SEP home page

  • Table of Contents
  • Random Entry
  • Chronological
  • Editorial Information
  • About the SEP
  • Editorial Board
  • How to Cite the SEP
  • Special Characters
  • Advanced Tools
  • Support the SEP
  • PDFs for SEP Friends
  • Make a Donation
  • SEPIA for Libraries
  • Entry Contents


Academic tools.

  • Friends PDF Preview
  • Author and Citation Info
  • Back to Top

Religion and Science

The relationship between religion and science is the subject of continued debate in philosophy and theology. To what extent are religion and science compatible? Are religious beliefs sometimes conducive to science, or do they inevitably pose obstacles to scientific inquiry? The interdisciplinary field of “science and religion”, also called “theology and science”, aims to answer these and other questions. It studies historical and contemporary interactions between these fields, and provides philosophical analyses of how they interrelate.

This entry provides an overview of the topics and discussions in science and religion. Section 1 outlines the scope of both fields, and how they are related. Section 2 looks at the relationship between science and religion in five religious traditions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. Section 3 discusses contemporary topics of scientific inquiry in which science and religion intersect, focusing on divine action, creation, and human origins.

1.1 A brief history

1.2 what is science, and what is religion, 1.3 taxonomies of the interaction between science and religion, 1.4 the scientific study of religion, 2.1 christianity, 2.3 hinduism, 2.4 buddhism, 2.5 judaism, 3.1 divine action and creation, 3.2 human origins, works cited, other important works, other internet resources, related entries, 1. science, religion, and how they interrelate.

Since the 1960s, scholars in theology, philosophy, history, and the sciences have studied the relationship between science and religion. Science and religion is a recognized field of study with dedicated journals (e.g., Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science ), academic chairs (e.g., the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University), scholarly societies (e.g., the Science and Religion Forum), and recurring conferences (e.g., the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology’s biennial meetings). Most of its authors are theologians (e.g., John Haught, Sarah Coakley), philosophers with an interest in science (e.g., Nancey Murphy), or (former) scientists with long-standing interests in religion, some of whom are also ordained clergy (e.g., the physicist John Polkinghorne, the molecular biophysicist Alister McGrath, and the atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe). Recently, authors in science and religion also have degrees in that interdisciplinary field (e.g., Sarah Lane Ritchie).

The systematic study of science and religion started in the 1960s, with authors such as Ian Barbour (1966) and Thomas F. Torrance (1969) who challenged the prevailing view that science and religion were either at war or indifferent to each other. Barbour’s Issues in Science and Religion (1966) set out several enduring themes of the field, including a comparison of methodology and theory in both fields. Zygon, the first specialist journal on science and religion, was also founded in 1966. While the early study of science and religion focused on methodological issues, authors from the late 1980s to the 2000s developed contextual approaches, including detailed historical examinations of the relationship between science and religion (e.g., Brooke 1991). Peter Harrison (1998) challenged the warfare model by arguing that Protestant theological conceptions of nature and humanity helped to give rise to science in the seventeenth century. Peter Bowler (2001, 2009) drew attention to a broad movement of liberal Christians and evolutionists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who aimed to reconcile evolutionary theory with religious belief. In the 1990s, the Vatican Observatory (Castel Gandolfo, Italy) and the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (Berkeley, California) co-sponsored a series of conferences on divine action and how it can be understood in the light of various contemporary sciences. This resulted in six edited volumes (see Russell, Murphy, & Stoeger 2008 for a book-length summary of the findings of this project).

The field has presently diversified so much that contemporary discussions on religion and science tend to focus on specific disciplines and questions. Rather than ask if religion and science (broadly speaking) are compatible, productive questions focus on specific topics. For example, Buddhist modernists (see section 2.4 ) have argued that Buddhist theories about the self (the no-self) and Buddhist practices, such as mindfulness meditation, are compatible and are corroborated by neuroscience.

In the contemporary public sphere, a prominent interaction between science and religion concerns evolutionary theory and creationism/Intelligent Design. The legal battles (e.g., the Kitzmiller versus Dover trial in 2005) and lobbying surrounding the teaching of evolution and creationism in American schools suggest there’s a conflict between religion and science. However, even if one were to focus on the reception of evolutionary theory, the relationship between religion and science is complex. For instance, in the United Kingdom, scientists, clergy, and popular writers (the so-called Modernists), sought to reconcile science and religion during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, whereas the US saw the rise of a fundamentalist opposition to evolutionary thinking, exemplified by the Scopes trial in 1925 (Bowler 2001, 2009).

Another prominent offshoot of the discussion on science and religion is the New Atheist movement, with authors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. They argue that public life, including government, education, and policy should be guided by rational argument and scientific evidence, and that any form of supernaturalism (especially religion, but also, e.g., astrology) has no place in public life. They treat religious claims, such as the existence of God, as testable scientific hypotheses (see, e.g., Dawkins 2006).

In recent decades, the leaders of some Christian churches have issued conciliatory public statements on evolutionary theory. Pope John Paul II (1996) affirmed evolutionary theory in his message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, but rejected it for the human soul, which he saw as the result of a separate, special creation. The Church of England publicly endorsed evolutionary theory (e.g., C. M. Brown 2008), including an apology to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theory.

This entry will focus on the relationship between religious and scientific ideas as rather abstract philosophical positions, rather than as practices. However, this relationship has a large practical impact on the lives of religious people and scientists (including those who are both scientists and religious believers). A rich sociological literature indicates the complexity of these interactions, among others, how religious scientists conceive of this relationship (for recent reviews, see Ecklund 2010, 2021; Ecklund & Scheitle 2007; Gross & Simmons 2009).

For the past fifty years, the discussion on science and religion has de facto been on Western science and Christianity: to what extent can the findings of Western sciences be reconciled with Christian beliefs? The field of science and religion has only recently turned to an examination of non-Christian traditions, providing a richer picture of interaction.

In order to understand the scope of science and religion and their interactions, we must at least get a rough sense of what science and religion are. After all, “science” and “religion” are not eternally unchanging terms with unambiguous meanings. Indeed, they are terms that were coined recently, with meanings that vary across contexts. Before the nineteenth century, the term “religion” was rarely used. For a medieval author such as Aquinas, the term religio meant piety or worship, and was not applied to religious systems outside of what he considered orthodoxy (Harrison 2015). The term “religion” obtained its considerably broader current meaning through the works of early anthropologists, such as E.B. Tylor (1871), who systematically used the term for religions across the world. As a result, “religion” became a comparative concept, referring to traits that could be compared and scientifically studied, such as rituals, dietary restrictions, and belief systems (Jonathan Smith 1998).

The term “science” as it is currently used also became common in the nineteenth century. Prior to this, what we call “science” fell under the terminology of “natural philosophy” or, if the experimental part was emphasized, “experimental philosophy”. William Whewell (1834) standardized the term “scientist” to refer to practitioners of diverse natural philosophies. Philosophers of science have attempted to demarcate science from other knowledge-seeking endeavors, in particular religion. For instance, Karl Popper (1959) claimed that scientific hypotheses (unlike religious and philosophical ones) are in principle falsifiable. Many authors (e.g., Taylor 1996) affirm a disparity between science and religion, even if the meanings of both terms are historically contingent. They disagree, however, on how to precisely (and across times and cultures) demarcate the two domains.

One way to distinguish between science and religion is the claim that science concerns the natural world, whereas religion concerns the supernatural world and its relationship to the natural. Scientific explanations do not appeal to supernatural entities such as gods or angels (fallen or not), or to non-natural forces (such as miracles, karma, or qi ). For example, neuroscientists typically explain our thoughts in terms of brain states, not by reference to an immaterial soul or spirit, and legal scholars do not invoke karmic load when discussing why people commit crimes.

Naturalists draw a distinction between methodological naturalism , an epistemological principle that limits scientific inquiry to natural entities and laws, and ontological or philosophical naturalism , a metaphysical principle that rejects the supernatural (Forrest 2000). Since methodological naturalism is concerned with the practice of science (in particular, with the kinds of entities and processes that are invoked), it does not make any statements about whether or not supernatural entities exist. They might exist, but lie outside of the scope of scientific investigation. Some authors (e.g., Rosenberg 2014) hold that taking the results of science seriously entails negative answers to such persistent questions into the existence of free will or moral knowledge. However, these stronger conclusions are controversial.

The view that science can be demarcated from religion in its methodological naturalism is more commonly accepted. For instance, in the Kitzmiller versus Dover trial, the philosopher of science Robert Pennock was called to testify by the plaintiffs on whether Intelligent Design was a form of creationism, and therefore religion. If it were, the Dover school board policy would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Building on earlier work (e.g., Pennock 1998), Pennock argued that Intelligent Design, in its appeal to supernatural mechanisms, was not methodologically naturalistic, and that methodological naturalism is an essential component of science.

Methodological naturalism is a recent development in the history of science, though we can see precursors of it in medieval authors such as Aquinas who attempted to draw a theological distinction between miracles, such as the working of relics, and unusual natural phenomena, such as magnetism and the tides (see Perry & Ritchie 2018). Natural and experimental philosophers such as Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Robert Hooke, and Robert Boyle regularly appealed to supernatural agents in their natural philosophy (which we now call “science”). Still, overall there was a tendency to favor naturalistic explanations in natural philosophy. The X-club was a lobby group for the professionalization of science founded in 1864 by Thomas Huxley and friends. While the X-club may have been in part motivated by the desire to remove competition by amateur-clergymen scientists in the field of science, and thus to open up the field to full-time professionals, its explicit aim was to promote a science that would be free from religious dogma (Garwood 2008, Barton 2018). This preference for naturalistic causes may have been encouraged by past successes of naturalistic explanations, leading authors such as Paul Draper (2005) to argue that the success of methodological naturalism could be evidence for ontological naturalism.

Several typologies probe the interaction between science and religion. For example, Mikael Stenmark (2004) distinguishes between three views: the independence view (no overlap between science and religion), the contact view (some overlap between the fields), and a union of the domains of science and religion; within these views he recognizes further subdivisions, e.g., contact can be in the form of conflict or harmony. The most influential taxonomy of the relationship between science and religion remains Barbour’s (2000): conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. Subsequent authors, as well as Barbour himself, have refined and amended this taxonomy. However, others (e.g., Cantor & Kenny 2001) have argued that this taxonomy is not useful to understand past interactions between both fields. Nevertheless, because of its enduring influence, it is still worthwhile to discuss it in detail.

The conflict model holds that science and religion are in perpetual and principal conflict. It relies heavily on two historical narratives: the trial of Galileo (see Dawes 2016) and the reception of Darwinism (see Bowler 2001). Contrary to common conception, the conflict model did not originate in two seminal publications, namely John Draper’s (1874) History of the Conflict between Religion and Science and Andrew Dickson White’s (1896) two-volume opus A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom . Rather, as James Ungureanu (2019) argues, the project of these early architects of the conflict thesis needs to be contextualized in a liberal Protestant tradition of attempting to separate religion from theology, and thus salvage religion. Their work was later appropriated by skeptics and atheists who used their arguments about the incompatibility of traditional theological views with science to argue for secularization, something Draper and White did not envisage.

The vast majority of authors in the science and religion field is critical of the conflict model and believes it is based on a shallow and partisan reading of the historical record. While the conflict model is at present a minority position, some have used philosophical argumentation (e.g., Philipse 2012) or have carefully re-examined historical evidence such as the Galileo trial (e.g., Dawes 2016) to argue for this model. Alvin Plantinga (2011) has argued that the conflict is not between science and religion, but between science and naturalism. In his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (first formulated in 1993), Plantinga argues that naturalism is epistemically self-defeating: if both naturalism and evolution are true, then it’s unlikely we would have reliable cognitive faculties.

The independence model holds that science and religion explore separate domains that ask distinct questions. Stephen Jay Gould developed an influential independence model with his NOMA principle (“Non-Overlapping Magisteria”):

The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise. (2001: 739)

He identified science’s areas of expertise as empirical questions about the constitution of the universe, and religion’s domain of expertise as ethical values and spiritual meaning. NOMA is both descriptive and normative: religious leaders should refrain from making factual claims about, for instance, evolutionary theory, just as scientists should not claim insight on moral matters. Gould held that there might be interactions at the borders of each magisterium, such as our responsibility toward other living things. One obvious problem with the independence model is that if religion were barred from making any statement of fact, it would be difficult to justify its claims of value and ethics. For example, one could not argue that one should love one’s neighbor because it pleases the creator (Worrall 2004). Moreover, religions do seem to make empirical claims, for example, that Jesus appeared after his death or that the early Hebrews passed through the parted waters of the Red Sea.

