Scientific methods prove facts about science, but can they prove facts about religion? Or do science and religion belong to completely different domains in which the realities of one have nothing to do with the realities of the other. Galileo would lead a person to believe that they have nothing to do with each other, while Hume would say that they are both formed from the same basic fabric. Galileo would like people to believe that science is about nature and the world we live in, while religion is so vast that it cannot be understood by scientists and mere mortals. Religion and science are two separate entities that have absolutely nothing in common. Hume would like a person to believe that the experiences a person has are what binds science and religion together, while investigation is what separates them into two distinct subjects. The final decision is yours, as for me, I always like to think that science and religion have their own place and that nothing really connects them. Scientists couldn't prove to me that God doesn't exist and priests and others couldn't convince me that science doesn't have its own place in the world with methods that only concern science. As humans, we could not survive without science and religion. This is because as humans, our lives are based on both faith and