The Sumerians were both religious and scientifically inclined. Both concepts (religion and science) were realised on the dawn of civilisation. So, aren't we right when we say they are siblings? I am quite awed at your discretion @ donnffd. but your third point seems to evade my comprehension. Please expantiate on that. cc donnffd

lordnicklaus:
The Sumerians were both religious and scientifically inclined. Both concepts (religion and science) were realised on the dawn of civilisation. So, aren't we right when we say they are siblings? I am quite awed at your discretion @ donnffd. but your third point seems to evade my comprehension. Please expantiate on that. cc donnffd

Yes, i do agree that some civilizations had the two side by side, but there have been evidence that foragers about 40,000 thousands ago had some form of religion. This way predates written records or any scientific thinking or method, hence why i termed it our first attempt at understanding the Natural world.

my third point was pointing to how religion has evolved over the course of human history, and how it has lost its hold on the question of "HOW". It also cannot answer the question of "WHY" because it is too fragmented and too subjective to provide any objective reason why the universe exists, so it fails in both questions.

Religion however has played a huge role in human history and should be credited, it has done alot of good and terrible things but it was an invention by humans and that tells alot about the human mind.

Religion was the first step in trying to understand humans and the environment... Because we didn't know the answers, we attributed anything complex to supernatural forces... Science debunked many of these assertions either initiated or supported by metaphysics/ religion.. For example, d idea of a flat world and other scientific errors in the religious books...
I believe agnosticism and atheism are d trends of the future as science operates to debunk religious beliefs more and more

foladara777:

I believe agnosticism and atheism are d trends of the future as science operates to debunk religious beliefs more and more

In the End Times people Eyes will begin to open..

EyeHateGod:

In the End Times people Eyes will begin to open..

Just as they were opened in the garden of Eden.
I couldn't agree with you more.

It is expected and not surprising to Christians.

Mordern science is NOT similar to religion.

Science and religion was often conflated to be the same. Both were under the branch of "Natural Philosophy" during the early centuries.

And to be fair; they both had a similar goal.
They were both out to prove their was a creator and study his work.

Mordern science spawned out of the disillusionment of the old sciences; when most phenomena once ascribed to God(s) were operated by principles that were quite impersonal.

Mordern science is materialistic; reductionistic and existentialist.


Now philosophy and religion......

I guess you could call them siblings