The dialogue model proposes a mutualistic relationship between religion and science. Unlike independence, it assumes a common ground between both fields, perhaps in their presuppositions, methods, and concepts. For example, the Christian doctrine of creation may have encouraged science by assuming that creation (being the product of a designer) is both intelligible and orderly, so one can expect there are laws that can be discovered. Creation, as a product of God’s free actions, is also contingent, so the laws of nature cannot be learned through a priori thinking which prompts the need for empirical investigation. According to Barbour (2000), both scientific and theological inquiry are theory-dependent, or at least model-dependent. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity colors how Christian theologians interpret the first chapters of Genesis. Next to this, both rely on metaphors and models. Both fields remain separate but they talk to each other, using common methods, concepts, and presuppositions. Wentzel van Huyssteen (1998) has argued for a dialogue position, proposing that science and religion can be in a graceful duet, based on their epistemological overlaps. The Partially Overlapping Magisteria (POMA) model defended by Alister McGrath (e.g., McGrath and Collicutt McGrath 2007) is also worth mentioning. According to McGrath, science and religion each draw on several different methodologies and approaches. These methods and approaches are different ways of knowing that have been shaped through historical factors. It is beneficial for scientists and theologians to be in dialogue with each other.

The integration model is more extensive in its unification of science and theology. Barbour (2000) identifies three forms of integration. First, natural theology, which formulates arguments for the existence and attributes of God. It uses interpretations of results from the natural sciences as premises in its arguments. For instance, the supposition that the universe has a temporal origin features in contemporary cosmological arguments for the existence of God. Likewise, the fact that the cosmological constants and laws of nature are life-permitting (whereas many other combinations of constants and laws would not permit life) is used in contemporary fine-tuning arguments (see the entry to fine-tuning arguments ). Second, theology of nature starts not from science but from a religious framework, and examines how this can enrich or even revise findings of the sciences. For example, McGrath (2016) developed a Christian theology of nature, examining how nature and scientific findings can be interpreted through a Christian lens. Thirdly, Barbour believed that Whitehead’s process philosophy was a promising way to integrate science and religion.

While integration seems attractive (especially to theologians), it is difficult to do justice to both the scientific and religious aspects of a given domain, especially given their complexities. For example, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1971), who was both knowledgeable in paleoanthropology and theology, ended up with an unconventional view of evolution as teleological (which put him at odds with the scientific establishment) and with an unorthodox theology (which denied original sin and led to a series of condemnations by the Roman Catholic Church). Theological heterodoxy, by itself, is no reason to doubt a model. However, it shows obstacles for the integration model to become a live option in the broader community of theologians and philosophers who want to remain affiliate to a specific religious community without transgressing its boundaries. Moreover, integration seems skewed towards theism: Barbour described arguments based on scientific results that support (but do not demonstrate) theism, but failed to discuss arguments based on scientific results that support (but do not demonstrate) the denial of theism. Hybrid positions like McGrath’s POMA indicate some difficulty for Barbour’s taxonomy: the scope of conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration is not clearly defined and they are not mutually exclusive. For example, if conflict is defined broadly then it is compatible with integration. Take the case of Frederick Tennant (1902), who sought to explain sin as the result of evolutionary pressures on human ancestors. This view led him to reject the Fall as a historical event, as it was not compatible with evolutionary biology. His view has conflict (as he saw Christian doctrine in conflict with evolutionary biology) but also integration (he sought to integrate the theological concept of sin in an evolutionary picture). It is clear that many positions defined by authors in the religion and science literature do not clearly fall within one of Barbour’s four domains.

Science and religion are closely interconnected in the scientific study of religion, which can be traced back to seventeenth-century natural histories of religion. Natural historians attempted to provide naturalistic explanations for human behavior and culture, including religion and morality. For example, Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle’s De l’Origine des Fables (1724) offered a causal account of belief in the supernatural. People often assert supernatural explanations when they lack an understanding of the natural causes underlying extraordinary events: “To the extent that one is more ignorant, or one has less experience, one sees more miracles” (1724 [1824: 295], my translation). Hume’s Natural History of Religion (1757) is perhaps the best-known philosophical example of a natural historical explanation of religious belief. It traces the origins of polytheism—which Hume thought was the earliest form of religious belief—to ignorance about natural causes combined with fear and apprehension about the environment. By deifying aspects of the environment, early humans tried to persuade or bribe the gods, thereby gaining a sense of control.

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, authors from newly emerging scientific disciplines, such as anthropology, sociology, and psychology examined the purported naturalistic roots of religious beliefs. They did so with a broad brush, trying to explain what unifies diverse religious beliefs across cultures. Auguste Comte (1841) proposed that all societies, in their attempts to make sense of the world, go through the same stages of development: the theological (religious) stage is the earliest phase, where religious explanations predominate, followed by the metaphysical stage (a non-intervening God), and culminating in the positive or scientific stage, marked by scientific explanations and empirical observations.

In anthropology, this positivist idea influenced cultural evolutionism, a theoretical framework that sought to explain cultural change using universal patterns. The underlying supposition was that all cultures evolve and progress along the same trajectory. Cultures with differing religious views were explained as being in different stages of their development. For example, Tylor (1871) regarded animism as the earliest form of religious belief. James Frazer’s Golden Bough (1890) is somewhat unusual within this literature, as he saw commonalities between magic, religion, and science. Though he proposed a linear progression, he also argued that a proto-scientific mindset gave rise to magical practices, including the discovery of regularities in nature. Cultural evolutionist models dealt poorly with religious diversity and with the complex relationships between science and religion across cultures. Many authors proposed that religion was just a stage in human development, which would eventually be superseded. For example, social theorists such as Karl Marx and Max Weber proposed versions of the secularization thesis, the view that religion would decline in the face of modern technology, science, and culture.

Functionalism was another theoretical framework that sought to explain religion. Functionalists did not consider religion to be a stage in human cultural development that would eventually be overcome. They saw it as a set of social institutions that served important functions in the societies they were part of. For example, the sociologist Émile Durkheim (1912 [1915]) argued that religious beliefs are social glue that helps to keep societies together.

Sigmund Freud and other early psychologists aimed to explain religion as the result of cognitive dispositions. For example, Freud (1927) saw religious belief as an illusion, a childlike yearning for a fatherly figure. He also considered “oceanic feeling” (a feeling of limitlessness and of being connected with the world, a concept he derived from the French author Romain Rolland) as one of the origins of religious belief. He thought this feeling was a remnant of an infant’s experience of the self, prior to being weaned off the breast. William James (1902) was interested in the psychological roots and the phenomenology of religious experiences, which he believed were the ultimate source of all institutional religions.

From the 1920s onward, the scientific study of religion became less concerned with grand unifying narratives, and focused more on particular religious traditions and beliefs. Anthropologists such as Edward Evans-Pritchard (1937) and Bronisław Malinowski (1925) no longer relied exclusively on second-hand reports (usually of poor quality and from distorted sources), but engaged in serious fieldwork. Their ethnographies indicated that cultural evolutionism was a defective theoretical framework and that religious beliefs were more diverse than was previously assumed. They argued that religious beliefs were not the result of ignorance of naturalistic mechanisms. For instance, Evans-Pritchard (1937) noted that the Azande were well aware that houses could collapse because termites ate away at their foundations, but they still appealed to witchcraft to explain why a particular house collapsed at a particular time. More recently, Cristine Legare et al. (2012) found that people in various cultures straightforwardly combine supernatural and natural explanations, for instance, South Africans are aware AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, but some also believe that the viral infection is ultimately caused by a witch.

Psychologists and sociologists of religion also began to doubt that religious beliefs were rooted in irrationality, psychopathology, and other atypical psychological states, as James (1902) and other early psychologists had assumed. In the US, in the late 1930s through the 1960s, psychologists developed a renewed interest for religion, fueled by the observation that religion refused to decline and seemed to undergo a substantial revival, thus casting doubt on the secularization thesis (see Stark 1999 for an overview). Psychologists of religion have made increasingly fine-grained distinctions between types of religiosity, including extrinsic religiosity (being religious as means to an end, for instance, getting the benefits of being a member of a social group) and intrinsic religiosity (people who adhere to religions for the sake of their teachings) (Allport & Ross 1967). Psychologists and sociologists now commonly study religiosity as an independent variable, with an impact on, for instance, health, criminality, sexuality, socio-economic profile, and social networks.

A recent development in the scientific study of religion is the cognitive science of religion (CSR). This is a multidisciplinary field, with authors from, among others, developmental psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and cognitive psychology (see C. White 2021 for a comprehensive overview). It differs from other scientific approaches to religion in its presupposition that religion is not a purely cultural phenomenon. Rather, authors in CSR hold that religion is the result of ordinary, early developed, and universal human cognitive processes (e.g., Barrett 2004, Boyer 2002). Some authors regard religion as the byproduct of cognitive processes that are not evolved for religion. For example, according to Paul Bloom (2007), religion emerges as a byproduct of our intuitive distinction between minds and bodies: we can think of minds as continuing, even after the body dies (e.g., by attributing desires to a dead family member), which makes belief in an afterlife and in disembodied spirits natural and spontaneous. Another family of hypotheses regards religion as a biological or cultural adaptive response that helps humans solve cooperative problems (e.g., Bering 2011; Purzycki & Sosis 2022): through their belief in big, powerful gods that can punish, humans behave more cooperatively, which allowed human group sizes to expand beyond small hunter-gatherer communities. Groups with belief in big gods thus out-competed groups without such beliefs for resources during the Neolithic, which would explain the current success of belief in such gods (Norenzayan 2013). However, the question of which came first—big god beliefs or large-scale societies—is a continued matter of debate.

2. Science and religion in various religions

As noted, most studies on the relationship between science and religion have focused on science and Christianity, with only a small number of publications devoted to other religious traditions (e.g., Brooke & Numbers 2011; Lopez 2008). Since science makes universal claims, it is easy to assume that its encounter with other religious traditions would be similar to its interactions with Christianity. However, given different creedal tenets (e.g., in Hindu traditions God is usually not entirely distinct from creation, unlike in Christianity and Judaism), and because science has had distinct historical trajectories in other cultures, one can expect disanalogies in the relationship between science and religion in different religious traditions. To give a sense of this diversity, this section provides a bird’s eye view of science and religion in five major world religions: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism.

Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion, currently the religion with the most adherents. It developed in the first century CE out of Judaism. Christians adhere to asserted revelations described in a series of canonical texts, which include the Old Testament, which comprises texts inherited from Judaism, and the New Testament, which contains the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (narratives on the life and teachings of Jesus), as well as events and teachings of the early Christian churches (e.g., Acts of the Apostles, letters by Paul), and Revelation, a prophetic book on the end times.

Given the prominence of revealed texts in Christianity, a useful starting point to examine the relationship between Christianity and science is the two books metaphor (see Tanzella-Nitti 2005 for an overview): God revealed Godself through the “Book of Nature”, with its orderly laws, and the “Book of Scripture”, with its historical narratives and accounts of miracles. Augustine (354–430) argued that the book of nature was the more accessible of the two, since scripture requires literacy whereas illiterates and literates alike could read the book of nature. Maximus Confessor (c. 580–662), in his Ambigua (see Louth 1996 for a collection of and critical introduction to these texts) compared scripture and natural law to two clothes that envelop the Incarnated Logos: Jesus’ humanity is revealed by nature, whereas his divinity is revealed by the scriptures. During the Middle Ages, authors such as Hugh of St. Victor (ca. 1096–1141) and Bonaventure (1221–1274) began to realize that the book of nature was not at all straightforward to read. Given that original sin marred our reason and perception, what conclusions could humans legitimately draw about ultimate reality? Bonaventure used the metaphor of the books to the extent that “ liber naturae ” was a synonym for creation, the natural world. He argued that sin has clouded human reason so much that the book of nature has become unreadable, and that scripture is needed as an aid as it contains teachings about the world.

