Religion and science have been doing battle since Copernicus, and probably before that but I’m too lazy to think of an example. Ironically, both have similar goals. As human beings, we seek to understand as much of the universe as we can. Science tries to do that through empirical testing, data, and evidence. Religion does it by appealing to a higher power, an untestable hypothesis.
That doesn’t sit so well with science.
Appealing to a higher power as a solution to explanation presents a fundamental problem: There’s no way to fact check. If I were to suggest to you, that my computer runs on undetectable alien power, you wouldn’t be able to prove me wrong. This is because the claim is, by definition, untestable. It’s therefore not much of an argument, but it’s also important to note that there really is no scientific way to disprove it.
Science relies entirely on the physical, detectable, and empirical. The world of the science lab is well inside a Naturalistic understanding. However, the scientist has no reason to be committed to the truth of Naturalism.
This is to say, that there is no scientific way to say that “There is nothing that science can’t explain.” Such a claim would be circular and contradictory. Science cannot dictate that there is no possibility of non-scientific (Religious?) explanation for a given phenomenon.
The two are therefore essentially mutually exclusive. Although religious (telelogical) explanation falls short of delivering anything convincingly, science can’t disprove any of it either.
There’s a bigger problem between the two though.
And that central problem is what “Faith” means. To the dictionary again…
Faith, noun, “Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.”
See what the problem is here? Like I explained before, there’s no way for science/proof/reason to touch “spiritual apprehension” because such a thing defies explanation. The central tenant of faith, and therefore most religions, requires that followers do just that, follow. Proof is not necessary for religious conversion.
Science on the other hand, by definition, asks for evidence and proof. The two, therefore, cannot coincide fully.
One demands proof, the other says proof is not necessary. So if you ask me, pick one or the other. If you pick science you don’t have to be committed to the truth of Naturalism, but there’s no reason for you to accept teleological explanation for everyday phenomenon (other than human actions, but again, let’s not go there).