The Problem Between Science and Religion

In history, science and religion have always opposed. The state of mind is based on knowledge, observation and experiment. But religion has virtually no evidence, it is entirely based on beliefs and emotions. The problem between these two themes is that one person has factual evidence and one does not have one. Science can explain the law of gravity - if a project is destroyed, it will fall. Religion can explain the experiences of singles with supernatural existence.

Another problem between science and religion is the existence of God. The field of physics represents the universe with a relatively simple concept. The interpretation of cosmic dynamics provided by physics may not seem simple, but as you learn more physics, the structure of the universe seems to be increasingly simplified. But theorists assume that infinite complex gods are necessary to explain the simple structural universe. Descartes believes that God is a very complex existence with totipotency and omniscience. Theist's position replaces the question "How did we come here in our simple universe?" Interpretation is more likely than a complicated interpretation (Britannica Encyclopedia Online) "How did a very complex God come here?" Science principal excluded God. Kai

One way to distinguish between science and religion is to scientifically focus on the natural world, focusing on the natural world and the scientifically supernatural world. Scientific interpretation never attracts supernatural entities like God and angels (does not drop), unnatural forces (miracles, karma, mind, etc). For example, neuroscientists often do not refer to non-material souls and spirits but explain our ideas using the state of the brain. Naturalists distinguish between methodological naturalism, the limits of scientific exploration, the natural substance and the epistemological principle of law, and the ontological or philosophical naturalism, the metaphysical principle that rejects supernatural (Forrest 2000 ). Methodological naturalism does not say anything about the existence of supernatural entities, as it contains scientific practices (including the types of entities and processes that are specifically cited).

In addition to the boundary between science and fake science, the philosophical reflection of false science brings to other interesting problem areas. Examples include the boundary between science and religion, the relationship between science and reliable nonscientific knowledge (such as everyday knowledge), the extent of science education and rational simplification of science, and the nature and logic of scientific methodology naturalism There is a rationale (Boudry et al. 2010), and the meaning of the concept of paranormal or meaningless. Some of these problem areas have not attracted much philosophical attention