Scientific methods prove facts about science, but can they prove facts about religion? Or science and religion come from totally different fields 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 cut from the same basic cloth. Galileo would like people to believe that science is about nature and the world we live in, while religion is so vast that it is not understood by scientists and ordinary mortals. Religion and science are two separate entities that have absolutely nothing in common. Hume would have a person believe that the experiences a person has are what binds science and religion together, while inquiry is what separates them into two distinct subjects. The final decision is up to you, as far as I'm concerned I still like to think that science and religion have their place and that nothing really ties them together. Scientists could not prove to me that God does not exist and priests and the like could not convince me that science has no place in the world with methods that refer only to science. As human beings we could not survive without science and religion. This is because as human beings our lives are based on both faith and belief