0
Yes. Religion is a faith based interpretation and Science is an observation based interpretation of that which is. They are both interpretations of that which is.
Where they diverge is when faith and observation do not agree. In this case, either the faith needs to be refined or the observation needs to be refined or, as is often the case, both need to be refined, because they are still interpretations of the same thing - that which is.
What else can I help you with?
What two points do science and religion agree on in relation to creation?
That it, and we, exist.
Does both science and religion agree Adam and Eve were tempted by the serpent?
No, just religion. Snakes can't talk. But maybe it has a metaphorical meaning.
Must the facts about science agree with the Bible?
There is no real requirement for science to agree with the words of the Bible, or even for the Bible to literally agree with modern science. Stephen Jay Gould explained this when he said that the domain or magisterium for science is the empirical realm - what the universe is made from and why it works the way it does. The magisterium of religion includes the ultimate meaning and moral values. These magisteria are nonoverlapping - science does not comment on the ultimate meaning of life, while religion should not comment on the natural world.At times the Bible does disagree with the facts of science, which makes Stephen Jay Goud's recommendation more significant for Christians. For more information on this, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/when-science-challenges-the-bible
Is religion more powerful science?
Religion is not a science.
Did Nazis agree with religion?
no
What has the author R C Wallace written?
R. C. Wallace has written: 'Science and religion' -- subject(s): Religion and science 'Religion, science and the modern world' -- subject(s): Religion and science
Are religion and science mutually exclusive?
No. Religion is a faith based interpretation of that which is. Science is an observation based interpretation of that which is. They are both interpretations of that which is. Where they diverge is when faith and observation do not agree. In this case, either the faith needs to be refined or the observation needs to be refined or, as is often the case, both need to be refined, because they are still interpretations of the same thing - that which is.
When did Albert Einstein say 'science without religion is lame religion without science is blind?
Albert Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" in his 1954 essay "Science and Religion." In the essay, he emphasized the importance of understanding and integrating both science and religion for a more holistic view of the world.
What are the major similarities of religion and science on the idea of creation?
Both agree that: Life cannot arise spontaneously. The universe has not existed forever. The world shows vast complexity in its details.
Who said 'science without religion is lame religion without science is blind?
; The quote is Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. : Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941More quotes of Albert Einstein; see link "Quotes Albert Einstein" on left.
How were science and religion linked in ancient times?
God created the world including science, hence science and religion are interconnected.
Why do Muslims generally regard science as being in conflict with their faith?
If you believe that the religion of Islam has all the answers to everything, then you don't need science. Either science is going to agree with Islam in which case it is superfluous, or it going to disagree in which case it is heretical. Either way, science loses. I should note that there is an effort by Muslims to create Islamic science, showing how science can be used to confirm the teachings of Islam. This is not unlike the Christian study of "creation science". In the end, everybody does want science on their side, but science must be subservient to religion, of you are a religious fanatic, as many people are.