Christian authors in the field of science and religion continue to debate how these two books interrelate. Concordism is the attempt to interpret scripture in the light of modern science. It is a hermeneutical approach to Bible interpretation, where one expects that the Bible foretells scientific theories, such as the Big Bang theory or evolutionary theory. However, as Denis Lamoureux (2008: chapter 5) argues, many scientific-sounding statements in the Bible are false: the mustard seed is not the smallest seed, male reproductive seeds do not contain miniature persons, there is no firmament, and the earth is neither flat nor immovable. Thus, any plausible form of integrating the book of nature and scripture will require more nuance and sophistication. Theologians such as John Wesley (1703–1791) have proposed the addition of other sources of knowledge to scripture and science: the Wesleyan quadrilateral (a term not coined by Wesley himself) is the dynamic interaction of scripture, experience (including the empirical findings of the sciences), tradition, and reason (Outler 1985).

Several Christian authors have attempted to integrate science and religion (e.g., Haught 1995, Lamoureux 2008, Murphy 1995), making integration a highly popular view on the relationship between science and religion. These authors tend to interpret findings from the sciences, such as evolutionary theory or chaos theory, in a theological light, using established theological models such as classical theism or the doctrine of creation. John Haught (1995) argues that the theological view of kenosis (self-emptying of God in creation) anticipates scientific findings such as evolutionary theory: a self-emptying God (i.e., who limits Godself), who creates a distinct and autonomous world, makes a world with internal self-coherence, with a self-organizing universe as the result.

The dominant epistemological outlook in Christian science and religion has been critical realism, a position that applies both to theology (theological realism) and to science (scientific realism). Barbour (1966) introduced this view into the science and religion literature; it has been further developed by theologians such as Arthur Peacocke (1984) and Wentzel van Huyssteen (1999). Critical realism aims to offer a middle way between naïve realism (the world is as we perceive it) and instrumentalism (our perceptions and concepts are purely instrumental). It encourages critical reflection on perception and the world, hence “critical”. Critical realism has distinct flavors in the works of different authors, for instance, van Huyssteen (1998, 1999) develops a weak form of critical realism set within a postfoundationalist notion of rationality, where theological views are shaped by social, cultural, and evolved biological factors. Murphy (1995: 329–330) outlines doctrinal and scientific requirements for approaches in science and religion: ideally, an integrated approach should be broadly in line with Christian doctrine, especially core tenets such as the doctrine of creation, while at the same time it should be in line with empirical observations without undercutting scientific practices.

Several historians (e.g., Hooykaas 1972) have argued that Christianity was instrumental to the development of Western science. Peter Harrison (2007) maintains that the doctrine of original sin played a crucial role in this, arguing there was a widespread belief in the early modern period that Adam, prior to the Fall, had superior senses, intellect, and understanding. As a result of the Fall, human senses became duller, our ability to make correct inferences was diminished, and nature itself became less intelligible. Postlapsarian humans (i.e., humans after the Fall) are no longer able to exclusively rely on their a priori reasoning to understand nature. They must supplement their reasoning and senses with observation through specialized instruments, such as microscopes and telescopes. As the experimental philosopher Robert Hooke wrote in the introduction to his Micrographia :

every man, both from a deriv’d corruption, innate and born with him, and from his breeding and converse with men, is very subject to slip into all sorts of errors … These being the dangers in the process of humane Reason, the remedies of them all can only proceed from the real, the mechanical, the experimental Philosophy [experiment-based science]. (1665, cited in Harrison 2007: 5)

Another theological development that may have facilitated the rise of science was the Condemnation of Paris (1277), which forbade teaching and reading natural philosophical views that were considered heretical, such as Aristotle’s physical treatises. As a result, the Condemnation opened up intellectual space to think beyond ancient Greek natural philosophy. For example, medieval philosophers such as John Buridan (fl. 14th c) held the Aristotelian belief that there could be no vacuum in nature, but once the idea of a vacuum became plausible, natural philosophers such as Evangelista Torricelli (1608–1647) and Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) could experiment with air pressure and vacua (see Grant 1996, for discussion).

Some authors claim that Christianity was unique and instrumental in catalyzing the scientific revolution. For example, according to the sociologist of religion Rodney Stark (2004), the scientific revolution was in fact a slow, gradual development from medieval Christian theology. Claims such as Stark’s, however, fail to recognize the legitimate contributions of Islamic and Greek scholars to the development of modern science, and fail to do justice to the importance of practical technological innovations in map-making and star-charting in the emergence of modern science. In spite of these positive readings of the relationship between science and religion in Christianity, there are sources of enduring tension. For example, there is still vocal opposition to the theory of evolution among Christian fundamentalists. In the public sphere, the conflict view between Christianity and science prevails, in stark contrast to the scholarly literature. This is due to an important extent to the outsize influence of a vocal conservative Christian minority in the American public debate, which sidelines more moderate voices (Evans 2016).

Islam is a monotheistic religion that emerged in the seventh century, following a series of purported revelations to the prophet Muḥammad. The term “Islam” also denotes geo-political structures, such as caliphates and empires, which were founded by Muslim rulers from the seventh century onward, including the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ottoman caliphates. Additionally, it refers to a culture which flourished within this political and religious context, with its own philosophical and scientific traditions (Dhanani 2002). The defining characteristic of Islam is belief in one God (Allāh), who communicates through prophets, including Adam, Abraham, and Muḥammad. Allāh‎’s revelations to Muḥammad are recorded in the Qurʾān, the central religious text for Islam. Next to the Qurʾān, an important source of jurisprudence and theology is the ḥadīth, an oral corpus of attested sayings, actions, and tacit approvals of the prophet Muḥammad. The two major branches of Islam, Sunni and Shia, are based on a dispute over the succession of Muḥammad. As the second largest religion in the world, Islam shows a wide variety of beliefs. Core creedal views include the oneness of God ( tawḥīd ), the view that there is only one undivided God who created and sustains the universe, prophetic revelation (in particular to Muḥammad), and an afterlife. Beyond this, Muslims disagree on a number of doctrinal issues.

The relationship between Islam and science is complex. Today, predominantly Muslim countries, such as the United Arabic Emirates, enjoy high urbanization and technological development, but they still underperform in common metrics of scientific research, such as publications in leading journals and number of citations per scientist, compared to other regions outside of the west such as India and China (see Edis 2007). Some Muslims hold a number of pseudoscientific ideas, some of which it shares with Christianity such as Old Earth creationism, whereas others are specific to Islam such as the recreation of human bodies from the tailbone on the day of resurrection, and the superiority of prayer in treating lower-back pain instead of conventional methods (Guessoum 2011: 4–5).

This contemporary lack of scientific prominence is remarkable given that the Islamic world far exceeded European cultures in the range and quality of its scientific knowledge between approximately the ninth and the fifteenth century, excelling in domains such as mathematics (algebra and geometry, trigonometry in particular), astronomy (seriously considering, but not adopting, heliocentrism), optics, and medicine. These domains of knowledge are commonly referred to as “Arabic science”, to distinguish them from the pursuits of science that arose in the west (Huff 2003). “Arabic science” is an imperfect term, as many of the practitioners were not speakers of Arabic, hence the term “science in the Islamic world” is more accurate. Many scientists in the Islamic world were polymaths, for example, Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna, 980–1037) is commonly regarded as one of the most significant innovators, not only in philosophy, but also in medicine and astronomy. His Canon of Medicine , a medical encyclopedia, was a standard textbook in universities across Europe for many centuries after his death. Al-Fārābī (ca. 872–ca. 950), a political philosopher from Damascus, also investigated music theory, science, and mathematics. Omar Khayyám (1048–1131) achieved lasting fame in disparate domains such as poetry, astronomy, geography, and mineralogy. The Andalusian Ibn Rušd (Averroes, 1126–1198) wrote on medicine, physics, astronomy, psychology, jurisprudence, music, and geography, next to developing a Greek-inspired philosophical theology.

A major impetus for science in the Islamic world was the patronage of the Abbasid caliphate (758–1258), centered in Baghdad. Early Abbasid rulers, such as Harun al-Rashid (ruled 786–809) and his successor Abū Jaʿfar Abdullāh al-Ma’mūn (ruled 813–833), were significant patrons of science. The former founded the Bayt al-Hikma (House of Wisdom), which commissioned translations of major works by Aristotle, Galen, and many Persian and Indian scholars into Arabic. It was cosmopolitan in its outlook, employing astronomers, mathematicians, and physicians from abroad, including Indian mathematicians and Nestorian (Christian) astronomers. Throughout the Islamic world, public libraries attached to mosques provided access to a vast compendium of knowledge, which spread Islam, Greek philosophy, and science. The use of a common language (Arabic), as well as common religious and political institutions and flourishing trade relations encouraged the spread of scientific ideas throughout the Islamic world. Some of this transmission was informal, e.g., correspondence between like-minded people (see Dhanani 2002), some formal, e.g., in hospitals where students learned about medicine in a practical, master-apprentice setting, and in astronomical observatories and academies. The decline and fall of the Abbasid caliphate dealt a blow to science in the Islamic world, but it remains unclear why it ultimately stagnated, and why it did not experience something analogous to the scientific revolution in Western Europe. Note, the decline of science in the Islamic world should not be generalized to other fields, such as philosophy and philosophical theology, which continued to flourish after the Abbasid caliphate fell.

Some liberal Muslim authors, such as Fatima Mernissi (1992), argue that the rise of conservative forms of Islamic philosophical theology stifled more scientifically-minded natural philosophy. In the ninth to the twelfth century, the Mu’tazila (a philosophical theological school) helped the growth of science in the Islamic world thanks to their embrace of Greek natural philosophy. But eventually, the Mu’tazila and their intellectual descendants lost their influence to more conservative brands of theology. Al-Ghazālī’s influential eleventh-century work, The Incoherence of the Philosophers ( Tahāfut al-falāsifa ), was a scathing and sophisticated critique of Greek-inspired Muslim philosophy, arguing that their metaphysical assumptions could not be demonstrated. This book vindicated more orthodox Muslim religious views. As Muslim intellectual life became more orthodox, it became less open to non-Muslim philosophical ideas, which led to the decline of science in the Islamic world, according to this view.

The problem with this narrative is that orthodox worries about non-Islamic knowledge were already present before Al-Ghazālī and continued long after his death (Edis 2007: chapter 2). The study of law ( fiqh ) was more stifling for science in the Islamic world than developments in theology. The eleventh century saw changes in Islamic law that discouraged heterodox thought: lack of orthodoxy could now be regarded as apostasy from Islam ( zandaqa ) which is punishable by death, whereas before, a Muslim could only apostatize by an explicit declaration (Griffel 2009: 105). (Al-Ghazālī himself only regarded the violation of three core doctrines as zandaqa , namely statements that challenged monotheism, the prophecy of Muḥammad, and resurrection after death.) Given that heterodox thoughts could be interpreted as apostasy, this created a stifling climate for science. In the second half of the nineteenth century, as science and technology became firmly entrenched in Western society, Muslim empires were languishing or colonized. Scientific ideas, such as evolutionary theory, became equated with European colonialism, and thus met with distrust. The enduring association between western culture, colonialism, and science led to a more prominent conflict view of the relationship between science and religion in Muslim countries.

In spite of this negative association between science and Western modernity, there is an emerging literature on science and religion by Muslim scholars (mostly scientists). The physicist Nidhal Guessoum (2011) holds that science and religion are not only compatible, but in harmony. He rejects the idea of treating the Qurʾān as a scientific encyclopedia, something other Muslim authors in the debate on science and religion tend to do. Moreover, he adheres to the no-possible-conflict principle, outlined by Ibn Rušd: there can be no conflict between God’s word (properly understood) and God’s work (properly understood). If an apparent conflict arises, the Qurʾān may not have been interpreted correctly.

While the Qurʾān asserts a creation in six days (like the Hebrew Bible), “day” is often interpreted as a very long span of time, rather than a 24-hour period. As a result, Old Earth creationism is more influential in Islam than Young Earth creationism. Adnan Oktar’s Atlas of Creation (published in 2007 under the pseudonym Harun Yahya), a glossy coffee table book that draws heavily on Christian Old Earth creationism, has been distributed worldwide (Hameed 2008). Since the Qurʾān explicitly mentions the special creation of Adam out of clay, most Muslims refuse to accept that humans evolved from hominin ancestors. Nevertheless, Muslim scientists such as Guessoum (2011) and Rana Dajani (2015) have advocated acceptance of evolution.

