There is a distinction between facts as in

1. The natural sciences (meaning the density of materials, the interactions of chemicals under given conditions, biological laws, and the Laws of Nature) as opposed to

2. “facts” as in the social sciences, politics, popular vernacular and journalism, that are not so much facts, but a mixture of data and interpretations.

This applies to facts when it comes to religion. Facts in religion also are not same as facts in hard science such chemistry or physics which are usually quantifiable.

Science tends towards rationalism while that of religion is faith/theology and some philosophy.

Religious scriptures are books that contains theology in a historical context not history in a theological context.

As such trying to use the scientific method to understand religion will defeat the purpose of trying to understand religion.

Hard science and religion are "nonoverlapping magisteria" — science covers the empirical universe, while religion covers questions of moral meaning and ethical value.

Science and religion are two major cultural identities in the world today, and they use evidence far differently although their goal of a coherent understanding is remarkably similar.

To approach religion will be to use data collection such as that from soft science or philosophy. For example, you cannot confirm the existence of spirits using a technological device such as ultrasound or microscope.

It is best if each can respect the other and cooperate rather than compete.

The so called battle between science is religion is not really so. It is actually battle between Atheist and Theists.

**Updated

Kalatium:

There is a distinction between facts as in the natural sciences (meaning the density of materials, the interactions of chemicals under given conditions, biological laws, and the Laws of Nature) as opposed to “facts” as in the social sciences, politics, popular vernacular and journalism, that are not so much facts, but a mixture of data and interpretations.

So also the basis of atheism is rationalism/materialism while that of religion is faith/theology.

Religious scriptures are books that contains theology in a historical context not history in a theological context.

As such trying to use the scientific method to understand religion will defeat the purpose of trying to understand religion.

Hard science and religion are "nonoverlapping magisteria" — science covers the empirical universe, while religion covers questions of moral meaning and ethical value.

Science and religion are two major cultural identities in the world today, and they use evidence far differently although their goal of a coherent understanding is remarkably similar.

It is best if each can respect the other and cooperate rather than compete.

You are a little off base. The basis of atheism is not rationalism and/or materialism. If it were then all atheists would be rationalists and/or materialists won't they but they aren't. Atheism has a rather broad basis and incorporates all manner of thought in both science and philosophy.

Kalatium:



Religious scriptures are books that contains THEOlogy in a historical context not history in a THEOlogical context.

THEOlogy, of course, how are we going to use science which deals with facts and evidences to prove that Olympian gods exist or Israelite god yahweh or arabic god allah exist.
These THEOS only exist in a book just like saitama

Science and religion will continue to be in battle as far as sceince keep encroaching to the realm of religion

Maynman:

THEOlogy, of course, how are we going to use science which deals with facts and evidences to prove that Olympian gods exist or Israelite god yahweh or arabic god allah exist.
These THEOS only exist in a book just like saitama

Historical events on their own are difficult to prove.

LordReed:


You are a little off base. The basis of atheism is not rationalism and/or materialism. If it were then all atheists would be rationalists and/or materialists won't they but they aren't. Atheism has a rather broad basis and incorporates all manner of thought in both science and philosophy.

But must of their arguments mostly tends to rationalism or Materialism.

Though thanks for the correction.

Kalatium:


Historical events on their own are difficult to prove.

That’s we have historians and archaeologists to give us better understanding on it.

Kalatium:


But must of their arguments mostly tends to rationalism or Materialism.

Though thanks for the correction.

Well, rationality is a tool most atheists use since they are mostly no longer basing their arguments on religious sentiments. As for materialism I would say it's a little less pronounced because not all atheists think only the material universe exists. None of which are because atheism is based on rationalism or materialism.

Maynman:


That’s we have historians and archaeologists to give us better understanding on it.

Even they too are having a hard time. Events in the past are difficult to reconstruct.

Kalatium:

Even they too are having a hard time. Events in the past are difficult to reconstruct.

Well they are the best people to give us a better understanding of it.

LordReed:


Well, rationality is a tool most atheists use since they are mostly no longer basing their arguments on religious sentiments. As for materialism I would say it's a little less pronounced because not all atheists think only the material universe exists. None of which are because atheism is based on rationalism or materialism.

I noticed the most staunch Atheist are usually those who exited religion.