What is more basic thing to explain phenomenons : Energy or Force? You know many physical happening are explained by considering forces or we can explain these phenomenon using energy (like energy conservation, etc.). 
so i was wondering that explaining the physical phenomenon using energy method is more fundamental or explaining through considering forces? 
Explaining things differently helps us to view thing differently. So either one of the methods(energy and forces) can gives us more broader vision, i.e. explanation of one phenomenon (through one of the method) can also be applied for the explanation of some other phenomenon(with some minor changes as required) and this is what i mean by fundamental. 
thanks.     
 A: I think that most professional theoretical physicists would agree that the concept of energy is more fundamental than the force, for all systems (or physical situations) where it's well-defined. The whole evolution of the physical system may be described by the "Hamiltonian", a rigorous synonym for "energy". That's true both for classical (non-quantum) and quantum physics.
In quantum physics, one may define the operator of the force but it is much less straightforward to obtain some physical predictions (e.g. the spectrum of light emitted by atoms) from the concept of the force. The "Hamiltonian", i.e. a form of "energy", is a natural starting point that defines the theory. Basically the "Hamiltonian" (or a competing and related concept of the "Lagrangian", also  co-discovered by William Rowan Hamilton, not to be confused with Rowan Atkinson) is what actually defines almost all such theories. So the "Hamiltonian" (i.e. energy) or the "Lagrangian" are really rather fundamental. Hamilton realized that with a given formula for the energy, one may derive all the differential equations which also include all the force terms. All the dynamical information is encoded in the formula for the energy.
Quantum mechanics was only born in 1925 and even the definition of classical mechanics using the Hamiltonian is relatively recent, from the 19th century. The description of mechanics in terms of a force is older – from the age of Isaac Newton – and somewhat less abstract which is also why children first learn the laws of mechanics using the term "force" and related ones. But once the physicists get older, they exploit the term "energy" much more frequently, especially when they describe the fundamental laws of Nature, while the term "force" slowly loses its importance, which is why I do think that "energy" is a more fundamental quantity in physics than the "force".
A: As @CuriousOne quoted, the concept of energy and force are both fundamental. The choice depends on how you need to analyse the system. As a simple example, consider a collision between two identical particles. One is at rest and the other has a definite momentum. Obviously, the one at rest is set to motion. There the momentum is transferred from the colliding body to the body at rest. How momentum is transferred? Through a force. How a force helps in transferring the momentum? By transferring the kinetic energy. 
All this means is that force and energy are correlated. How to analyse a system is purely the choice of a person. Whatever way you analyse, both tells you the same state of the system.
However energy is the much more basic way that can be used since it just fit in all theories so nicely. No worries. Especially, when we deal with quantum physics, there is only pure energy. Physics is fundamentally a study of energy transactions.
There are four fundamental forces in nature. They have there own fields. Field is a region of influence where it is well defined. It's the same where it's energy can be seen. The four forces are termed interactions. Interaction is possible only if they could transfer energy in some way. Once we realize that they interact, we say that they could exert force on each other. So, energy is more fundamental to use.