Hinduism is the world’s third largest religion, though the term “Hinduism” is an awkward catch-all phrase that denotes diverse religious and philosophical traditions that emerged on the Indian subcontinent between 500 BCE and 300 CE. The vast majority of Hindus live in India; most others live in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Southeast Asia, with a significant diaspora in western countries such as the United States (Hackett 2015 [ Other Internet Resources ]). In contrast to the Abrahamic monotheistic religions, Hinduism does not always draw a sharp distinction between God and creation. (While there are pantheistic and panentheistic views in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, these are minority positions.) Many Hindus believe in a personal God, and identify this God as immanent in creation. This view has ramifications for the science and religion debate, in that there is no sharp ontological distinction between creator and creature (Subbarayappa 2011). Religious traditions originating on the Indian subcontinent, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, are referred to as dharmic religions. Philosophical points of view are referred to as darśana .

One factor that unites the different strands of Hinduism is the importance of foundational texts composed between ca. 1600 and 700 BCE. These include the Vedas, which contain hymns and prescriptions for performing rituals, Brāhmaṇa, accompanying liturgical texts, and Upaniṣad, metaphysical treatises. The Vedas discuss gods who personify and embody natural phenomena such as fire (Agni) and wind (Vāyu). More gods appear in the following centuries (e.g., Gaṇeśa and Sati-Parvati in the 4th century). Note that there are both polytheistic and monotheistic strands in Hinduism, so it is not the case that individual believers worship or recognize all of these gods. Ancient Vedic rituals encouraged knowledge of diverse sciences, including astronomy, linguistics, and mathematics. Astronomical knowledge was required to determine the timing of rituals and the construction of sacrificial altars. Linguistics developed out of a need to formalize grammatical rules for classical Sanskrit, which was used in rituals. Large public offerings also required the construction of elaborate altars, which posed geometrical problems and thus led to advances in geometry. Classic Vedic texts also frequently used very large numbers, for instance, to denote the age of humanity and the Earth, which required a system to represent numbers parsimoniously, giving rise to a 10-base positional system and a symbolic representation for zero as a placeholder, which would later be imported in other mathematical traditions (Joseph 1991 [2000]). In this way, ancient Indian dharma encouraged the emergence of the sciences.

Around the sixth–fifth century BCE, the northern part of the Indian subcontinent experienced an extensive urbanization. In this context, medicine ( āyurveda ) became standardized. This period also gave rise to a wide range of heterodox philosophical schools, including Buddhism, Jainism, and Cārvāka. The latter defended a form of metaphysical naturalism, denying the existence of gods or karma. The relationship between science and religion on the Indian subcontinent is complex, in part because the dharmic religions and philosophical schools are so diverse. For example, Cārvāka proponents had a strong suspicion of inferential beliefs, and rejected Vedic revelation and supernaturalism in general, instead favoring direct observation as a source of knowledge.

Natural theology also flourished in the pre-colonial period, especially in the Advaita Vedānta, a darśana that identifies the self, ātman , with ultimate reality, Brahman. Advaita Vedāntin philosopher Adi Śaṅkara (fl. first half eighth century) was an author who regarded Brahman as the only reality, both the material and the efficient cause of the cosmos. Śaṅkara formulated design and cosmological arguments, drawing on analogies between the world and artifacts: in ordinary life, we never see non-intelligent agents produce purposive design, yet the universe is suitable for human life, just like benches and pleasure gardens are designed for us. Given that the universe is so complex that even an intelligent craftsman cannot comprehend it, how could it have been created by non-intelligent natural forces? Śaṅkara concluded that it must have been designed by an intelligent creator (C.M. Brown 2008: 108).

From 1757 to 1947, India was under British colonial rule. This had a profound influence on its culture as Hindus came into contact with Western science and technology. For local intellectuals, the contact with Western science presented a challenge: how to assimilate these ideas with Hinduism? Mahendrahal Sircar (1833–1904) was one of the first authors to examine evolutionary theory and its implications for Hindu religious beliefs. Sircar was an evolutionary theist, who believed that God used evolution to create current life forms. Evolutionary theism was not a new hypothesis in Hinduism, but the many lines of empirical evidence Darwin provided for evolution gave it a fresh impetus. While Sircar accepted organic evolution through common descent, he questioned the mechanism of natural selection as it was not teleological, which went against his evolutionary theism. This was a widespread problem for the acceptance of evolutionary theory, one that Christian evolutionary theists also wrestled with (Bowler 2009). He also argued against the British colonists’ beliefs that Hindus were incapable of scientific thought, and encouraged fellow Hindus to engage in science, which he hoped would help regenerate the Indian nation (C.M. Brown 2012: chapter 6).

The assimilation of Western culture prompted various revivalist movements that sought to reaffirm the cultural value of Hinduism. They put forward the idea of a Vedic science, where all scientific findings are already prefigured in the Vedas and other ancient texts (e.g., Vivekananda 1904). This idea is still popular within contemporary Hinduism, and is quite similar to ideas held by contemporary Muslims, who refer to the Qurʾān as a harbinger of scientific theories.

Responses to evolutionary theory were as diverse as Christian views on this subject, ranging from creationism (denial of evolutionary theory based on a perceived incompatibility with Vedic texts) to acceptance (see C.M. Brown 2012 for a thorough overview). Authors such as Dayananda Saraswati (1930–2015) rejected evolutionary theory. By contrast, Vivekananda (1863–1902), a proponent of the monistic Advaita Vedānta enthusiastically endorsed evolutionary theory and argued that it is already prefigured in ancient Vedic texts. His integrative view claimed that Hinduism and science are in harmony: Hinduism is scientific in spirit, as is evident from its long history of scientific discovery (Vivekananda 1904). Sri Aurobindo Ghose, a yogi and Indian nationalist who was educated in the West, formulated a synthesis of evolutionary thought and Hinduism. He interpreted the classic avatara doctrine, according to which God incarnates into the world repeatedly throughout time, in evolutionary terms. God thus appears first as an animal, later as a dwarf, then as a violent man (Rama), and then as Buddha, and as Kṛṣṇa. He proposed a metaphysical picture where both spiritual evolution (reincarnation and avatars) and physical evolution are ultimately a manifestation of God (Brahman). This view of reality as consisting of matter ( prakṛti ) and consciousness ( puruṣa ) goes back to sāṃkhya , one of the orthodox Hindu darśana, but Aurobindo made explicit reference to the divine, calling the process during which the supreme Consciousness dwells in matter involution (Aurobindo, 1914–18 [2005], see C.M. Brown 2007 for discussion).

During the twentieth century, Indian scientists began to gain prominence, including C.V. Raman (1888–1970), a Nobel Prize winner in physics, and Satyendra Nath Bose (1894–1974), a theoretical physicist who described the behavior of photons statistically, and who gave his name to bosons. However, these authors were silent on the relationship between their scientific work and their religious beliefs. By contrast, the mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887–1920) was open about his religious beliefs and their influence on his mathematical work. He claimed that the goddess Namagiri helped him to intuit solutions to mathematical problems. Likewise, Jagadish Chandra Bose (1858–1937), a theoretical physicist, biologist, biophysicist, botanist, and archaeologist who worked on radio waves, saw the Hindu idea of unity reflected in the study of nature. He started the Bose institute in Kolkata in 1917, the earliest interdisciplinary scientific institute in India (Subbarayappa 2011).

Buddhism, like the other religious traditions surveyed in this entry, encompasses many views and practices. The principal forms of Buddhism that exist today are Theravāda and Mahāyāna. (Vajrayāna, the tantric tradition of Buddhism, is also sometimes seen as a distinct form.) Theravāda is the dominant form of Buddhism of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. It traditionally refers to monastic and textual lineages associated with the study of the Pāli Buddhist Canon. Mahāyāna refers to a movement that likely began roughly four centuries after the Buddha’s death; it became the dominant form of Buddhism in East and Central Asia. It includes Chan or Zen, and also tantric Buddhism, which today is found mostly in Tibet, though East Asian forms also exist.

Buddhism originated in the historical figure of the Buddha (historically, Gautama Buddha or Siddhārtha Gautama, ca. 5 th –4 th century BCE). His teaching centered on ethics as well as metaphysics, incapsulated in the Four Noble Truths (on suffering and its origin in human desires), and the Noble Eightfold Path (right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration) to end suffering and to break the cycle of rebirths, culminating in reaching Nirvana. Substantive metaphysical teachings include belief in karma, the no-self, and the cycle of rebirth.

As a response to colonialist attitudes, modern Buddhists since the nineteenth century have often presented Buddhism as harmonious with science (Lopez 2008). The argument is roughly that since Buddhism doesn’t require belief in metaphysically substantive entities such as God, the soul, or the self (unlike, for example, Christianity), Buddhism should be easily compatible with the factual claims that scientists make. (Note, however, that historically most Buddhist have believed in various forms of divine abode and divinities.) We could thus expect the dialogue and integration view to prevail in Buddhism. An exemplar for integration is the fourteenth Dalai Lama, who is known for his numerous efforts to lead dialogue between religious people and scientists. He has extensively written on the relationship between Buddhism and various scientific disciplines such as neuroscience and cosmology (e.g., Dalai Lama 2005, see also the Science and Philosophy in the Indian Buddhist Classics series, a four-volume series conceived and compiled by the Dalai Lama, e.g., Jinpa 2017). Donald Lopez Jr (2008) identifies compatibility as an enduring claim in the debate on science and Buddhism, in spite of the fact that what is meant by these concepts has shifted markedly over time. As David McMahan (2009) argues, Buddhism underwent profound shifts in response to modernity in the west as well as globally. In this modern context, Buddhists have often asserted the compatibility of Buddhism with science, favorably contrasting their religion to Christianity in that respect.

The full picture of the relationship between Buddhism and religion is more nuanced than one of wholesale acceptance of scientific claims. I will here focus on East Asia, primarily Japan and China, and the reception of evolutionary theory in the early twentieth century to give a sense of this more complex picture. The earliest translations of evolutionary thought in Japan and China were not drawn from Darwin’s Origin of Species or Descent of Man , but from works by authors who worked in Darwin’s wake, such as Ernst Haeckel and Thomas Huxley. For example, the earliest translated writings on evolutionary theory in China was a compilation by Yan Fu entitled On Natural Evolution ( Tianyan lun ), which incorporated excerpts by Herbert Spencer and Thomas Huxley. This work drew a close distinction between social Darwinism and biological evolution (Ritzinger 2013). Chinese and Japanese Buddhists received these ideas in the context of western colonialism and imperialism. East Asian intellectuals saw how western colonial powers competed with each other for influence on their territory, and discerned parallels between this and the Darwinian struggle for existence. As a result, some intellectuals such as the Japanese political adviser and academic Katō Hiroyuki (1836–1916) drew on Darwinian thought and popularized notions such as “survival of the fittest” to justify the foreign policies of the Meiji government (Burenina 2020). It is in this context that we can situate Buddhist responses to evolutionary theory.

Buddhists do not distinguish between human beings as possessing a soul and other animals as soulless. As we are all part of the cycle of rebirth, we have all been in previous lives various other beings, including birds, insects, and fish. The problem of the specificity of the human soul does not even arise because of the no-self doctrine. Nevertheless, as Justin Ritzinger (2013) points out, Chinese Buddhists in the 1920s and 1930s who were confronted with early evolutionary theory did not accept Darwin’s theory wholesale. In their view, the central element of Darwinism—the struggle for existence—was incompatible with Buddhism, with its emphasis on compassion with other creatures. They rejected social Darwinism (which sought to engineer societies along Darwinian principles) because it was incompatible with Buddhist ethics and metaphysics. Struggling to survive and to propagate was clinging onto worldly things. Taixu (1890–1947), a Chinese Reformer and Buddhist modernist, instead chose to appropriate Pyotr Kropotkin’s evolutionary views, specifically on mutual aid and altruism. The Russian anarchist argued that cooperation was central to evolutionary change, a view that is currently also more mainstream. However, Kropotkin’s view did not go far enough in Taixu’s opinion because mutual aid still requires a self. Only when one recognizes the no-self doctrine could one dedicate oneself entirely to helping others, as bodhisattvas do (Ritzinger 2013).

