The relationship between science and faith is a complex and long-debated topic, marked by periods of perceived conflict, attempts at reconciliation, and arguments for their fundamental independence. Throughout history, thinkers have grappled with how these two modes of understanding the world relate to each other, a challenge particularly persistent in medieval thought, as seen in the work of Aquinas. One prominent narrative frames science and religion as being in fundamental conflict. This perspective gained significant traction in the 19th century, exemplified by Andrew D. White's "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom," which documented a long and combative relationship. The publication of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" is often cited as a pivotal moment that widened the gap between science and religion, directly contradicting the biblical account of creation and reigniting the faith versus reason debate. On one side were creationists adhering to a literal interpretation of the Bible, and on the other, supporters of Darwin's theory of natural selection. Contemporary figures like Richard Dawkins have repopularized the idea that scientific reason and religious faith are incompatible and at odds. This viewpoint often sees science as a struggle against backwardness and superstition. A key point of contention lies in their differing approaches to knowledge. Science relies on experimental verification and the testing of hypotheses against empirical evidence. The claims of religions, on the other hand, often rely on faith, revelation, dogma, and authority. These are presented as irreconcilable approaches to knowing, ensuring ongoing debate. Furthermore, science, in its focus on explaining the mechanisms of the cosmos ("how" questions), may not address the ethical, human issues, and questions of purpose ("why" questions) that are central to many religions. Some argue that science deals only with facts about the physical world and errs when making pronouncements on values, society, or culture, which are seen as philosophical matters. However, a contrasting perspective argues for the compatibility or complementarity of science and faith. Proponents of this view suggest that science and religion ask different kinds of questions altogether, probing and illuminating in ways neither could alone. Science seeks to understand how the world works, while religion explores meaning and purpose. V. V. Raman notes that in Tamil, there's a linguistic distinction between "why" as a causative question (science) and "why" as an investigation of purpose (religion). This distinction suggests that they operate within different frameworks and address different aspects of reality. Raman proposes the idea of "experiential consonance," where one can distinguish between logical-analytical understanding (science) and a deeper level of experience (religion) without conflict. There are also areas where science and faith might seem to overlap. For instance, Aquinas used the example of God's existence, which is an article of faith for believers and a conclusion of argumentation for philosophers. This illustrates that the same truth can be approached through different modes of knowing. However, Aquinas also maintained that truths of reason cannot contradict truths of faith, ultimately prioritizing divine revelation over human reason due to the perceived limitations and fallibility of the human mind compared to the unlimited and infallible divine mind. It is important to recognize the limits of scientific reason. Science, by its methodological naturalism, typically does not address metaphysical or theological questions directly. Some argue that the "science versus religion" debate is unwinnable because they do not speak the same language or draw the same conclusions. Insisting that they compete on the same ground misses the point of both pursuits. The biologist Carl Feit described his scientific pursuit of cancer and his religious study of the Talmud as "dual intellectual quests," highlighting that they address different domains. The scientific core of Western medicine, for example, cannot resolve the vulnerability of human life or our struggles for meaning, areas that traditions of faith often address. Philosophy has historically played a crucial role in the interaction between science and religion. Early philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas were "men of scientific bent" who also believed in God, seeing an integration between reason and faith. Gadamer argues that philosophical hermeneutics aims to mediate between philosophy and the sciences, offering critical reflection on the truth implied by science rather than entering into conflict with it. Philosophy can also act as an interpreter between science and the lifeworld, connecting disparate aspects of validity and critiquing the "colonisation" of the lifeworld by scientism. From a theological perspective, some argue that it is not necessary for Christians to reject the naturalistic methodological assumptions of science. Instead, the focus should be on interpreting scientific methods and theories from an adequate philosophical and theological perspective, leading to consonance rather than conflict. Ian Barbour categorized different ways of understanding the interaction, including conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration, with dialogue and integration acknowledging points of contact and mutual influence. John Polkinghorne, a scientist and theologian, believes science and theology are "intellectual cousins" searching for motivated belief, both relying on an interplay between interpretation and experience and thus open to correction. He also notes that science deals with a physical world open to experimental testing, while God is not at our disposal in the same way, requiring trust rather than testing in the realm of personal experience. It is crucial to avoid the "God of the gaps" fallacy, where gaps in scientific knowledge are filled with divine explanations. As Polkinghorne points out, Darwin's theory of evolution demonstrated how phenomena like the complexity of the human eye could arise through natural processes, undermining arguments that relied on divine intervention to explain such gaps. The historical context is also essential. The intense "religion versus science" scenario is largely a product of the Enlightenment in Western Christianity. Other traditions, like Hinduism, have historically maintained a clearer distinction between religious and secular knowledge, potentially leading to less conflict. V. V. Raman suggests that in the Hindu world, there has been a better understanding of the different domains of religious and intellectual knowledge. Many individuals and initiatives have sought to reconcile science and religion. John Polkinghorne is a prominent figure who became a theologian after a career in quantum physics, finding both necessary to interpret the world. The International Society for Science and Religion elects fellows based on significant academic publications on their relationship. Ultimately, the relationship between science and faith is multifaceted and continues to be explored. While some perceive an irreconcilable conflict based on differing methodologies and historical clashes, others advocate for their compatibility, arguing that they address distinct but potentially complementary aspects of reality. The ongoing dialogue between scientists and theologians, along with philosophical reflection, seeks to foster a deeper understanding of both domains and their respective contributions to human knowledge and meaning.