Further than Parallel

In addition to running parallel science and religion compliment each other. While science is the act of figuring out and proving something as fact, religion tries to understand the rationality behind a subject. Religion is referred to and believed over science although science has the facts and proven information to prove what they have found. Scientists can prove that the 'Big Bang Theory' is more plausible than the seven days of creation, people still refer back and compare it to the old beliefs.
“A hundred years ago we didn't understand the Big Bang,” Consolmangno says. “Now that we have the understanding of a universe that is big and expanding and changing, we can ask philosophical questions we would have known to ask, like 'What does it mean to have multiverses?' These are wonderful questions. Science isn't going to answer them, but science, by telling us what is there, causes us to ask these questions. It makes us go back to the seven days of creation-which is poetry, beautiful poetry, with a lesson underneath it-and says, 'Oh, the seventh day is God resting as a way of reminding us God doesn't do everything.' God built this universe but gave you and me the freedom to make choices within the universe”(Mason, 2).
Here is a great example of how religion can display another angle of the story even though it is outdated and been proven wrong by science. Science explains why many things occur and many things cannot be explained through science such as aspects of human life. When it comes to these aspects such as love, relationships, and friendships, religion can better explain them. This is due to morals and reasoning are more affiliated with the church than theorizing and finding out how things work on a greater common scale. In an article from a book I found by Mikael Stenmark called How to Relate Science and Religion in part of it about half way through he sums this idea of religion and science complementing each other: “Peter Atkins talks about the different styles for theistic and scientific explanations, about what science can explain and what religion cannot explain, and how about the 'omnicompetence of science' and comes to the conclusion that religious believers are irrational, uninformed and weak”(Stenmark, 111). Both religion and science hold their own values and goals. However, they both find a way to explain elements of their field to people and in such a way that exemplifies their meaning.

Each source I used had much information regarding the subject of how religion and science are linked together however I picked out that they are complementary at the same time as parallel because I found it interesting how it was portrayed in the readings. The reading about how to teach the pope about science explains a lot more about the ethics and how religion leads to and plays a roll in science and the outside source talks about the same topics about how these two subjects although very different from one angle can be similar from another.

Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope

Stenmark, Mikael. How to Relate Science and Religion : A Multidimensional Model. Boston: William B. Eerdmans Company, 2004.{ http://books.google.com/books?id=9w-7L393j_sC&dq=How+to+Relate+Science+and+Religion&pg=PP1&ots=_iUMZc1wTZ&source=bn&sig=4jfhj5VytSmhlzv0hOV4ZlnJpY0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA111,M1 }