I'll try to avoid making a "no true scotsman" argument here, but agree that science is in the business of "how", and that religion is in the business of "why". However, religion began its existence explaining both "how" AND "why".
The transition to a scientific investigation and explanation of "how" is the primary source of conflict, as many religious people seem to think the validity of their religion hinges on maintaining the function of explaining "how" and "why".
This becomes more complicated when a scientist says that "God isn't necessary" based on the natural development of the Universe. However, it seems obvious that if a God was necessary, there would be little point to faith anyway.
|