Why science vs religion?

I have heard many people argue that religion in some way conflicts with scientific thinking.  With thought processes including arguments that religion hinders scientific thinking. I am not a religous person but I don't have the faith necessary to claim that I think scientifically.  That being said science (hard science) answers the question how things work and religion answers the question why things work.  From that standpoint I don't see why these belief based constructs contradict each other.  Furthermore scientist often times dilute logical thinking when they believe that science is based on something other than faith.  The skeptical scientist isn't suppose to question their sensory equiptment becasue empirical evidence is viewed as reliable.  Newton besides being a great physis was a hack in other scientific fields.  He was very interested in the functioning of the eye and unsuccessful in determining how it worked.  Why does Newton care about the eye?  becuse if he can't show that the eye is giving him reliable information then he is no closer to explaining Gods plan.  We know today that the eye combined with the brain often shows us a very distorted view of reality.  Furthermore string theory suggests that our senses are incapable of gathering data in most of the dimensions in our reality.  Yet the "skeptical" scientist still believes in their ability to perceive reality via their senses.  Newton, as physis like to claim was the father of science and what they tend to forget a very religous man, developed his laws under the assumption his methodology could derive a greater understanding of Gods plan.  Religion seems to be a catalyst to science in this situation.  

If gods don't appear to the senses then I don't know why people think they exist? Seems like old stories which have no evidence for belief.

I've been heavily afflicted with this fallacy also (I'm 17!), but I've come to realize what you've stated and have summed up perfectly. Disbelief in religion does not mean belief in Evolution or the Big Bang Theory, nor vice versa. I am Christian, but I still believe in microevolution and some aspects of the Big Bang Theory.

In addition, I would like to add this:

Since science in no way contradicts religion, it is the question of the individual when one debates with another on the topic. Ultimately, belief is a subjective matter and cannot be directly influenced by objectivities such as science. The best any kind of preacher can do is tell one of his religion or belief, but it is ultimately up to the hearer of the doctrine (and, in my case, God, but that's my belief) who will decide whether to believe it or not. 

Science is simply discovering how God has designed the universe to sustain human life, its the arrogance of man to take credit for it.

In response to trysts:  why do you think that what you sense should be believed?  This belief isn't logical it falls to the fallacy of circular logic.  That is to say a scientist can not prove that empirical evidence is valid by using empirical evidence to do so.  This leaves a scientist with no evidence to justify the use of empirical evidence.  If we look at the evidence in the form of a ration it is absolute 0 (empirical evidence supporting the use of empirical evidence) / 1000"s (information that suggests our senses are not good at collecting and analyzing data) 

In response to Vulpes:  First off thanks for the compliment.  I am not a big fan of absolutes.  I wouldn't claim that science in no way contradicts religion.  Just that both are filled with logical inconsistencies and are belief based.  One difference is that science is a belief system based on human superiority, well religion is a belief system based on Godd/Gods superiority (this doesn't cover every religion but all of the ones I am familiar with). Just because a belief is subjective does not mean it is set in stone, especially with younger people like yourself.  On the other hand pitting an "objective" argument (scientific argument) against a subjective belief is indeed folly as far as I am concerned.  By folly I mean it is an argument that does not change the belief of the other person.  What works much better is to work within the system being protected.  That is to say question the validity of science with empirical evidence.  Question the validity of religion through moral based arguments.  And saying that religion does so much harm is not an effective moral argument as the religious person can simply say that the person committing these atrocities is not a true practitioner of their faith.  Furthermore what about the harm caused by scientific reasoning.  Every intentional act of violence is rooted in science.  Intertional violence follows a cause and effect relationship.  I stabbed him bease I wanted him to die.  This is scientific thinking

In response to Talsknight:  This is what science started out as.  I am not so sure this is what it is today.  It seems to me that many scientific experiments are done just to show that science is a good thing and accurate within the scientific system.  In this way they think they add to the evidence that supports science is a good way of doing things.  but they fall victim to the fallacy of circular reasoning

And thanks ballcrusher I haven't read the Tao of Physics.  I will have to check it out

I don't quite understand you, bildotheodlib1001. Science helps to demonstrate the actual existence of things outside of our imaginations. Our minds deceive us, not our senses, so empirical evidence seems to be the best way to overcome the faults of our minds. For instance, there is no empirical evidence for the existence of gods, but for reasons having to do with the mind being led into error, people believe in things that don't actually exist.

