This article seems to be saying that science and religion are trying to answer the same question, how did we get here. But I feel like that's misguided.
I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how?
Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why?
We can explain how natural processes work, but, and I believe this is a question Aristotle asked with the immovable mover, we'll never be able to get to a root cause of why everything exists and what started it all.
Either the universe is infinite and time has no beginning, or there is a beginning and potentially an end. If there's a beginning, what was before the beginning? If it's infinite, how did it all start? These are the questions that I thought religion tried to answer. Science can (most likely) never answer why. Science is fundamentally based on repeatable experiments, and that's fine. We can use it to build a model of how the universe works, but as of today, we can't use science to answer the fundamental questions about the reason for the universe.
I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how?
Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why?
We can explain how natural processes work, but, and I believe this is a question Aristotle asked with the immovable mover, we'll never be able to get to a root cause of why everything exists and what started it all.
Either the universe is infinite and time has no beginning, or there is a beginning and potentially an end. If there's a beginning, what was before the beginning? If it's infinite, how did it all start? These are the questions that I thought religion tried to answer. Science can (most likely) never answer why. Science is fundamentally based on repeatable experiments, and that's fine. We can use it to build a model of how the universe works, but as of today, we can't use science to answer the fundamental questions about the reason for the universe.