Science and religion have historically possessed a tumultuous relationship based upon the fact that the latter claims to hold the ultimate answers to the most fundamental questions of existence, while the former claims to hold the means to discovering many of these answers. Consequently, for much of human history they have been viewed as being analogous avenues to gaining knowledge of the world, merely attacked from different directions; science must eventually prove with reason what is already accepted upon faith. However, a number of scientific observations and interpretations have come into direct conflict with established doctrines of the Western, Christian Church. These scientific theories have caused many to question the validity of their faith, and many others to question the validity of science. Usually, the conflicts originate from formalized interpretations of Christianity rather than upon the fundamental basis of faith. In other words, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a divine being, but it can establish dates and sequences of history that contrast accepted notions. For this reason, science has sometimes been viewed as the ally of religion and at other times its direct enemy.

To Hume, "All that we perceive through our senses are impressions and these are not external physical objects but contents of consciousness," (McGreal 267). This is an ingenious leap from Descartes' conception of knowledge because Hume did not deny the possibility of an all-encompassing concrete reality, which influences us; instead, he argued that even if such a reality existed, it would be impossible to differentiate...

Scientists, on the other hand, find this hurtle impossible to overcome; as a result, they are forced to ignore it. In order for statements in science to possess any empirically workable link to truth, an objective physical world must be assumed; this assumption is innately rational in nature -- it requires faith.
Importantly, this is precisely the sort of world that is assumed in all forms of science. We do not consider it reasonable, for example, to expect one chemist to perceive the effects of a chemical reaction and for another chemist to see something completely different. Clearly, this would be ridiculous; yet, philosophically, there is nothing to prevent this from occurring. Chemistry and all other sources of empirical knowledge must rely upon this assumption: sense information possesses an unambiguous causal link to objective, physical reality. So although Hume may very well have been right -- we cannot logically justify the existence of objective reality -- suspending logical speculation on this one question may nonetheless provide mankind with useful information. In this way, religion could be interpreted as more natural than science: science must operate on the same form of knowledge -- faith -- that gives any of our lives meaning.

Reference:

McGreal, Ian P. (1992). Great Thinkers of the Western World. New York: Harper Collins.

Russell, Paul. (2005). "Hume on Religion." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Oct. 4.

Smart, Ninian. "The Experiential Dimension." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2006.