First things first. Science and religion are similar in some areas and different in other areas. Science can be measured. Religion, not so much. Religion is closer to philosophy and the ethical part of subjects. Science is closer to the discreet and quantitative aspects. They both perform different functions. You don't use science to answer ethical questions and you don't use religion to measure the universe.

A quote by Mark Booth sums it up rather nicely:


Imagine if you fed all these great works of literature - in fact all literature - into a giant computer and asked it the question: What are the laws that determine whether or not a life is ultimately happy and fulfilled? I suggest the result would be a body of laws that included the following:

If you duck out of a challenge, then that challenge will come round again in a different form.
We always draw towards us what we fear most.
If you choose the immoral path, ultimately you will pay for it.
A good-hearted belief will eventually transform what is believed in.
In order to hold on to what you love, you must let it go. [...]


Now imagine what would happen if you fed all the scientific data in the world into another gigantic computer and asked it the same question. The results, I suggest, would be very different:

The best way to keep something is to try your hardest to do so and never give up.
You cannot transform the world by wishful thinking - you must do something about it.
If you can avoid being found out and punished by your fellow man, there is no reason to suppose a providential order will punish you.

So as you can see, science and religion both have different ways of doing things.

Pros and Cons

Pros of Religion

  • Ethics
  • Hope
  • Love

Cons of Religion

  • Arrogance
  • Superstition
  • Hate
  • Fear
  • Control

Pros of Science

  • Understanding
  • Measurement
  • Data/Facts

Cons of Science

  • Short-sightedness
  • Limited
  • Over-reliance
  • Hate
  • Control

How religion and science differ on certain questions

Question Science Religion Commentary
How Did We Get Here? Big Bang/Evolution Creation Science says that the big bang was the beginning of this universe. Religion says we were created in the likeness of God. Perhaps they are both right?
Is there a God? No Yes Both science and religion have fair points to consider. Science likes the universe but doesn't like the personal God/mythology stuff. Religion focuses more on the personal God aspect and less on the overall big picture of energy.
Is there an afterlife? No Yes Since an afterlife can't fully be proven scientifically the scientific stance is no. Religion has always taken the stance that there is an afterlife.
Is there a purpose to life? No Yes I think the approach that religion takes is favorable as it gives people a sense of hope and belonging. Even if there was no purpose to life I think taking a negative view and saying that our life has no meaning is a less favorable way to live.
Do we need ethics? No Yes I think ethics are one of the most important parts of life and without some type of foundational ethics we may face problems moving forward together as society.
Is reasoning important? Yes No Science clearly has the upper-hand here. At some point religion decided thinking was not its thing and decided to let other people do that for them.
Should we obey authority? Yes Yes Both organizations love authority, although religion probably likes it a tad more. Science still praises the large scientific institutions and schools however.

So from this chart we can see that science and religion both have pros and cons in different areas. In general, science asks how and religion asks why. Let's continue on.

Religion and science both worship the same God

Although we don't know precisely what God is, we can get a pretty good idea. God, as defined by most major religions, is the source of energy behind everything we have. We can also get a pretty good idea of what God isn't - God isn't religion, God isn't a person and God isn't a planet. Let's just say God is energy or light for a moment. Saying now that this light belongs to one religion is completely elementary - just as elementary as saying that energy belongs to science. No, energy does not belong to science. Energy is a part of science, but it is not science. Light is a part of religion, but it is not religion. Science is man's way of understanding energy. Religion is man's way of understanding God. And God and energy derive from the same thing and are the same thing. They are all aspects of the source. So science and religion are both tools extracting data in different ways.

Religion has the exact same relationship to God as science does to the universe. They both try to build a box around it and say that they hold the keys to it, but neither of them hold the keys. They are both simply one level of interpretation we are currently using for these things. And at the end of the day they are both saying the same thing. If God is the universe and the universe is God then you have religion and science both claiming ownership of the same thing. Meanwhile, God/the universe is indifferent to either and holds no bias. Call it what you want, but they're both embarking on the same journey. Science and religion are both seeking out and understanding God/Light/Energy/the Universe, they're just doing it different ways.

Science and Religion both throw out the good with the bad

This is probably the crux of this article. Science and religion both, as do so many other things in life, throw out the good with the bad. This is because people are too stupid to take a refined approach to understanding. They are all or nothing. They are too egotistical and patriotic to develop the mix that requires hard work and careful discernment.