Similar dynamics can be seen in the reception of evolutionary theory among Japanese Buddhists. Evolutionary theory was introduced in Japan during the early Meji period (1868–1912) when Japan opened itself to foreign trade and ideas. Foreign experts, such as the American zoologist Edward S. Morse (1838–1925) shared their knowledge of the sciences with Japanese scholars. The latter were interested in the social ramifications of Darwinism, particularly because they had access to translated versions of Spencer’s and Huxley’s work before they could read Darwin’s. Japanese Buddhists of the Nichiren tradition accepted many elements of evolutionary theory, but they rejected other elements, notably the struggle for existence, and randomness and chance, as this contradicts the role of karma in one’s circumstances at birth.

Among the advocates of the modern Nishiren Buddhist movement is Honda Nisshō (1867–1931). Honda emphasized the importance of retrogressions (in addition to progress, which was the main element in evolution that western authors such as Haeckel and Spencer considered). He strongly argued against social Darwinism, the application of evolutionary principles in social engineering, on religious grounds. He argued that we can accept humans are descended from apes without having to posit a pessimistic view of human nature that sees us as engaged in a struggle for survival with fellow human beings. Like Chinese Buddhists, Honda thought Kropotkin’s thesis of mutual aid was more compatible with Buddhism, but he was suspicious of Kropotkin’s anarchism (Burenina 2020). His work, like that of other East Asian Buddhists indicates that historically, Buddhists are not passive recipients of western science but creative interpreters. In some cases, their religious reasons for rejecting some metaphysical assumptions in evolutionary theory led them to anticipate recent developments in biology, such as the recognition of cooperation as an evolutionary principle.

Judaism is one of the three major Abrahamic monotheistic traditions, encompassing a range of beliefs and practices that express a covenant between God and the people of Israel. Central to both Jewish practice and beliefs is the study of texts, including the written Torah (the Tanakh, sometimes called “Hebrew Bible”), and the “Oral Law” of Rabbinic Judaism, compiled in such works like the Talmud. There is also a corpus of esoteric, mystical interpretations of biblical texts, the Kabbalah, which has influenced Jewish works on the relationship between science and religion. The Kabbalah also had an influence on Renaissance and early modern Christian authors such as Pico Della Mirandola, whose work helped to shape the scientific revolution (see the entry on Giovanni Pico della Mirandola ). The theologian Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben-Maimon, 1138–1204, aka Rambam) had an enduring influence on Jewish thought up until today, also in the science and religion literature.

Most contemporary strains of Judaism are Rabbinic, rather than biblical, and this has profound implications for the relationship between religion and science. While both Jews and Evangelical Christians emphasize the reading of sacred texts, the Rabbinic traditions (unlike, for example, the Evangelical Christian tradition) holds that reading and interpreting texts is far from straightforward. Scripture should not be read in a simple literal fashion. This opens up more space for accepting scientific theories (e.g., Big Bang cosmology) that seem at odds with a simple literal reading of the Torah (e.g., the six-day creation in Genesis) (Mitelman 2011 [ Other Internet Resources ]). Moreover, most non-Orthodox Jews in the US identify as politically liberal, so openness to science may also be an identity marker given that politically liberal people in the US have positive attitudes toward science (Pew Forum, 2021 [ Other Internet Resources ]).

Jewish thinkers have made substantive theoretical contributions to the relationship between science and religion, which differ in interesting respects from those seen in the literature written by Christian authors. To give just a few examples, Hermann Cohen (1842–1918), a prominent neo-Kantian German Jewish philosopher, thought of the relationship between Judaism and science in the light of the advances in scientific disciplines and the increased participation of Jewish scholars in the sciences. He argued that science, ethics, and Judaism should all be conceived of as distinct but complementary sciences. Cohen believed that his Jewish religious community was facing an epistemic crisis. All references to God had become suspect due to an adherence to naturalism, at first epistemological, but fast becoming ontological. Cohen saw the concept of a transcendent God as foundational to both Jewish practice and belief, so he thought adherence to wholesale naturalism threatened both Jewish orthodoxy and orthopraxy. As Teri Merrick (2020) argues, Cohen suspected this was in part due to epistemic oppression and self-censuring (though Cohen did not frame it in these terms). Because Jewish scientists wanted to retain credibility in the Christian majority culture, they underplayed and neglected the rich Jewish intellectual legacy in their practice. In response to this intellectual crisis, Cohen proposed to reframe Jewish thought and philosophy so that it would be recognized as both continuous with the tradition and essentially contributing to ethical and scientific advances. In this way, he reframed this tradition, articulating a broadly Kantian philosophy of science to combat a perceived conflict between Judaism and science (see the entry on Hermann Cohen for an in-depth discussion).

Jewish religious scholars have examined how science might influence religious beliefs, and vice versa. Rather than a unified response we see a spectrum of philosophical views, especially since the nineteenth and early twentieth century. As Shai Cherry (2003) surveys, Jewish scholars in the early twentieth century accepted biological evolution but were hesitant about Darwinian natural selection as the mechanism. The Latvian-born Israeli rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935) thought that religion and science are largely separate domains (a view somewhat similar to Gould’s NOMA), though he believed that there was a possible flow from religion to science. For example, Kook challenged the lack of directionality in Darwinian evolutionary theory. Using readings of the Kabbalah (and Halakhah, Jewish law), he proposed that biological evolution fits in a larger picture of cosmic evolution towards perfection.

By contrast, the American rabbi Morcedai Kaplan (1881–1983) thought information flow between science and religion could go in both directions, a view reminiscent to Barbour’s dialogue position. He repeatedly argued against scientism (the encroachment of science on too many aspects of human life, including ethics and religion), but he believed nevertheless we ought to apply scientific methods to religion. He saw reality as an unfolding process without a pre-ordained goal: it was progressive, but not teleologically determined. Kaplan emphasized the importance of morality (and identified God as the source of this process), and conceptualized humanity as not merely a passive recipient of evolutionary change, but an active participant, prefiguring work in evolutionary biology on the importance of agency in evolution (e.g., Okasha 2018). Thus, Kaplan’s reception of scientific theories, especially evolution, led him to formulate an early Jewish process theology.

Reform Judaism endorses an explicit anti-conflict view on the relationship between science and religion. For example, the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885, the first document of the Reform rabbinate, has a statement that explicitly says that science and Judaism are not in conflict:

We hold that the modern discoveries of scientific researches in the domain of nature and history are not antagonistic to the doctrines of Judaism.

This Platform had an enduring influence on Reform Judaism over the next decades. Secular Jewish scientists such as Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Douglas Daniel Kahneman, and Stephen J. Gould have also reflected on the relationship between science and broader issues of existential significance, and have exerted considerable influence on the science and religion debate.

3. Central topics in the debate

Current work in the field of science and religion encompasses a wealth of topics, including free will, ethics, human nature, and consciousness. Contemporary natural theologians discuss fine-tuning, in particular design arguments based on it (e.g., R. Collins 2009), the interpretation of multiverse cosmology, and the significance of the Big Bang (see entries on fine-tuning arguments and natural theology and natural religion ). For instance, authors such as Hud Hudson (2013) have explored the idea that God has actualized the best of all possible multiverses. Here follows an overview of two topics that continue to generate substantial interest and debate: divine action (and the closely related topic of creation) and human origins. The focus will be on Christian work in science and religion, due to its prevalence in the literature.

Before scientists developed their views on cosmology and origins of the world, Western cultures already had a doctrine of creation, based on biblical texts (e.g., the first three chapters of Genesis and the book of Revelation) and the writings of church fathers such as Augustine. This doctrine of creation has the following interrelated features: first, God created the world ex nihilo, i.e., out of nothing. Differently put, God did not need any pre-existing materials to make the world, unlike, e.g., the Demiurge (from Greek philosophy), who created the world from chaotic, pre-existing matter. Second, God is distinct from the world; the world is not equal to or part of God (contra pantheism or panentheism) or a (necessary) emanation of God’s being (contra Neoplatonism). Rather, God created the world freely. This introduces an asymmetry between creator and creature: the world is radically contingent upon God’s creative act and is also sustained by God, whereas God does not need creation (Jaeger 2012b: 3). Third, the doctrine of creation holds that creation is essentially good (this is repeatedly affirmed in Genesis 1). The world does contain evil, but God does not directly cause this evil to exist. Moreover, God does not merely passively sustain creation, but rather plays an active role in it, using special divine actions (e.g., miracles and revelations) to care for creatures. Fourth, God made provisions for the end of the world, and will create a new heaven and earth, in this way eradicating evil.

Views on divine action are related to the doctrine of creation. Theologians commonly draw a distinction between general and special divine action, but within the field of science and religion there is no universally accepted definition of these two concepts. One way to distinguish them (Wildman 2008: 140) is to regard general divine action as the creation and sustenance of reality, and special divine action as the collection of specific providential acts, such as miracles and revelations to prophets. Drawing this distinction allows for creatures to be autonomous and indicates that God does not micromanage every detail of creation. Still, the distinction is not always clear-cut, as some phenomena are difficult to classify as either general or special divine action. For example, the Roman Catholic Eucharist (in which bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus) or some healing miracles outside of scripture seem mundane enough to be part of general housekeeping (general divine action), but still seem to involve some form of special intervention on God’s part. Alston (1989) makes a related distinction between direct and indirect divine acts. God brings about direct acts without the use of natural causes, whereas indirect acts are achieved through natural causes. Using this distinction, there are four possible kinds of actions that God could do: God could not act in the world at all, God could act only directly, God could act only indirectly, or God could act both directly and indirectly.

In the science and religion literature, there are two central questions on creation and divine action. To what extent are the Christian doctrine of creation and traditional views of divine action compatible with science? How can these concepts be understood within a scientific context, e.g., what does it mean for God to create and act? Note that the doctrine of creation says nothing about the age of the Earth, nor does it specify a mode of creation. This allows for a wide range of possible views within science and religion, of which Young Earth creationism is but one that is consistent with scripture. Indeed, some scientific theories, such as the Big Bang theory, first proposed by the Belgian Roman Catholic priest and astronomer Georges Lemaître (1927), look congenial to the doctrine of creation. The theory is not in contradiction, and could be integrated into creatio ex nihilo as it specifies that the universe originated from an extremely hot and dense state around 13.8 billion years ago (Craig 2003), although some philosophers have argued against the interpretation that the universe has a temporal beginning (e.g., Pitts 2008).

The net result of scientific findings since the seventeenth century has been that God was increasingly pushed into the margins. This encroachment of science on the territory of religion happened in two ways: first, scientific findings—in particular from geology and evolutionary theory—challenged and replaced biblical accounts of creation. Although the doctrine of creation does not contain details of the mode and timing of creation, the Bible was regarded as authoritative, and that authority got eroded by the sciences. Second, the emerging concept of scientific laws in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century physics seemed to leave no room for special divine action. These two challenges will be discussed below, along with proposed solutions in the contemporary science and religion literature.

Christian authors have traditionally used the Bible as a source of historical information. Biblical exegesis of the creation narratives, especially Genesis 1 and 2 (and some other scattered passages, such as in the Book of Job), remains fraught with difficulties. Are these texts to be interpreted in a historical, metaphorical, or poetic fashion, and what are we to make of the fact that the order of creation differs between these accounts (Harris 2013)? The Anglican archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656) used the Bible to date the beginning of creation at 4004 BCE. Although such literalist interpretations of the biblical creation narratives were not uncommon, and are still used by Young Earth creationists today, theologians before Ussher already offered alternative, non-literalist readings of the biblical materials (e.g., Augustine De Genesi ad litteram , 416). From the seventeenth century onward, the Christian doctrine of creation came under pressure from geology, with findings suggesting that the Earth was significantly older than 4004 BCE. From the eighteenth century on, natural philosophers, such as Benoît de Maillet, Lamarck, Chambers, and Darwin, proposed transmutationist (what would now be called evolutionary) theories, which seem incompatible with scriptural interpretations of the special creation of species. Following the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859), there has been an ongoing discussion on how to reinterpret the doctrine of creation in the light of evolutionary theory (see Bowler 2009 for an overview).

Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett (2003) have outlined a divine action spectrum to clarify the distinct positions about creation and divine action in the contemporary science and religion literature that focuses on Christians, agnostics, and atheists. They discern two dimensions in this spectrum: the degree of divine action in the natural world, and the form of causal explanations that relate divine action to natural processes. At one extreme are creationists. Like other theists, they believe God has created the world and its fundamental laws, and that God occasionally performs special divine actions (miracles) that intervene in the fabric of those laws. Creationists deny any role of natural selection in the origin of species. Within creationism, there are Old and Young Earth creationism, with the former accepting geology and rejecting evolutionary biology, and the latter rejecting both. Next to creationism is Intelligent Design, which affirms divine intervention in natural processes. Intelligent Design creationists (e.g., Dembski 1998) believe there is evidence of intelligent design in organisms’ irreducible complexity; on the basis of this they infer design and purposiveness (see Kojonen 2016). Like other creationists, they deny a significant role for natural selection in shaping organic complexity and they affirm an interventionist account of divine action. For political reasons they do not label their intelligent designer as God, as they hope to circumvent the constitutional separation of church and state in the US which prohibits teaching religious doctrines in public schools (Forrest & Gross 2004). Theistic evolutionists hold a non-interventionist approach to divine action: God creates indirectly, through the laws of nature (e.g., through natural selection). For example, the theologian John Haught (2000) regards divine providence as self-giving love, and natural selection and other natural processes as manifestations of this love, as they foster creaturely autonomy and independence. While theistic evolutionists allow for special divine action, particularly the miracle of the Incarnation in Christ (e.g., Deane-Drummond 2009), deists such as Michael Corey (1994) think there is only general divine action: God has laid out the laws of nature and lets it run like clockwork without further interference. Deism is still a long distance from ontological materialism, the view that the material world is all there is. Ontological materialists tend to hold that the universe is intelligible, with laws that scientists can discover, but there is no lawgiver and no creator.

Views on divine action were influenced by developments in physics and their philosophical interpretation. In the seventeenth century, natural philosophers, such as Robert Boyle and John Wilkins, developed a mechanistic view of the world as governed by orderly and lawlike processes. Laws, understood as immutable and stable, created difficulties for the concept of special divine action (Pannenberg 2002). How could God act in a world that was determined by laws?

One way to regard miracles and other forms of special divine action is to see them as actions that somehow suspend or ignore the laws of nature. David Hume (1748: 181), for instance, defined a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity, or by the interposal of some invisible agent”, and, more recently, Richard Swinburne (1968: 320) defines a miracle as “a violation of a law of Nature by a god”. This concept of divine action is commonly labeled interventionist. Interventionism regards the world as causally deterministic, so God has to create room for special divine actions. By contrast, non-interventionist forms of divine action require a world that is, at some level, non-deterministic, so that God can act without having to suspend or ignore the laws of nature.

In the seventeenth century, the explanation of the workings of nature in terms of elegant physical laws suggested the ingenuity of a divine designer. The design argument reached its peak during the seventeenth and early eighteenth century (McGrath 2011). For example, Samuel Clarke (1705: part XI, cited in Schliesser 2012: 451) proposed an a posteriori argument from design by appealing to Newtonian science, calling attention to the

exquisite regularity of all the planets’ motions without epicycles, stations, retrogradations, or any other deviation or confusion whatsoever.

A late proponent of this view of nature as a perfect smooth machine is William Paley’s Natural Theology (1802).

Another conclusion that the new laws-based physics suggested was that the universe was able to run smoothly without requiring an intervening God. The increasingly deterministic understanding of the universe, ruled by deterministic causal laws as, for example, outlined by Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827), seemed to leave no room for special divine action, which is a key element of the traditional Christian doctrine of creation. Newton resisted interpretations like these in an addendum to the Principia in 1713: the planets’ motions could be explained by laws of gravity, but the positions of their orbits, and the positions of the stars—far enough apart so as not to influence each other gravitationally—required a divine explanation (Schliesser 2012). Alston (1989) argued, contra authors such as Polkinghorne (1998), that mechanistic, pre-twentieth century physics is compatible with divine action and divine free will. Assuming a completely deterministic world and divine omniscience, God could set up initial conditions and the laws of nature in such a way as to bring God’s plans about. In such a mechanistic world, every event is an indirect divine act.

Advances in twentieth-century physics, including the theories of general and special relativity, chaos theory, and quantum theory, overturned the mechanical clockwork view of creation. In the latter half of the twentieth century, chaos theory and quantum physics have been explored as possible avenues to reinterpret divine action. John Polkinghorne (1998) proposed that chaos theory not only presents epistemological limits to what we can know about the world, but that it also provides the world with an “ontological openness” in which God can operate without violating the laws of nature. One difficulty with this model is that it moves from our knowledge of the world to assumptions about how the world is: does chaos theory mean that outcomes are genuinely undetermined, or that we as limited knowers cannot predict them? Robert Russell (2006) proposed that God acts in quantum events. This would allow God to directly act in nature without having to contravene the laws of nature. His is therefore a non-interventionist model: since, under the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, there are no natural efficient causes at the quantum level, God is not reduced to a natural cause. Murphy (1995) outlined a similar bottom-up model where God acts in the space provided by quantum indeterminacy. These attempts to locate God’s actions either in chaos theory or quantum mechanics, which Lydia Jaeger (2012a) has termed “physicalism-plus-God”, have met with sharp criticism (e.g., Saunders 2002; Jaeger 2012a,b). After all, it is not even clear whether quantum theory would allow for free human action, let alone divine action, which we do not know much about (Jaeger 2012a). Next to this, William Carroll (2008), building on Thomistic philosophy, argues that authors such as Polkinghorne and Murphy are making a category mistake: God is not a cause in the way creatures are causes, competing with natural causes, and God does not need indeterminacy in order to act in the world. Rather, as primary cause God supports and grounds secondary causes. While this neo-Thomistic proposal is compatible with determinism (indeed, on this view, the precise details of physics do not matter much), it blurs the distinction between general and special divine action. Moreover, the Incarnation suggests that the idea of God as a cause among natural causes is not an alien idea in theology, and that God incarnate as Jesus at least sometimes acts as a natural cause (Sollereder 2015).

There has been a debate on the question to what extent randomness is a genuine feature of creation, and how divine action and chance interrelate. Chance and stochasticity are important features of evolutionary theory (the non-random retention of random variations). In a famous thought experiment, Gould (1989) imagined that we could rewind the tape of life back to the time of the Burgess Shale (508 million years ago); the chance that a rerun of the tape of life would end up with anything like the present-day life forms is vanishingly small. However, Simon Conway Morris (2003) has insisted species very similar to the ones we know now, including humans, would evolve under a broad range of conditions.

Under a theist interpretation, randomness could either be a merely apparent aspect of creation, or a genuine feature. Plantinga suggests that randomness is a physicalist interpretation of the evidence. God may have guided every mutation along the evolutionary process. In this way, God could

guide the course of evolutionary history by causing the right mutations to arise at the right time and preserving the forms of life that lead to the results he intends. (2011: 121)

By contrast, other authors see stochasticity as a genuine design feature, and not just as a physicalist gloss. Their challenge is to explain how divine providence is compatible with genuine randomness. (Under a deistic view, one could simply say that God started the universe up and did not interfere with how it went, but that option is not open to the theist, and most authors in the field of science and religion are not deists.) The neo-Thomist Elizabeth Johnson (1996) argues that divine providence and true randomness are compatible: God gives creatures true causal powers, thus making creation more excellent than if they lacked such powers. Random occurrences are also secondary causes. Chance is a form of divine creativity that creates novelty, variety, and freedom. One implication of this view is that God may be a risk taker—although, if God has a providential plan for possible outcomes, there is unpredictability but not risk. Johnson uses metaphors of risk taking that, on the whole, leave the creator in a position of control. Creation, then, is akin to jazz improvisation. Why would God take risks? There are several solutions to this question. The free will theodicy says that a creation that exhibits stochasticity can be truly free and autonomous:

Authentic love requires freedom, not manipulation. Such freedom is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution, and not by strings of divine direction attached to every living creature. (Miller 1999 [2007: 289])

The “only way theodicy” goes a step further, arguing that a combination of laws and chance is not only the best way, but the only way for God to achieve God’s creative plans (see, e.g., Southgate 2008 for a defense).

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have similar creation stories, which ultimately go back to the first book of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis). According to Genesis, humans are the result of a special act of creation. Genesis 1 offers an account of the creation of the world in six days, with the creation of human beings on the sixth day. It specifies that humans were created male and female, and that they were made in God’s image. Genesis 2 provides a different order of creation, where God creates humans earlier in the sequence (before other animals), and only initially creates a man, later fashioning a woman out of the man’s rib. Islam has a creation narrative similar to Genesis 2, with Adam being fashioned out of clay. These handcrafted humans are regarded as the ancestors of all living humans today. Together with Ussher’s chronology, the received view in eighteenth-century Europe was that humans were created only about 6000 years ago, in an act of special creation.

Humans occupy a privileged position in these creation accounts. In Christianity, Judaism, and some strands of Islam, humans are created in the image of God ( imago Dei ). Humans also occupy a special place in creation as a result of the Fall. In Genesis 3, the account of the Fall stipulates that the first human couple lived in the Garden of Eden in a state of innocence and/or righteousness. This means they were able to not sin, whereas we are no longer able to refrain from sinning. By eating from the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil they fell from this state, and death, manual labor, as well as pain in childbirth were introduced. Moreover, as a result of this so-called “original sin”, the effects of Adam’s sin are passed on to every human being. The Augustinian interpretation of original sin also emphasizes that our reasoning capacities have been marred by the distorting effects of sin (the so-called noetic effects of sin): as a result of sin, our original perceptual and reasoning capacities have been marred. This interpretation is influential in contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. For example, Plantinga (2000) appeals to the noetic effects of sin to explain religious diversity and unbelief, offering this as an explanation for why not everyone believes in God even though this belief would be properly basic.

There are different ways in which Christians have thought about the Fall and original sin. In Western Christianity, Augustine’s doctrine of original sin is very influential, though there is no generally accepted Christian doctrine on original sin (Couenhoven 2005). For Augustine, humans were in a state of original righteousness before the Fall, and by their action not only marred themselves but the entirety of creation. By contrast, Eastern Orthodox churches are more influenced by Irenaeus, an early Church Father who argued that humans were originally innocent and immature, rather than righteous. John Hick (1966) was an influential proponent of “Irenaean style” theodicy in contemporary Christianity.

Over the past decades, authors in the Christian religion and science literature have explored these two interpretations (Irenaean, Augustinian) and how they can be made compatible with scientific findings (see De Smedt and De Cruz 2020 for a review). Scientific findings and theories relevant to human origins come from a range of disciplines, in particular geology, paleoanthropology (the study of ancestral hominins, using fossils and other evidence), archaeology, and evolutionary biology. These findings challenge traditional religious accounts of humanity, including the special creation of humans, the imago Dei , the historical Adam and Eve, and original sin.

In natural philosophy, the dethroning of humanity from its position as a specially created species predates Darwin and can already be found in early transmutationist publications. For example, Benoît de Maillet’s posthumously published Telliamed (1748, the title is his name in reverse) traces the origins of humans and other terrestrial animals from sea creatures. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed chimpanzees as the ancestors to humans in his Philosophie Zoologique (1809). The Scottish publisher and geologist Robert Chambers’ anonymously published Vestiges of Creation (1844) stirred controversy with its detailed naturalistic account of the origin of species. He proposed that the first organisms arose through spontaneous generation, and that all subsequent organisms evolved from them. Moreover, he argued that humans have a single evolutionary origin:

The probability may now be assumed that the human race sprung from one stock, which was at first in a state of simplicity, if not barbarism (1844: 305)

a view starkly different from the Augustinian interpretation of humanity as being in a prelapsarian state of perfection.

Darwin was initially reluctant to publish on human origins. While he did not discuss human evolution in his Origin of Species , he promised, “Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history” (1859: 487). Huxley (1863) wrote Man’s Place in Nature , the first book on human evolution from a Darwinian point of view which discussed fossil evidence, such as the then recently uncovered Neanderthal fossils from Gibraltar. Darwin’s (1871) Descent of Man identified Africa as the likely place where humans originated, and used comparative anatomy to demonstrate that chimpanzees and gorillas were closely related to humans. In the twentieth century, paleoanthropologists debated whether humans separated from the other great apes (at the time wrongly classified into the paraphyletic group Pongidae ) about 15 million years ago, or about 5 million years ago. Molecular clocks—first immune responses (e.g., Sarich & Wilson 1967), then direct genetic evidence (e.g., Rieux et al. 2014)—favor the shorter chronology.

