The influential physicist Richard Feynman became interested in the relationship between Religion and Science during a mid-career phase. He proposed that their interface was embroiled in unresolvable difficulties. He felt that Science demanded an attitude of uncertainty for its claims, while Religion contrarily required certain belief in its core doctrines. Though possessing several non-contradictory dimensions, Feynman felt that the nature of the truth claims of Science and Religion suffered from insurmountable elemental conflicts. This was by contrast to Karl Popper, the leading critical rationalist of the 20th century, who argued that there could be no tension between Science and Religion. This paper will argue that the ‘Feynman Problem’ is not as insoluble as it appears. Rather, several solutions exist within critical rationalism. Two will be presented-the first revolves around the conjectural basis of knowledge and is already a well characterised critical rationalist notion. The second is a novel solution based on the separate categorisation of psychological, pragmatic, and epistemological attitudes to Religion and Science. Karl Popper’s view of Religion-Science dissimilarity was a minimalist point of departure for critical rationalists, who have developed increasingly sophisticated frameworks for investigating the relationship between faith and reason. Critical rationalism represents an equally inspirational methodology for the pursuit of scientific and religious truth. Though both Feynman and Popper’s views on Religion were underdeveloped, they foreshadowed the Religion-Science frameworks advocated by many late 20th century scientists, especially in the form of New Atheism and Gould’s NOMA theory.

The scientific study of Religions commenced with the attempts of the influential scholars of 19th century such as Max MUller. These studies were naturally different from what theologians said about Religions.Max MUller can be regarded as one of the founding fathers of the "Science of Religion", but the Science was also indebted to Cornelius Petrus Tiele, whose attempts brought about new outcomes in the studies of religious phenomena.This article surveys the viewpoints of Max MUller. By emphasizing the experimental approach in the study of Religion, MUller decided to use comparative method in this field. Max MUller devoted his life to the study of classical Indian religious documents, the comparative study of religious history and myth, and the publication of the religious history of the world. He was an expert Sanskritist and mythologist; but his innovative theories about mythology have not been accepted by other scholars working on Religions. Nevertheless, his scientific and experimental standpoints about myths and the origin of Religion drew the attention of scholars for many years. His theory about origination of Hinduism from myth, particularly his solar mythology, was strongly criticized by many scholars.

Having long history in human life, Science and Religion in their long history have influenced it and approximately there was no contradiction. The progress of Sciences which started since 17th led scientists to some discoveries deferent from and sometimes in opposition to the formal doctrines of Religion in so far as the clerics and scientists started criticizing the views of each other. In 17th century because of new meanings Science and Religion the conflict between them changed. Before that time Science had no nature independent from philosophy, ethics and theology and the Religion which was based on faith before Enlightenment, in that age turned to the reason and the truth and falseness of its propositions started to be assessed. Because of getting two new different and separated natures, the conflict between Science and Religion became one of the important debates of 19th century, the subject that will be discussed in this article.

The issue of Science is a central issue in many early and later Shiite texts, so much so that it can be said that the Shiites have their own plan of Science. The "Science plan" here refers to a set of topics that define Science, distinguish real Science from pseudo-Science, determine its purpose and benefit, and make it the representative of human truth. There is a continuous tradition in the history of Islam, especially in Sufism, The most famous example of which is Ghazali's book "Revival of Religious Sciences". Such works have always seen the truth of Science in danger of being forgotten and distorted by the scientists of the time and have tried to show that true Science is something beyond the formal occupation of Sciences, the way of being a scientist that manifests itself as his morals and behavior. In this article, we have shown that the early and late Shiite scholars have similarly important and prominent works in the discussion of the pattern of Science and viewed it as a fundamental issue for the Shiites, As far as jurisprudential Shiism can be considered as a scientific Shiite. Although the method of this article is analytical rather than historical, the depth and breadth of these discussions in Shiite texts highlights the possibility of spreading Science-related issues in Sufism from these Shiite texts, especially since some later Shiite scholars also have emphasized on the Shiite sources of a book such as "Revival of Religious Sciences".

This article consists of two sections. In the first section, the meaning and nature of religious Science are examined through a genealogical and historical lens. It is demonstrated that the issue of religious Science has emerged within our intellectual-philosophical tradition and cultural history in the context of discussions about the relationship between Science and Religion. What has historically been debated in our tradition is closely tied to a theological approach, focusing on the interaction and relationship between Science and Religion. In the second section, drawing upon the findings of the first section and considering significant perspectives on religious Science, a sympathetic approach is adopted. Utilizing the philosophy of Mulla Sadra and by grounding Science in will, the concept of the life-world, and history, it is argued that if the discussion of religious Science is limited to this historical background, it becomes possible to defend a specific understanding of the feasibility of religious Science (as a process rather than a foundation). This approach helps address and mitigate many of the criticisms directed at the concept of religious Science.

There are various ways in which Science can be classified as theistic or Religion-based. One is when the components of scientific theories are accepted by the followers of Religions and rejected by the opponents of religious beliefs. Although Quine (1908-2000) does not believe in any Religion, the possibility of one concept of religious Science can be inferred from his explanation of the foundations of Science. According to him, Science is based on empiricism and physicalism, but these two presuppositions are not demonstrated. Therefore, introducing supernatural elements into scientific theories is not impossible; that is, empiricism and physicalism in Science can be put aside, and the production of Religion-based Science in the above-mentioned sense is possible. But according to Quine, this probable Science should be able to predict the events in the empirical world and pass the test of experiment. There are some teachings in religious texts that have experimental implications. If these teachings can be used to gain more control over the empirical world, Science will be committed to accept them and, according to Quine, must be supplemented by the supernatural implications of these teachings.

In this article, we have tried to study the relationship between Science and Religion from the point of view of one of the prominent Japanese philosophers of the Kyoto school, Nishitani Keiji. He was one of the disciples of Nishida Kitaro, the founder of the Kyoto School. He was impressed by Nietzsche's critical thinking of western culture by addressing the problem of the relationship between Science and Religion in terms of Nietzsche's nihilism problem in his philosophy. He believes that the only way to overcome nihilism is to link these two areas existentially together, to cure the disproportionate human issue today. Under the influence of Heidegger's Existentialism, he has an existentialist approach to the problem of the relationship between Science and Religion. According to him, the issue of nihilism and sunyata is both existential and historical issues that everyone faces at first. In this paper, we will try first to plot the nihilism in his thought and to show the position of this concept, to show the relationship between Science and Religion to show how this relationship is tied to this concept.

Ian Barbour, American physicist and theologian, undoubtedly is a prominent and effective figure in new debates about the relation between Science and Religion. Some of his works count as a turning point and the beginning of recent discussions about Science and Religion. He divides views or suggested models about relation between them in four groups: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integrity. His personal analysis tends to dialogue with an apparent tendency towards integrity and unity that is consistent with his process thought and critical realism.