For example. Science currently has to take the stance that there is no God or afterlife because its current tool set does not allow it to see into such aspects of life. So scientists blindly throw away the whole God and afterlife thing like it's nothing. This is a huge shortcoming of science and a classic example of smaller minds only being able to go so far as their tools will take them. As soon as topics move into mental areas of discovery they give up as their scientific tools haven't quite caught up to measure here yet.

First of all, energy is essentially God and so is information. The universe as a whole is God. So as long as scientists are believing in the universe and laws of the universe you can't throw God out. Next, the whole afterlife discussion is quite perplexing. We know there are many, many people who have had near death experiences and they all report similar things. Even though science can't quite tap into this, it doesn't mean it's not real - the same way science couldn't tap into the world being a sphere despite the learned secret societies (all heavily religious, mind you) that knew this thousands of years before science caught up with them.

Science sometimes can be a bit arrogant in thinking it can throw out religious foundations because the majority of less intelligent religious people misrepresent these foundations. Just because majority of religious people don't know what they're talking about when it comes to God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Just because they take the literal interpretation of a physical God doesn't mean there isn't a more philosophical energy God. There is much more to it.

Conversely, religion pulls the same crap, but from a different level. Religion is much more apt to take the emotion/love > logic approach. This is fine and all, but at some point you will need to develop your logical and reasoning faculties. Emotion and love only goes so far. Religion thinks that if there is data that disproves a religious belief that the data is wrong. This may be the case some of the time, but a lot of the time science has it right and religion has it wrong. Religion has a hard, hard time refining their beliefs as scientific data sheds new light and understanding on them.

Religion focuses on personal growth and love

Religion focuses much more on the personal growth of individuals and the development of loving relationships. Yeah, I know, I know... What about all the wars started in the name of religion? What about all the religions that go around killing people? What about all the killing in the Bible, etc, etc?

Once again, a bit of discernment would do one well in these topics. The wars started in the name of religion are always started by the organizers at the top who are almost always corrupt. They are never started by the good-hearted mom and pops just trying to get through the day a little better than the last. Unfortunately, these manipulators at the top of these religions know that these loving and kind people are not so good at science and have very little discernment so they are easily able to manipulate them to their every whim in the name of religion. This is a negative and unfortunate aspect of religion.

Science focuses on faculties of reasoning

Science is much more focused on rational, logical things. Science measures something objectively and scrutinizes all the data to find the best possible solution. When better solutions come about science adopts them. This is a huge strength that science has over religion. Religion doesn't really work this way.

That said, science also pulls the same religious war stuff but in a much different context so few ever catch it. Science takes this approach: the world is heating up and carbon emissions will eventually lead to the destruction of our planet. We must take action immediately, please pay your carbon tax to the king. Wait a minute, I just payed my tithe to the Pope and now you want me to also pay my carbon tax to the king? What's going on here? Oh right, they both are used to manipulate people. Get over it and deal with it.


So which one is right? In my most humble opinion the answer is clearly both - and the positive aspects of both. We don't need the stupidity of religious people or the egotistical stance of the scientific people. We need the ethics and integrity delivered by religion and the logic and reasoning championed by science. It is all about blending the two, and believe me, it's not easy to blend them. It takes time, patience, understanding and commitment. That is why the two parties love attacking each other, they are having a hard time meshing the two polarities.

 Filed under: Science, Religion

About The Author

Quinton Figueroa

Quinton Figueroa

Facebook @slayerment YouTube

El Paso, Texas

I am an entrepreneur at heart. Throughout my whole life I have enjoyed building real businesses by solving real problems. Business is life itself. My goal with businesses is to help move the human ...



hey: "Science says that the big

"Science says that the big bang was the beginning of this universe. Religion says we were created in the likeness of God. Perhaps they are both right?"

I think you need to be more specific. When you are talking about religion here, you merely mean the religion Christianity. There are plenty of other religions that don't believe in "God".

jeff: yeah

Yeah like that one religion that believes in the force from star wars ( unless their god is yoda ).

nthabi: love your work very

love your work very insightful and inspiring

IdPnSD: Science is wrong and religions are same and correct

Science is wrong for three reasons.
(1) There are at least 1000 peer reviewed science articles that say science is wrong. This includes Newton, quantum mechanics, and relativity theory.

