The relationship between science and religion and the way in which these two interact has been considered one of the most challenging scientific debates in the field of theology and philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion, for many years. In this discussion, following the example of Barbour, who divided the relationship between science and religion into four categories: conflict, independence, dialogue perspective, and unity perspective, and describing the four categories, we will examine, explain, and compare the views of Hassanzadeh Amoli and Mehdi Golshani. Mehdi Golshani takes a more conversational, interactive, or harmonious approach; of course, by emphasizing the inclusiveness, encompassing, and theoretical and practical superiority of religious or Islamic science over secular science, he pursues the absence of conflict between science and religion. He also considers religious science to be the cause of spiritual purposefulness and spiritual growth of the religious scholar. While Allameh Hassanzadeh, by defining the original science and distinguishing it from formal science and defining the truth of religion, believes in the unity of science, the known, and the known, as well as the unity of action, the agent, and the ordinary; rather, he believes in the unity of man with science and essential action. From his perspective, the truth and essence of science and religion are one; and by denying the duality between science and religion, they leave no room for conflict and confrontation or dialogue, or even harmony and integration.