Science is the child of Mathematics.
Mathematics is the child of Philosophy.
Philosophy is the child of Religion.
And one's arguments, evidences and sources are welcome here.
Regards
"Science" is still a very recent invention and our understanding of it originates from the 18th and 19th centuries. To some extent our current understanding of what science is is very much a 20th century invention due to Karl Popper and debates over Scientism and what is an isn't Science. The distinction between Science and Philosophy didn't really emerge until the late 19th century (and is to some extent a by-product of the professionalisation and institutionalisation of Science meaning that we adopted a rather fixed methodology. Before then, Science and Philosophy were combined in "natural philosophy" which later evolved into "natural science".
The relationship between Science and Relgion goes back via philosophy. You can trace the roots of "natural science" through "natural philosophy" to "natural theology", where people sought to provide evidence for the existence of god and creation. The idea that science and religion are
intrinisically opposed is a 19th century idea with a very superfical reading of the history of science as characterised by conflict. This view is highly selective and focuses on Gallileo and Darwin, but ignores a much bigger picture of collaboration between Science and Religion.
the Anti-Philosophical approach is therefore a very
western approach to Science. In the Soviet case the role of Philosophy and Ideology took centre stage and much more closely resembles 19th century attitudes to science. So there isn't a simple relationship. This Anti-Philosophical approach to Science ("Scientific Realism") means that superifcally philosophical disputes appear to be settled, but
some would argue against that view taking an anti-realist view which challanging the underlying assumptions of
methodological naturalism (like the Soviets, but Creationists and Intelligent Design also). These challanges are often characterised as "Anti-Science" when they are more often "Anti-Realist" and simply represent the older, more philosophical approach to Science breaking through the established consensus.
Certain aspects of Science are a product of Mathematics in terms of Newtionian Mechanics, but Mathamatics has taken on a whole new meaning since Einstien and the development of Quantum Mechanics. Mathamatics has been used
defacto as an attempt to establish the existence of the universe and at times more closely resembles philosophy rather than "science" in the way we understand the universe (e.g. multi-verse theorum, dark energy and dark matter, etc). It is often simply assumed that mathamatical equations reflect the processes the occur in the Universe (going back to Newton) and some would call this a dogmatic and even anti-scientific approach. The "Einsteinian" Revolution unsettled most of the underlying assumptions that were present in Newtonian Mechanics and has unravelled many of the certainites in scientific thinking- re-opening philosophical questions on the nature of matter, space, time etc that would have been considered "settled" in the late 19th century.
The above view, is however a heretical one (and is a product of my sympathies for the philosophical approach of Soviet Science and sympathy for 19th century "natural philosophy" and "natural theology") and would be considered "Anti-Science" in certain circles. hopefully a few may appreciate that philosophical controversies arising from Science are far from settled and that we face a number of challanges in studying the physical world that demand a re-examination of what we can and cannot prove via the scientific method.