(2) Math uses real numbers. Real numbers are not objects of nature, therefore real numbers are false. How can you create anything that is true using something false like real numbers? You cannot. Thus math is false or wrong. Since physics uses math, and math is false, therefore physics must be false or wrong too.

(3) Our world is controlled by money. But money is false, because money is a real number. Since money is false, it must be free and abundant at its source, which is the central bank. How can a society, which is controlled by false and free money, can create anything that is true? It cannot. Therefore science is all wrong.

Take a look at for many examples from math and science. The book is free. It explains religions also.

me: if so, your comment is false.
@IdPnSD (view comment)

if so, your comment is false.
a) you used real numbers to list and apparently real numbers are false
b) wtf
c) you’re obviously coming from a religious stand point so try not to be so biased. no one asked for your input and bad grammar.

Anonymous: Real numbers are point on a

Real numbers are point on a straight line. They represent only distances from the zero (0) point. You cannot say 2 apples. Because apples are not distances. Only distances can be added. Two apples cannot be added. People will understand what you mean by two apples, but that is not mathematics.

Yeah: Please don't be so ignorant
@IdPnSD (view comment)

Throughout this article he stated the pros and cons of both ideas yet the biggest issue of religion was that it's filled with stupid people who don't know what they are saying, you are one of them. If you are not younger than 12 this is extremely disappointing and you should re-evaluate your ideas. You're information comes from a source based on philosophical beliefs rather than fact and before you posted your comment you should have taken 5 minutes to look up the invention of the numeracy system instead of preaching something I doubt you can fully understand.

Anonymous: "You're information comes
@Yeah (view comment)

"You're information comes from a source based on philosophical beliefs rather than fact ..." Here is an example. Bible says - what you sow is what you reap. This means you do not have freewill. You have never done anyting without any reasons. But since your reasons (sow) come before you act (reap) your present action is controlled by your past reasons. So you do not have freewill at present moment. This is a fact.

But all religions say you have freewill - this is a philosophical belief. But Bible says you do not have freewill and you are guided by destiny - which is a fact. Take a look at the destiny chapter and the yogic power chapter in the above free book.

Kate: Science VS Religion - Which Is Right?

Science VS Religion - Which Is Right?
My answer: Yes.

Hatem Yahia: Good question with wrong perspective

Your question is applicable in many religions, but what would it mean if you encounter a religion in which the scientific facts concur with what's in it? This is the case in Islam, science and religion conform. In fact, it encourages people to contemplate and ask the 'hard' questions, to verify (through reasoning) that it is the rightful religion. There are many books showing, with examples, how certain recent scientific discoveries were already mentioned in the Quran, such as the continuous expansion of the universe till now. I have also mentioned just a few in my book (feel free to contact me for a free copy):

Since the basis of this article was faulty, there are some points within it that are faulty too, although there are some that are correct. Of the wrong points, the conformity of science with what is written in the Quran since 1400 years ago is actually scientific proof that there is a God. The afterlife can be proven scientifically since the phenomena that trees bud apples multiple times proves the possibility of human resurrection, in that both processes are similar. Moreover, we were practically dead before we were fetuses and given life and born, thus what prevents it recurring in the form of resurrection. This is just the tip of the iceberg, please read the Quran to personally asses whether it is the truth or not.

Jadon David: Hatem Yahia:
@Hatem Yahia (view comment)

Could you explain how that apple tree bud thing proves the possibility of human resurrection please?

Hatem Yahia: Sorry for the late answer.
@Jadon David (view comment)

Sorry for the late answer. When an apple sprouts, you see something in the process of being formed/created. That apple either falls or is plucked, but then another apple sprouts. This is a recurring feature, the constant formation of apples. Now the logical part is, if the creation of a new apple is an achievable process, isn't restoring an old apple a more plausible and easier task for that who formed it? Thus if we witness creation and acknowledge it, why do we see resurrection as impossible?

Craig: When the Bible states that

When the Bible states that God created light and then a few days later the Sun, and the Sun revolves the earth, man is made from dust and a woman from his rib and billions of people in the Abrahamic religions believe this as FACT and are more than willing to kill, murder, conquer and rape resources how the fuck do you put LOVE in the scheme of Gods. Scientist have love, hope, faith, happiness and everything God offers except the need to defend the absurdities by violence. Science moves in relation to facts presented and peer reviewed. Religion cant progress when people point out flaws and un-truths as wrong. Ask many a burnt witch and scientist. Ask Bruno how much love God gave him as he was fried on a Fagot. Religion is for sheep and sheep are fed, fleeced and fucked then eaten by their Shepard's.

