What is the difference between religion and science?

Answer 1

There is no difference between true science and true religion-for one truth never conflicts with another. As a matter of fact, from an eternal perspective, true science is part of the gospel itself; in its broadest signification the gospel embraces all truth.

The difference between science and religion is simple. Science bases itself apawn facts. Very rarely does religion and science cross each other. For example, a science question can say..."why is the sky blue?" Science would give you many variables as to how and why the sky is blue. Then they question what comes after those variables. Like "well, what made the dioxide set in the clouds so naturally?" Where as religion will say, "God made it that way." That is their answer to everything science. I believe so too. Once you brake down the variables using science and cant further simplify, then use religion by saying "Its all because God made it so.." Then you may smile and think no further. Science uses facts while religion gets to the piont.

Science is the attempt to explain observations in the physical world using only what we know about the physical world. Religion is the attempt to explain observations in the physical world using explanations not from the physical world.

Answer 2

Another answer from our community:

Not only are there NO contradictions to science in the Qur'an, but many believe it gives evidence of scientific information that was only proven in the last century.

1) The Big Bang (still a "theory") : "Do the unbelievers not see that the universe was all one piece; and God smashed it". and, also: "it (the universe) is expanding".

2) That life cannot exist without water : "And We made every living thing from water"

3) The very stages of the development of the human embryo are detailed - step by step - in the Qur'an. A leading embryologist found Islam through those very verses. They detail things you cannot see without a microscope.

4) The separation between the fresh and salt water.

5) The shape of the Earth. That it bulges at the center. Already, the Qur'an indicates that the Earth is "egg-shaped".

6) That there are atoms, and particles even smaller than atoms.

7) That God created the world in six EPOCHS, or AGES; not twenty-four hour days.

8) That there are seven layers of atmosphere, and seven layers from crust down to core, of the Earth.

And on and on and on. Pick up a book on science and the Qur'an, why don't you? In fact, the Qur'an's WHOLE ARGUMENT is that if you look into the world, and into your own self, that there - in science - is PROOF of God.

"And We will show them Our Signs - in the horizons and within themselves - until they testify that this (the Qur'an) is the truth"

Another answer:

This is just about one of the hardest questions out there and you sort of have to form your own opinions on it. I find the first answer too simplistic, while the second answer is not an answer to your question. Here's how I would put it:

Ever since humans started asking themselves "why" questions, the beginning of our efforts to understand the things that happened to us so that, with the help of this knowledge, we would get better and better at protecting and providing for our kind, we began to believe things.

Say we believe x happened because of y. If we want to prevent x from happening again, maybe it would be easier to deal with y, and if you want x to happen, maybe you can do something to get y to happen. If you have some control over y, you have more control over x. The relation between cause and effect is very tricky to figure out - we begin to study something only when we don't know the answers regarding what we are studying. So people started postulating things, postulating different ways of explaining the same phenomenon. Postulations are an essential part of science - what else can you go on when you begin your research other than by assuming something?

People believe things because that's what we do with our minds - we thinks stuff, we assume, we know, we consider, we're convinced, we have hunches, etc. I think that religion and science, as they are understood today, were borne out of the same desire to have some control over our environment, to stay safe and with a full stomach. However, the desire to know can take different forms.

To me, the main difference between religion and science is one of attitude rather than methodology (experimentation vs. revelation). The methodology is never perfect - there is always room for improvement, as is clear when we look at the ways theories have changed or transformed over time, so I honestly don't think that "the scientific method" actually refers to a method. Science has no unique method of research. What I think it refers to is a certain approach one has when studying the world around them, one of genuine curiosity, not ego-centric nor egotistical, but fully committed to formulating the best theory in order to explain a given phenomenon. It is about being open minded, ready to admit when shown wrong, being cautious about what is claimed with repeated verification and testing.

This is what I think differs most from a religious attitude, which means is one that urges you to being certain of what you already think. Because you have faith in it. The scientific approach is one aware of its own limitation, aware of our fallibility. Religious attitudes rarely (if ever) doubt the truth of what they say. The religious truths are stagnant, they don't form a basis from which you can construct further understanding of the world. Knowledge evolves, it develops and (many may not agree with this) it also changes, and we find sometimes that things we thought were true proved in fact to be false.

Well, a religious attitude would deny the new finding, because it contradicts the truth that was already given. A scientific attitude allows for corrections and changes there where corrections and changes appear to be needed. It leaves room for improvement. The religious truth cannot be improved.

... I would add .... religious truths are very unlikely to be of much use in understanding the world, because the chances that somehow one or another group of prophets stumbled on absolute truths, truth that needed no correcting in light of new developments in our ever-changing surrounding reality, are really really REALLY low.

Answer 3

At the most fundamental level, science is evidence-based, while religion is faith-based and does not require the same proofs as does science.

Stephen Jay Gould proposed the concept of Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA). 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. He said that 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. If accepted, this concept takes questions about creation and evolution out of the religious magisterium.
The difference between religion and science is the fact that religion will only exist if you believe in it. Science is backed up by proofs and can be proven through practical. Religion however, at most times, cannot be proven through practical. Science is like "fact" where a person cannot find a way to deny it while there are so many different branches of religions, it is hard to differentiate what one believes from another.