One answer to this question, proposed by Stephen J. Gould, suggests that there can't be a relationship between science and religion. Gould came up with the concept of non-overlapping magisterial or NOMA. Basically, Gould suggests that science and religion come from two completely different points of view with two completely different set of assumptions that they cannot come into dialogue with each other. For instance, science deals with facts and religion deals with values. Gould does not, however, privilege one over the other. Instead he notes that each are equally important for illuminating completely different aspects of human experience. The good thing about NOMA is that science and religion cannot be in conflict with each other, and both are valued according to their abilities to address different sets of questions about life and the universe.
Galileo, Darwin, Einstein and Pasteur, to name a few, all great scientists, each believed in religion--specifically for these, the Christian religion--and believed in science and made great scientific breakthroughs. For Galileo, his belief in religion was a compelling factor for his searches and discoveries in science. For example, his belief that God is not arbitrary led him to question the assumptions of his day and discover that air has substance and mass and can therefore be measured; he called this measurement air pressure. Science and religion have traditionally had a close relationship. It is only in more recent epochs of history that an effort has been made--rightly or wrongly--to separate science and religion and dismiss the longstanding relationship between them.
A good question. There is no single relationship between science and religion. It changes over time as the definition of science and the role of the church in society change.
Science means, in the broadest sense, a quest for knowledge. In that broad sense, it does not conflict with religion. Many great scientists have had religious faith—some of the greatest, in fact. In those cases, science becomes a way to understand the divine. However, in the sense of accepting only empirically proven facts, and rejected any non-naturalistic reasoning, conflicts with religion, which tends to embrace both direct revelation of truths and miracles that break natural law. Then they conflict. You might visit this site for more: http://scienceandreligion.com/
Modern science is based upon inductive reasoning, or examining evidence, drawing conclusions, and if possible, establishing laws. Modern Religion is based on deductive reasoning, stating, by authorities' axioms, that something exists or does not, and draws out conclusions. In their very thought processes, Science and Religion they exist in different realms. We can all agree about the law of gravity; whether God exists, and what his/her/its purpose for us is, is another matter.
I think there is a large relationship between the two. (For example) If you are a christian then you do not believe in evolution because it says that God created us from the dust. But if you are not a christian then you might think that evolution is real. I do not think that evolution is real because if it was why do we not see monkeys turning into humans if it takes hundreds of years then that is how long they would live for and or be a monkey for. Now there is alot to be said on this topic I dont wanna aruge I was just stateing my opinon. Very good question!