what_Truth?:
Science and religion are always butting heads because in essence they are the same thing. Both have theories on why we are here; however a scientist will base his theory on modern logic while a priest will base his theory on ancient tradition. The priest will use elements of the scientist's writing to try and prove his theory and vice versa.
That's a reasonable description apart from the "and vice versa" part at the end. Revelation and ancient tradition have no place in science.
A scientist works to understnd the facts of life whereas a priest will decide what to do with them. For instance a scientist will tell us that human males are hardwired to sow their wild oats while religion will tell men to stay faithful to their wives. Which one is correct? Well science is right in that most men are obtrusive horndogs; however religion is right in that monogamous living is simpler, safer, and healthier.
Religion is more than just a code of ethics. While science does indeed tell us that "males are hardwired to sow their wild oats" for evolutionary reasons, religion tells us (for example) that men are inherently sinful due to the first man's eating a fruit. Now which one is correct? Also it is science, not religion that tells us monogamy is "simpler, safer, and healthier". Religion tells us adultery is a sin, and God will punish us for it.
truth be told science is not always as exact as it claims to be.
It rarely claims to be as exact as people expect it to be.
Scientists differ with each other all the time just like religious leaders do.
No, scientists differ over details while awaiting definitive evidence. Religious leaders care not a jot for evidence. Faith, the antithesis of evidence, is their guide.
Just as many powerful people have enslaved and mislead others by twisting science as religion (i.e. hitler's experiments on the jews, L Ron Hubbard's auditing techniques).Both science and religion can be used to hurt people. That does not make them equivalent.
Truth be told both have a definate place in human reasoning. When a cop looks for clues he's using science. When he plays his hunches he's using religion. Both have a definate place in solving the case.
Nonsense! A "hunch" is not religion. It's a feeling based on experience and heuristic analysis. The hunch leads the cop to look for clues in a certain place or to thoroughly check out someone's story. In the same way a hunch may lead a scientist to experiment with particular materials or look for evidence of a particular property. It would only be like religion if they stopped with the hunch. A police officer who arrested someone at random or because he had a dream would be acting in a way more analogous to religion.
The only way to remain a sane and rational person is to accept both schools of thought with a large grain of thought and good old fashion common sense.
It is impossible to be a "rational person" if one believes things for irrational reasons. Revelation and tradition are irrational reasons for believing something.