They also see science as something that shows proof that something is or is not this way or that way. On the other hand, they see religion as that of just faith, that there is nothing to prove or no experiment to prove it is real. A scientist named Laplace was asked by a Pasteur how could he believe in both and his answer was that he separates the two in compartments, one for home and one for the lab (Townes, 1966). This makes it seem like there should be a separation versus the coming together of science and religion. Physicist today have shown that light cannot be accurately determined if it is in fact a wave or a particle but they can actually be both. Can be compared to that of religion and science, how they have tried to make religion and science be different however they can be the same. Just like in science, we may not be able to see a wave property in a train, but since we can see it in a smaller object we say that it does. Same can be said for religion, just because we do not see it, does not mean it is not real. There are even “uncertain” principles which mean it cannot be predicted, therefore chance is now a major …show more content…
Robinson explains the conflicts between religion and science is because science is based on observation, while religion is based on faith alone (1999-2012). This is exactly the line of misconception that Charles Townes was trying to explain. He thoroughly explained and supported that thought that it is what people think, however they are wrong. Townes explains that science and religion are actually both faith based as so to say that with religion you have faith in God, which is similar to having faith in finding a scientific reason for