The discovery of many hominin fossils, including Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 million years ago), Australopithecus afarensis (nicknamed “Lucy”), about 3.5 million years old, the Sima de los Huesos hominins (about 400,000 years old, ancestors to the Neanderthals), Homo neanderthalensis , and the intriguing Homo floresiensis (small hominins who lived on the island of Flores, Indonesia, dated to 700,000–50,000 years ago) have created a rich, complex picture of hominin evolution. These finds are supplemented by detailed analyses of ancient DNA extracted from fossil remains, bringing to light a previously unknown species of hominin (the Denisovans) who lived in Siberia up to about 40,000 years ago. Taken together, this evidence indicates that humans did not evolve in a simple linear fashion, but that human evolution resembles an intricate branching tree with many dead ends, in line with the evolution of other species. Genetic and fossil evidence favors a predominantly African origin of our species Homo sapiens (as early as 315,000 years ago) with limited gene-flow from other hominin species such as Neanderthals and Denisovans (see, e.g., Richter et al. 2017).

In the light of these scientific findings, contemporary science and religion authors have reconsidered the questions of human uniqueness, imago Dei , the Incarnation, and the historicity of original sin. Some authors have attempted to reinterpret human uniqueness as a number of species-specific cognitive and behavioral adaptations. For example, van Huyssteen (2006) considers the ability of humans to engage in cultural and symbolic behavior, which became prevalent in the Upper Paleolithic, as a key feature of uniquely human behavior. Other theologians have opted to broaden the notion of imago Dei. Given what we know about the capacities for morality and reason in non-human animals, Celia Deane-Drummond (2012) and Oliver Putz (2009) reject an ontological distinction between humans and non-human animals, and argue for a reconceptualization of the imago Dei to include at least some nonhuman animals. Joshua Moritz (2011) raises the question of whether extinct hominin species, such as Homo neanderthalensis and Homo floresiensis , which co-existed with Homo sapiens for some part of prehistory, partook in the divine image.

There is also discussion of how we can understand the Incarnation (the belief that Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, became a human being) with the evidence we have of human evolution. Some interpret Christ’s divine nature quite liberally. For instance, Peacocke (1979) regarded Jesus as the point where humanity is perfect for the first time. Christ is the progression and culmination of what evolution has been working toward in the teleological, progressivist interpretation of evolution by Teilhard de Chardin (1971). According to Teilhard, evil is still horrible but no longer incomprehensible; it becomes a natural feature of creation—since God chose evolution as his mode of creation, evil arises as an inevitable byproduct. Deane-Drummond (2009), however, points out that this interpretation is problematic: Teilhard worked within a Spencerian progressivist model of evolution, and he was anthropocentric, seeing humanity as the culmination of evolution. Contemporary evolutionary theory has repudiated the Spencerian progressivist view, and adheres to a stricter Darwinian model. Deane-Drummond, who regards human morality as lying on a continuum with the social behavior of other animals, conceptualizes the Fall as a mythical, rather than a historical event. It represents humanity’s sharper awareness of moral concerns and its ability to make wrong choices. She regards Christ as incarnate wisdom, situated in a theodrama that plays against the backdrop of an evolving creation. Like all human beings, Christ is connected to the rest of creation through common descent. By saving us, he saves the whole of creation.

Debates on the Fall and the historical Adam have centered on how these narratives can be understood in the light of contemporary science. On the face of it, limitations of our cognitive capacities can be naturalistically explained as a result of biological constraints, so there seems little explanatory gain to appeal to the narrative of the Fall. Some have attempted to interpret the concepts of sin and Fall in ways that are compatible with paleoanthropology, notably Peter van Inwagen (2004) and Jamie K. Smith (2017), who have argued that God could have providentially guided hominin evolution until there was a tightly-knit community of primates, endowed with reason, language, and free will, and this community was in close union with God. At some point in history, these hominins somehow abused their free will to distance themselves from God. These narratives follow the Augustinian tradition. Others, such as John Schneider (2014, 2020), on the other hand, argue that there is no genetic or paleoanthropological evidence for such a community of superhuman beings.

This survey has given a sense of the richness of the literature of science and religion. Giving an exhaustive overview would go beyond the scope of an encyclopedia entry. Because science and religion are such broad terms, the literature has split up in diverse fields of “science engaged theology”, where a specific claim or subfield in science is studied in relation to a specific claim in theology (Perry & Ritchie 2018). For example, rather than ask if Christianity is compatible with science, one could ask whether Christian eschatology is compatible with scientific claims about cultural evolution, or the cosmic fate of the universe. As the scope of science and religion becomes less parochial and more global in its outlook, the different topics the field can engage with become very diverse.