I disagree science labels thing, science proves things false, science discovers cause and effect relationship; science does not operate outside of our imaginations if by that that you mean deal with capital T truths.  Actually I don't see any way to justify the notion that science works outside of our imagination.  What is the difference if the mind or our sensory mechanisms is the curprit of deception they work together not independently?  And in my opinion science empowers people with the ability to more accurately predict things in our reality it in no way demonstrates the actual existence of anything. That is an assumption of science not something proven by science. 

What do you mean by capital T truths, bildotheodlib1001?

Since all of us can believe what we want, then our sense perception is the only way out of our beliefs. It's what's there right now. It's our immediate experience which Others, within our company right now, can also experience. We can point to things for the Other to know what we are speaking about. Science is just observing things more closely. Longer. It is as if you and others were examining the same thing, together, presently. 

The imagination is a reflection upon things. Or, it is a creation of things in the mind. A dream or fantasy.

When alone, there is no problem with imagining things. But problems do appear when imagining things in public, and acting upon things which aren't there for anyone else to experience. Which is why I believe that science is basically empathetic. The value of science is in the understanding that empiricism, sense data, allows us to communicate with one another. I may connect with another person a thousand miles away because I can speak of things that actually exist for that person as well as for myself. But if I start talking about an invisible man who talks to me?... then communication will be invisible as well, me thinks:)

bildo  You have stated so many things that are not really true and/or unclear that it is hard to respond to your many paragraphs.

Religion often conflicts with science. In the USA we have many people who are anti science and also anti evolution.  Some even want to teach the un science of Creationalism in our schools.

Science is hindered when you have so many religious people who are anti science.

bildo  Religion does not answer questions on why things work? If you think it does-give examples

Also science does not use "faith"  Faith is just about opposite of science.

Do you understand how science works?  If so please give your understanding.

ask a person who is religious why things work the way they do and they respond "because God made it that way"  religion always answers why is that answer good enough to a skeptic of course not but it is an answer

Every thing I state is not true I accept that.  Everything anyone says can not be proven true

Yet these so called anti-science people pay the bills for scientific research.  If they possess any power to actually slow the progress of science I don't see it

I disagree sensory perception confirms our beliefs if the beliefs are scientific it does not let us escape a belief based system of reason.  Capital T can be irrefutably b proven true

Einsteins theory of relativity was basically imagination although it was rooted in mathematics.  He called this a thought experiment and it is unscientific in my opinion but most people disagree he got a nobel prize in science for it.  Anyways this is considered to be a breakthough in scientific thinking just one example of when imagination is recognized as beneficial to the general public.  but that is cherry picking the point being imagination in public is a catalyst to thinking.  I think thinking is a good thing although it can have very negative consequences so I like having as many opinions created via the imagination in public discussion as possible. I think more options/opinions is better than less options/opinions.

I pay taxes and had to pay my share for the insane Iraq War but I did everything practical [letters to editor etc] to show why that war was based on lies.  The reason I did not succeed is there were not enough of me.  However in this country we have tens of millionos of people who are anti evolution and anti science and pro the non science of Creationalism.  They want to teach Creationalism in the schools which is anti science.

Stem cell research is put back because of religionists.  The education of the general public goes down with so many people anti science. 

Funding for science is not what it should be with so many people anti science.

Can you prove that empirical evidence is true?  No you can not.  In the system of scientific reasoning you assume empirical evidence holds value.  U can believe empirical evidence.  Also what defines how much empirical evidence is enough to prove/disprove something this is all subjective, based on expert opinioin (also subjective), and faith based.  Free Online dictionary faith- confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.