Abstract

This article contains two purposes. On the surface, this paper presents a between religion and science related analog, and then more in depth angle for the purposes of this paper, a card regardless of scientific knowledge about the growth of methodology principles. In carrying out this process, the two became clear purpose will show. First, we analyze the nature of science and religion began, and from this analysis裡, this article will show, the nature of science and religion can be made ​​through the concept of two dual representation. The first dual concept of "Reasons and beliefs", while the second is the dual concept of "experience and faith." We want to emphasize that the difference between the two concepts is double the depth of their different, because the second pair of concepts from a more practical perspective on the nature of science and religion to grasp. Then, in section II, this card through regardless, "Experience and Faith" This dual concept is presented, science and religion In order to show a basis regardless of stance. In section III, article regardless permit, based on experience of science, and religious belief in the Bible places content-based. When the base regardless stance of science and religion are shared, this article from the Reformation history, from the Protestant to "rely on the Bible," critical of the Catholic Church grounds, and from the Jesuits of the counter, put forward in science, a degree is also occurrence of similar stance, that "a matter of experience," the analog. Then we "basis regardless stance" will "rely on the Bible" and "a matter of experience," a comparison between. In comparison, we found that among this basis regardless stance, including a dual role. On the one hand, because the demands of their own based on the logic and the content does not contain any specific reason, so it actually can be fitted to any content. But on the other hand, precisely because of this foundation itself is empty, so it is likely to be additions to the continuous open. This led to expect in science in diverse development possible. In the final section, this article from the actual and "non-rational," the angle, further interpretation of Feyerabend's diverse methodology. In this interpretation, we will solve the "not be a total amount" of the problem, propose a solution. This paper has a twofold intention. Apparently, it is about an analogy between science and religion. At a deeper level, it is about the growth of knowledge in general and science in particular. The deep intention will become explicit as the paper proceeds. It begins with an analysis of the nature of science and religion. The result of this analysis shows that science and religion can be respectively encapsulated by two pairs of concepts. The first pair is that of rationality and belief and the second that of experience and faith. We intend to stress that they differ in profundity as the second pair better captures the practical dimension of science and religion. Then, in the second section, the paper presumes that by referring to the idea of ​​being empirical and being faithful, science and religion both demonstrated a position of foundationalism. Then in the third section we argue that science contains a foundational position claiming an empirical basis, whereas religion relies fundamentally on faith in Holy Scripture. This shared position is argued further by taking an example from the history of Reformation. We refer to the Protestant criticism of the Catholic Church claiming "Sola Scriptura" and the Jesuits' reactions to this claim. The paper attempts to show that an analogy in the domain of science can be drawn from this historical example. We then move to the next section analyzing that the analogy contains a methodological function referring to the double-role of the "foundation". On the one hand, as both Scriptura "and" Experientia "are empty "foundations", they can be filled with practically any idea. Yet, on the other hand, it is also due to this emptiness, the possibility of filling them with other contents remains open. This becomes obvious in the instance of science for the openness of pluralism is essential to its development. We finally move to the last section, explaining that Feyerabend's pluralistic methodology can be further elaborated by taking a practical and hence "non-rational approach". With this approach, the problem of incommensurability among theories before and after scientific revolutions is easily dissolved, not however on the philosophical basis, but on the empirical stance