Miguel Lahunken: The Way Out of Religious Intimidation

Do you let threats of eternal torment in Hell dominate your life? There is a way out.
God is a just God. What did God take away from you that He didn't give you, therefore, being a just God, that He owes you back? He owes you back your previous eternal nonexistence. At your Judgement before Him, if you want it, ask for your eternal nonexistence back. God, being a just God, will give you your eternal nonexistence back. Then, you will never suffer again.
Polarities? The only real polarities are the counterclockwise and clockwise directions of the closed circuits of the one substance, energy, in the one substance energy, that there be something to move out of the way and fill in behind. Differentiation causes consciousness. Counterclockwise on clockwise can totally undifferentiate back into individual nonexistence. By the second law of thermodynamics the previously constituent Planck's volumes of the undifferentiated circuits never reassemble again, guaranteeing eternal nonexistence restored.

mitsuko : this is a refreshing article.

this is a refreshing article. finally an article that doesn't bash either science or religion. religion and science can reconcile. but people must be willing to learn clearly, and throw away their own perceptions.

AnkitKandpal: Great Article

Amazingly written sir. I would like to add one sentence. Science and Religion go hand in hand. One is incomplete without the other. Even the best of science is based on the assumption that there is structure in the universe which itself is a religious claim to certain extent. Science and religion is the best relationship that can ever be.

Eros: First of all I think mostly

First of all I think mostly ofit as opinionated, but of course that can't be avoided. It is true that religion focuses on personal development of an individual but perhaps, although Science teaches you the "Never give up.." quote or "..Trying your hardest to succeed" does not form Ethics to and accordingly, to this article, Religion does but Science does not? I think, [learning about] Science of today mostly teaches the subject and its branches with Ethics? Although, in real life it is somehow deprived for circumstances that are accounted for? Religion shows and teaches Ethics too but both can be use by hypocratic people in order to gain aspects. If it's either cause of ignorance or superior knowledge, that I cannot determine.

C I P H E R: A flawed argument

Neither can be "Right" or "Wrong" in themselves. Science is the study of phenomena not purely Qualitative using logic, reasoning, and the scientific method. Religion is a representative of our immaturity as a species, based on blind following regardless of outside proof(The actual definition of faith is "Belief without proof"), merely for the sake of soothing our primitive morals and beliefs. After all, to believe that anything is made for us, let alone everything, rather than just most things that we believed to be this way to merely be so, not for us or anything, but they just "are". The violence of religion sprouts from the more "Caveman" side of us that it fuels, the primitive unreasonable side, whereas science never really did have a violent cause, others just used science for that. For example, with the atomic bombs, science in itself wasn't invoking violence, because no magic man in the sky associated with everything not explained didn't tell anyone to drop the bombs in the world of science, that was our choice. But science also enforces empathy arguably more than certain religions, because it teaches us that earth is a precious mote for life, and all lifeforms on this planet are precious, because as unlikely as it is, we very well could be alone in the universe.

The biggest flaw I see in most religious arguments is that most don't really get the scientific side. Time and time again, most arguments against science come from people that don't get science, or what they're arguing against, creating logical cavities in their arguments that ultimately make the religious person look stupid.

Ultimately, neither can be "Right" or "Wrong". It's merely about what both enforce, are about, and whether you believe those things are right or wrong.

Luis: On the fence illogical article

As this was the top article on comparing religion and science that I found on Google (congrats), I’m disappointed with the content. Whilst I agree with the conclusion (the morals of religion are beneficial to society)), you are totally ignoring the fact that religions hold as much evidence under scrutiny as the existence of Santa. No dinosaurs or other human species are mentioned in the bible (despite countless fossils found) and there is not one, not a single, grain of proof that any superior being exists or that Jesus Christ ever roamed the earth. Hence, religion should not be here because it is in effect a fraud. It is manipulation on the highest scale. Science does not manipulate. Science does not brainwash. Without religion the world would arguably be a more peaceful place. Whilst Homo sapiens are indeed a violent species and would likely fight over other things if religion were to be abolished, science’s only fight is for truth, not domination. I honestly believe the wrong species of the genus homo survived and our more ape like ancestors would have probably been more beneficial to the earths continued existence

Add new comment