How do followers balance it with modern life and science?

There is no conflict with real science — Muslims helped build it. Science explains how; revelation explains why. Where an age's theory contradicts revelation, revelation is not rewritten to fit it.

With science there is nothing to balance — atheists regard it as their home ground. The real modern challenge runs the other way: building community, ritual, and consolation without a church; humanist congregations, secular ceremonies, and even 'religion for atheists' proposals are attempts to fill that gap.

With science, no balancing is needed — agnosticism was coined by a scientist as the working ethic of science itself. The friction is with life, not science: weddings, funerals, and raising children demand answers that will not wait for evidence, and agnostics meet them with borrowed ceremonies and provisional choices.

Mainstream churches teach that science and faith answer different questions: the Catholic Church accepts evolution and runs its own observatory, and pioneers of science — Kepler, Newton, Mendel, Lemaître — were believers. Real tension persists in some Protestant circles over evolution and biblical criticism, and everywhere over secular ethics; each community negotiates its own line.

Mostly by embrace: Maimonides set the precedent that truth cannot contradict truth, Modern Orthodoxy pairs Torah with secular knowledge (Torah u-Madda), and Jews are heavily represented in the sciences. Haredi communities keep more distance from secular culture, and readings of Genesis against cosmology and evolution range from non-literal (most) to literalist (some).

Often comfortably: with no creation account to defend, many Buddhists see science as a partner, and the Dalai Lama has written that if science disproves a Buddhist claim, the claim should yield. The friction points are rebirth, karma, and the unseen realms — held literally by traditionalists, read symbolically or shelved by modernists.

With relative ease on science: there is no central church to wage a Galileo battle, deep cosmic time sits comfortably beside modern cosmology, and evolution is rarely contested. The frictions are social instead — caste versus equality, ritual purity versus modern life — while older practices like astrology thrive alongside smartphones.

With relatively little strain: the scripture commits Sikhs to no dated cosmology, so evolution and modern science raise few doctrinal problems. The live negotiations are practical — keeping the hair and turban in modern institutions, marriage across community lines, and holding diaspora youth — rather than science versus faith.

There is little to balance — modern science and secular institutions grew up together, and neutral states leave research free. The strain now runs the other way: worldwide religious revival has tested the model, prompting 'post-secular' rethinking of religion's place in public debate (Habermas).

With science there is no balancing act — science is its method. The real work lies elsewhere: facing mortality, grief, and the hunger for meaning in a secular frame, which humanists address through philosophy, ceremony, and community rather than doctrine.

With little friction — modern science grew up inside liberal institutions of free inquiry, and liberalism claims no doctrines for science to contradict. Its modern anxieties lie elsewhere: how a society committed to free speech handles misinformation, and how truth-seeking institutions keep public trust.

It is itself a modern movement and leans on research — documenting discrimination, violence, and pay gaps. Where findings on sex differences are contested, feminists engage the studies and dispute interpretations rather than reject science.

With science there is little friction — it makes no claims science could test, and Gellner argued it is itself a product of industrial modernity. The real negotiation is with globalization: trade, migration, and supranational bodies; some nationalists adapt, others resist, and that is today's live debate.