  • Al-Ghazālī, 11th century, Tahāfut al-falāsifa , translated by Sabih Ahmad Kamali as The Incoherence of the Philosophers , Lahore: Pakistan Philosophical Congress, 1963.
  • Allport, Gordon W. and J. Michael Ross, 1967, “Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice.”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 5(4): 432–443. doi:10.1037/h0021212
  • Alston, William P., 1989, “God’s Action in the World”, in Divine Nature and Human Language: Essays in Philosophical Theology , , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 197–222.
  • Augustine, 416 [2002], De Genesi ad litteram , Translated as “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” in On Genesis , John E. Rotelle (ed.), Edmund Hill (trans.), (The works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century), Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 2002, pp. 155–506.
  • Aurobindo Ghose, 1914–19 [2005], The Life Divine , Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. Collection of essays initially published from 1914–19 and first revised and published as collection in 1939/1940, two volumes.
  • Barbour, Ian G., 1966, Issues in Science and Religion , New York: Vantage.
  • –––, 2000, When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? , New York: HarperCollins.
  • Barrett, Justin L., 2004, Why Would Anyone Believe in God? , Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
  • Barton, Ruth, 2018, The X-Club: Power and Authority in Victorian Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Bering, Jesse M., 2011, The God Instinct. The Psychology of Souls, Destiny and the Meaning of Life , London: Nicholas Brealy.
  • Bloom, Paul, 2007, “Religion Is Natural”, Developmental Science , 10(1): 147–151. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00577.x
  • Bowler, Peter J., 2001, Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-Twentieth-Century Britain , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • –––, 2009, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Boyer, Pascal, 2002, Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought , London: Vintage.
  • Brooke, John Hedley, 1991, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107589018
  • Brooke, John Hedley and Ronald L. Numbers (eds.), 2011, Science and Religion Around the World , New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Brown, C. Mackenzie, 2007, “Colonial and Post-Colonial Elaborations of Avataric Evolutionism”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science , 42(3): 715–748. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2007.00862.x
  • –––, 2008, “The Design Argument in Classical Hindu Thought”, International Journal of Hindu Studies , 12(2): 103–151. doi:10.1007/s11407-008-9058-8
  • –––, 2012, Hindu Perspectives on Evolution: Darwin, Dharma, and Design , (Routledge Hindu Studies Series), London/New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203135532
  • Burenina, Yulia, 2020, “Japanese Responses to Evolutionary Theory, with Particular Focus on Nichiren Buddhists”, in Asian Religious Responses to Darwinism: Evolutionary Theories in Middle Eastern, South Asian, and East Asian Cultural Contexts , C. Mackenzie Brown (ed.), (Sophia Studies in Cross-Cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures 33), Cham: Springer International Publishing, 337–367. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-37340-5_14
  • Cantor, Geoffrey and Chris Kenny, 2001, “Barbour’s Fourfold Way: Problems with His Taxonomy of Science‐religion Relationships”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science , 36(4): 765–781. doi:10.1111/0591-2385.00395
  • Carroll, William E., 2008, “Divine Agency, Contemporary Physics, and the Autonomy of Nature”, The Heythrop Journal , 49(4): 582–602. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2265.2008.00385.x
  • [Chambers, Robert], 1844, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation , London: John Churchill.
  • Cherry, Shai, 2003, “Three Twentieth-Century Jewish Responses to Evolutionary Theory”, Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism , 3(1): 247–290. doi:10.2979/ALE.2003.-.3.247
  • Clarke, Samuel, 1705, A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God , London: Will. Botham.
  • Collins, Robin, 2009, “The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine‐Tuning of the Universe”, in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology , William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (eds.), Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 202–281. doi:10.1002/9781444308334.ch4
  • Comte, Auguste, 1841, Cours de Philosophie Positive: La Partie Historique de la Philosophie Sociale en Tout ce Qui Concerne l’État Théologique et l’État Métaphysique (vol. 5), Paris: Bachelier.
  • Conway Morris, Simon, 2003, Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511535499
  • Corey, Michael A., 1994, Back to Darwin: The Scientific Case for Deistic Evolution , Lanham, MA: University Press of America.
  • Couenhoven, Jesse, 2005, “St. Augustine’s Doctrine of Original Sin”, Augustinian Studies , 36(2): 359–396. doi:10.5840/augstudies200536221
  • Craig, William Lane, 2003, “The Cosmological Argument”, in The Rationality of Theism , Paul Copan and Paul K. Moser (eds.), London: Routledge, pp. 112–131.
  • Dajani, Rana, 2015, “Why I Teach Evolution to Muslim Students”, Nature , 520(7548): 409–409. doi:10.1038/520409a
  • Dalai Lama [Tenzin Gyatso], 2005, The Universe in a Single Atom , New York: Morgan Roads Books.
  • Darwin, Charles, 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life , London: John Murray.
  • –––, 1871, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex , London: John Murray.
  • Dawes, Gregory W., 2016, Galileo and the Conflict between Religion and Science , (Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Religion 13), New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315637723
  • Dawkins, Richard, 2006, The God Delusion , Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
  • Deane-Drummond, Celia, 2009, Christ and Evolution: Wonder and Wisdom , Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
  • –––, 2012, “God’s Image and Likeness in Humans and Other Animals: Performative Soul-Making and Graced Nature”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science , 47(4): 934–948. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2012.01308.x
  • De Smedt, Johan and Helen De Cruz, 2020, The Challenge of Evolution to Religion , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108685436
  • Dembski, William A., 1998, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511570643
  • Dhanani, Alnoor, 2002, “Islam”, in Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction , Gary B. Fengren (ed.), Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 73–92.
  • Draper, John, 1874, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science , New York: Appleton.
  • Draper, Paul, 2005, “God, Science, and Naturalism”, in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion , William Wainwright (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 272–303.
  • Durkheim, Émile, 1912 [1915], Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse , Paris: Alcan. Translated as The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious Sociology , Joseph Ward Swain (trans.), London: Allen & Unwin, 1915.
  • Ecklund, Elaine Howard, 2010, Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392982.001.0001
  • –––, 2021, “Science and Religion in (Global) Public Life: A Sociological Perspective”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion , 89(2): 672–700. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfab046
  • Ecklund, Elaine Howard and Christopher P. Scheitle, 2007, “Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics”, Social Problems , 54(2): 289–307. doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289
  • Edis, Taner, 2007, An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam , Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
  • Evans, Michael S., 2016, Seeking Good Debate: Religion, Science, and Conflict in American Public Life , Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
  • Evans-Pritchard, Edward Evans, 1937, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande , Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Reprinted 1965.
  • Fontenelle, Bernard le Bovier de, 1724 [1824], “De l’Origine des Fables”, reprinted in Oeuvres de Fontenelle , Paris: J. Pinard, 1824, pp. 294–310.
  • Forrest, Barbara, 2000, “Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection”, Philo , 3(2): 7–29. doi:10.5840/philo20003213
  • Forrest, Barbara and Paul R. Gross, 2004, Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195157420.001.0001
  • Frazer, James, G., 1890, The Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religion , London: MacMillan.
  • Freud, Sigmund, 1927, Die Zukunft einer Illusion , Leipzig, Wien & Zürich: Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag.
  • Garwood, Christine, 2008, Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea , London: Pan Macmillan.
  • Gould, Stephen J., 1989, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History , London: Penguin.
  • –––, 2001, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”, in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics , Robert T. Pennock (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 737–749.
  • Grant, Edward, 1996, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511817908
  • Griffel, Frank, 2009, Al-Ghazali’s Philosophical Theology , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331622.001.0001
  • Gross, Neil and Solon Simmons, 2009, “The Religiosity of American College and University Professors”, Sociology of Religion , 70(2): 101–129. doi:10.1093/socrel/srp026
  • Guessoum, Nidhal, 2011, Islam’s Quantum Question: Reconciling Muslim Tradition and Modern Science , London and New York: Tauris.
  • Hameed, Salman, 2008, “Bracing for Islamic Creationism”, Science , 322(5908): 1637–1638. doi:10.1126/science.1163672
  • Harris, Mark, 2013, The Nature of Creation. Examining the Bible and Science , Durham: Acumen.
  • Harrison, Peter, 1998, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511585524
  • –––, 2007, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511487750
  • –––, 2015, The Territories of Science and Religion , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Haught, John F., 1995, Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation , New York: Paulist Press.
  • –––, 2000, God after Darwin: A Theology of Evolution , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  • Hick, John, 1966, Evil and the God of Love . New York: Harper & Row.
  • Hooke, Robert, 1665, Micrographia , London: The Royal Society.
  • Hooykaas, Reijer, 1972, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science , Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
  • Hudson, Hud, 2013, “Best Possible World Theodicy”, in The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil , Justin P. McBrayer and Daniel Howard-Snyder (eds.), Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 236–250. doi:10.1002/9781118608005.ch16
  • Huff, Toby E., 2003, The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West , second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316257098
  • Hume, David, 1748, Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding , London: A. Millar.
  • –––, 1757 [2007], The Natural History of Religion , London: A. and H. Bradlaugh Bonner. Reprinted in his A Dissertation on the Passions; The Natural History of Religion: A Critical Edition , Tom L. Beauchamp (ed.), (The Clarendon Edition of the Works of David Hume), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007, 30–87.
  • Huxley, Thomas H., 1863, Evidences as to Man’s Place in Nature , London: Williams and Norgate.
  • Jaeger, Lydia, 2012a, “Against Physicalism-plus-God: How Creation Accounts for Divine Action in Nature’s World”, Faith and Philosophy , 29(3): 295–312. doi:10.5840/faithphil201229330
  • –––, 2012b, What the Heavens Declare: Science in the Light of Creation , Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
  • James, William, 1902, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature , New York: Longmans, Green.
  • Jinpa, Thupten (ed.), 2017, Science and Philosophy in the Indian Buddhist Classics. Volume 1: The Physical World, Somerville: Wisdom Publications.
  • John Paul II, 1996, “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth”, Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (22 October 1996). [ John Paul II 1996 available online ]
  • Johnson, Elizabeth A., 1996, “Does God Play Dice? Divine Providence and Chance”, Theological Studies , 57(1): 3–18. doi:10.1177/004056399605700101
  • Joseph, George Gheverghese, 1991 [2000], The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics , London: I. B. Tauris. Second edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.
  • Kojonen, Erkki Vesa Rope, 2016, The Intelligent Design Debate and the Temptation of Scientism , London/New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315556673
  • Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste, 1809, Philosophie Zoologique, ou Exposition des Considérations Relatives à l’Histoire Naturelle des Animaux , Paris: Museum d'Histoire Naturelle (Jardin des Plantes).
  • Lamoureux, Denis O., 2008, Evolutionary Creation. A Christian Approach to Evolution , Cambridge, UK: Lutterworth Press.
  • Legare, Cristine H., E. Margaret Evans, Karl S. Rosengren, and Paul L. Harris, 2012, “The Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations Across Cultures and Development: Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations”, Child Development , 83(3): 779–793. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01743.x
  • Lemaître, Georges, 1927, “Un Univers Homogène de Masse Constante et de Rayon Croissant, Rendant Compte de la Vitesse Radiale des Nébuleuses Extra-Galactiques”, Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles A , 47: 49–59.
  • Lopez, Donald S. Jr., 2008, Buddhism and Science, A Guide for the Perplexed, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Louth, Andrew, 1996, Maximus the Confessor , London and New York: Routledge.
  • [Maillet, Benoît de], 1748, Telliamed, ou Entretiens d’un Philosophe Indien avec un Missionaire François, sur la Diminution de la Mer, la Formation de la Terre, l’Origine de l’Homme, etc. , Amsterdam: Chez L'honoré & fils.
  • Malinowski, Bronislaw, 1925 [1992], “Magic, Science, and Religion”, in Science, Religion and Reality , James Needham (ed.), New York: Macmillan, 19–84. Reprinted in his Magic, Science, and Religion and Other Essays , Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1948. New printing, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1992.
  • McGrath, Alister E., 2011, Darwinism and the Divine: Evolutionary Thought and Natural Theology , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444392524
  • –––, 2016, Re-Imagining Nature: The Promise of a Christian Natural Theology , Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781119256540
  • McGrath, Alister E. and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, 2007, The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine , London: SPCK.
  • McMahan, David L., 2009, The Making of Buddhist Modernism , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183276.001.0001
  • Mernissi, Fatima, 1992, La Peur-Modernité: Conflit Islam Démocratie , Paris: Editions Albin Michel. Translated as Islam and Democracy: Fear of the Modern World , Mary Jo Lakeland (trans.), Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992.
  • Merrick, Teri, 2020, Helmholtz, Cohen, and Frege on Progress and Fidelity: Sinning Against Science and Religion , (Philosophical Studies in Contemporary Culture 27), Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-57299-0
  • Miller, Kenneth R., 1999 [2007], Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution , New York: Cliff Street Books. Reprinting, New York: Harper, 2007.
  • Moritz, Joshua M., 2011, “Evolution, the End of Human Uniqueness, and the Election of the Imago Dei ”, Theology and Science , 9(3): 307–339. doi:10.1080/14746700.2011.587665
  • Murphy, Nancey, 1995, “Divine Action in the Natural Order: Buridan’s Ass and Schrödinger’s Cat”, in Chaos and Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action (Volume 2) , Robert J. Russell, Nancey Murphy, and Arthur Peacocke (eds.), Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, pp. 325–358.
  • Norenzayan, Ara, 2013, Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Okasha, Samir, 2018, Agents and Goals in Evolution , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198815082.001.0001
  • Outler, Albert C., 1985, “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral—in John Wesley”, Wesleyan Theological Journal , 20(1): 7–18.
  • Paley, William, 1802 [2006], Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity , London: R. Faulder. Reprinted as Natural Theology , Matthew D. Eddy and David Knight (eds.), (Oxford World’s Classics), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
  • Pannenberg, Wolfhart, 2002, “The Concept of Miracle”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science , 37(3): 759–762. doi:10.1111/1467-9744.00452
  • Peacocke, Arthur R., 1979, Creation and the World of Science: The Re-Shaping of Belief , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
  • –––, 1984, Intimations of Reality: Critical Realism in Science and Religion , Greencastle, IN: DePauw University.
  • Pennock, Robert T., 1998, “The Prospects for a Theistic Science”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith , 50: 205–209.
  • Perry, John and Sarah Lane Ritchie, 2018, “Magnets, Magic, and Other Anomalies: In Defense of Methodological Naturalism”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science , 53(4): 1064–1093. doi:10.1111/zygo.12473
  • Peters, Ted and Martinez Hewlett, 2003, Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict, Conversation, and Convergence , Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
  • Philipse, Herman, 2012, God in the Age of Science? A Critique of Religious Reason , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697533.001.0001
  • Pitts, J. Brian, 2008, “Why the Big Bang Singularity Does Not Help the Kalām Cosmological Argument for Theism”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 59(4): 675–708. doi:10.1093/bjps/axn032
  • Plantinga, Alvin, 1993, Warrant and Proper Function , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195078640.001.0001
  • –––, 2000, Warranted Christian Belief , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195131932.001.0001
  • –––, 2011, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199812097.001.0001
  • Polkinghorne, John, 1998, Science and Theology: An Introduction , Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
  • Popper, Karl, 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery , New York: Hutchinson.
  • Purzycki, Benjamin G. and Richard Sosis, 2022, Religion Evolving. Cultural, Cognitive, and Ecological Dynamics , Sheffield: Equinox.
  • Putz, Oliver, 2009, “Moral Apes, Human Uniqueness, and the Image of God”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science , 44(3): 613–624. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2009.01019.x
  • Richter, Daniel, Rainer Grün, Renaud Joannes-Boyau, Teresa E. Steele, Fethi Amani, Mathieu Rué, Paul Fernandes, Jean-Paul Raynal, Denis Geraads, Abdelouahed Ben-Ncer, Jean-Jacques Hublin, and Shannon P. McPherron, 2017, “The Age of the Hominin Fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and the Origins of the Middle Stone Age”, Nature , 546(7657): 293–296. doi:10.1038/nature22335
  • Rieux, Adrien, Anders Eriksson, Mingkun Li, Benjamin Sobkowiak, Lucy A. Weinert, Vera Warmuth, Andres Ruiz-Linares, Andrea Manica, and François Balloux, 2014, “Improved Calibration of the Human Mitochondrial Clock Using Ancient Genomes”, Molecular Biology and Evolution , 31(10): 2780–2792. doi:10.1093/molbev/msu222
  • Ritzinger, Justin R., 2013, “Dependent Co-evolution: Kropotkin’s Theory of Mutual Aid and its Appropriation by Chinese Buddhists”, Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal , 26: 89–112. Reprinted 2020 in Asian Religious Responses to Darwinism , C. Mackenzie Brown (ed.), (Sophia Studies in Cross-Cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures 33), Cham: Springer International Publishing, 319–336. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-37340-5_13
  • Rosenberg, Alex, 2014, “Disenchanted Naturalism” in Contemporary Philosophical Naturalism and its Implications , Bana Bashour and Hans D. Muller (eds.), London and New York: Routledge, pp. 17–36.
  • Russell, Robert, 2006, “Quantum Physics and the Theology of Non-Interventionist Objective Divine Action”, in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science , Philip Clayton and Zachary Simpson (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 579–595.
  • Russell, Robert, Nancey Murphy, and William Stoeger, S.J. (eds.), 2008, Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Twenty Years of Challenge and Progress , Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences.
  • Sarich, Vincent M. and Allan C. Wilson, 1967, “Immunological Time Scale for Hominid Evolution”, Science , 158(3805): 1200–1203. doi:10.1126/science.158.3805.1200
  • Saunders, Nicholas, 2002, Divine Action and Modern Science , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610035
  • Schliesser, Eric, 2012, “Newton and Spinoza: On Motion and Matter (and God, of Course): Newton and Spinoza”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 50(3): 436–458. doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.2012.00132.x
  • Schneider, John R., 2012, “The Fall of ‘Augustinian Adam’: Original Fragility and Supralapsarian Purpose”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science , 47(4): 949–969. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2012.01307.x
  • –––, 2020, Animal Suffering and the Darwinian Problem of Evil , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108767439
  • Smith, James K., 2017, “What Stands on the Fall? A Philosophical Exploration”, in Evolution and the Fall , William Cavanaugh and James K. Smith (eds.), Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, pp. 48–64.
  • Smith, Jonathan Z., 1998, “Religion, religions, religious”, in Critical Terms for Religious Studies , M. C. Taylor (ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 269–284.
  • Sollereder, Bethany, 2015, “A Modest Objection: Neo-Thomism and God as a Cause Among Causes”, Theology and Science , 13(3): 345–353. doi:10.1080/14746700.2015.1053762
  • Southgate, Christopher, 2008, The Groaning of Creation. God, Evolution and the Problem of Evil , Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
  • Stark, Rodney, 1999, “Atheism, Faith, and the Social Scientific Study of Religion”, Journal of Contemporary Religion , 14(1): 41–62. doi:10.1080/13537909908580851
  • –––, 2004, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Stenmark, Mikael, 2004, How to Relate Science and Religion: A Multidimensional Model , Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
  • Subbarayappa, B.V., 2011, “Indic Religions” in Science and Religion around the World , John Hedley Brooke and Ron Numbers (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 195–209.
  • Swinburne, Richard G., 1968, “Miracles”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 18(73): 320–328. doi:10.2307/2217793
  • Tanzella-Nitti, Giuseppe, 2005, “The Two Books Prior to the Scientific Revolution”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith , 57(3): 225–248.
  • Taylor, C.A., 1996, Defining Science: A Rhetoric of Demarcation , Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Tennant, