science vs theism
i would argue this is exactly what makes them opposite- it's the same as logic and emotion, irrationality and rationality. the contrast between them isn’t about superiority but about mode of operation. science, like logic, functions by systematic inquiry: it tests, observes, and refines. theism, like emotion, functions through internal conviction: it intuits, feels, and affirms. both influence each other in subtle ways, but their starting points and directions of movement diverge completely.

what do i mean by opposite?
they're opposites in the way up and down are opposites. yes they are the key points of a y axis and they function on different modes, but they're inherently interlinked. most 'opposites' are opposites within their respective categories. black and white are opposites, but they’re still shades: pigments operating within the same low saturation scale.

yes, they are interlinked and affect one another, but their processes work completely different. emotional reasoning is irrational: it starts with a conclusion and then finds evidence to support it. this is not necessarily a flaw- humans often begin with a feeling or belief and then search for coherence around it. it’s how we form identity, maintain stability, and create narratives that make sense of our lives. logical reasoning, on the other hand, begins by compiling all relevant evidence and then creates a conclusion. it values neutrality and reproducibility over comfort or cohesion. this distinction juxtaposes the difference between belief systems built on emotional resonance, and empirical systems built on demonstrable data.

what do i mean by irrational?
emotion is irrational. non-falsifiable and irrational are synonymous when talking about reasoning because an idea or theory that is neither provable nor disprovable is irrational. irrational doesnt mean bad, it just means not rational, which in this mini proof i attribute to still being valuable for the self.

i think that if anything, evidence shows that logical reasoning is the stronger of the two when it comes to:

1. decisions that affect the world: empirical decisions require objectivity; when dealing with nature, policy, or technology, logic ensures consistency and avoids bias driven harm.
2. decisions that affect other people: fairness and justice rely on logic because emotion can easily skew toward favoritism or tribalism. logical systems such as ethics, law, and diplomacy depend on reasoning that transcends personal feeling.
3. decisions that have unforeseen consequences: logic’s strength is prediction, while emotion focuses on immediate meaning, logic accounts for complexity and chain reactions. it gives us the tools to anticipate, adapt, and mitigate outcomes beyond our intuition.

but with decisions about ourselves? emotional reasoning is far superior 90% of the time. personal growth, healing, and authenticity come from feeling-driven reflection, not cold analysis. emotion understands nuance that logic can’t quantify- pain, love, belonging, identity. logic is only introduced when a coherent map of reasoning can’t be created with emotion- when the self reaches an impasse and needs structure or recalibration.

systems of understanding can be divided into those that begin with evidence (science) and those that begin with conviction (theism).

empirical systems are suited for shared external decisions; conviction-based systems are suited for internal, personal meaning.

therefore, imposing conviction-based frameworks on others constitutes a categorical error- extending a subjective mode into an objective domain.
∴ theism’s rightful domain is the self; science’s is the world.

therefore, theism should remain an artefact for the self and only the self, and never dictate or govern the lives of anything else. it should exist as a framework for inner experience and shared connection, not as a system imposed on others, because that’s arguably forcing an incomplete and irrational theory upon someone else: projecting one’s personal emotional truth as universal fact. when confined to the self and community, theism can be beautiful: it can provide meaning, comfort, and identity. but when extended outward, it risks becoming control, distortion, or harm. therefore, its rightful domain should be personal, not prescriptive. it may inspire, but never legislate; the private realm of belief, not the shared fabric of evidence based reality.