• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

How much related is Science with Religion?


Registered Member
Ok, I didnt know where to put this thread: Science or Religion forum?? Well, anyways its here.

I have been wondering about this question while I came back home. Its true that in past times religion wanted to be stablished over science, and this conflict has been evolving through times, having set them both, superficially, in different or opposite places. But how much of this is true? Is really science the antireligion? or viceversa?

Many times i have though that religion and science can be more related than many of us can imagine. Putting aside the still unexplainable fact of a deity being or force that created the universe and the laws that govern over it as we partially know, we can witness a harmonious design and perfect laws (physical laws) that cant be broken.

Isnt that the work of a Marvelous Architect? I believe that theres a Superior Being responsible of all this design and laws, I cant possible think of an evolution guided randomly, it has to be Something/Someone monitoring all the process, making it possible. I see the greatness of our body systems, every single part is perfectly designed to work harmoniously with the rest. We are surrounded of lots of this marvelous systems, just take a look around: birds, plants, clouds moving, your pencil falling to the floor, etc... Then comes science, doing its work: comprehend how this universe works, study each one of the laws created by that Being. Science is the way to undestand God's mind and wit.

So, apart from making us believe in a god, what else have done religion for us? Well, like I said before we live surrounded by systems. Let me explain, the main goal of many religions as they say, is find happiness and peace in our souls in a world each day more chaotic. So here comes what I said, in order to reach wellness we must do many things considered as good things, like helping each other, sow virtues, etc. That will make our God to reward us, but its based on the system I was talking before, Sir Isaac Newton also told that: "Every action leads to a reaction". Yes, is an energy system also set among many others by this Being. Its simple, you do good things (send positive energy) and will be awarded (receive the positive energy back). Although the time between sending and receiveng remains uncertain, what its true is that this always works.

In conclusion, perhaps science focus to get knowledge about the universe and religion focus on enrich our souls and make us more humans; they both are based on perfect systems created by a Marvelous Designer.

Well, thats my humble opinion. Whats yours? Let me know plz!;)


Registered Member
I've always argued science is a way to find the truth - if the Bible/Quran/Torah/whatever is true, science should find things that confirm that.


Registered Member
For me, the largest faults I find with religion is that it does not support evolution in any form and the mystical magics it seems to promote. The problem with this for me is even if you look back only 1-2000 years you find things like average human height/weight have increased, supporting evolution, things like the appendix have shrunk by almost twice in size as this is not used by our bodies for the purpose they were intended, again supporting evolution. There is many examples why I must believe in evolution as opposed to a human magically appearing from nothing. much the same in the creation of the universe. In these matters I believe in science.

I do think maybe religion offers a certain comfort for some and much supports good value and ideals for humans, so in this light I can not deny there is not some truth to it.


Eye see what you did ther
The theory you're talking about is called Intelligent Design.
For me, the largest faults I find with religion is that it does not support evolution in any form and the mystical magics it seems to promote.
Why? It seems to accommodate it if you believe that God created the first creatures and they subsequently evolved into the species we see today.

I view Science as an attempt to describe phenomenon, and Religion as an attempt to find the purpose of phenomenon.


Registered Member
I think Einstein said it well:
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Although I'm not a subscriber to organized religion, I can easily replace it with spiritual practice. I think the two go hand-in-hand, and perhaps someday science will evolve in a way that can prove the existence of god (probably through the field of quantum physics).

To give you an idea of what kind of god I'm thinking of, I'll share with you something I read in a passage describing Native American elemental/vowel correspondences:

"...Aether, the substance from which all elements come forth. It permeates all creation, all signs, and all elemental aspects of Nature."

Also, a link to aether on wikipedia:

I was starting to ramble, so I'll just leave it at that.
Last edited:


New Member
Religion attempts to answer questions that there aren't answers for.
I agree. :nod:
If you think about it, science and religion are really the same thing. Now, please hear me out first-- back when humans became humans there was always at least one individual that had to ask the terrible question 'Why?' and 'How?' Since no one was around to conveniently explain the ways of the universe, humans had to find the answers on their own. And in the beginning, these answers were filled with spirits and deities. As time progressed and humans built upon knowledge gathered from ancestors we've developed new ways of looking at the world. We've moved from explaining lightning as Zeus being trigger happy to a natural phenomenon related to the movement of electrons. Religion, as it is today, is here just explain that which we have yet to find a better answer for. And until we find a better answer, whose to say any of them are completely wrong?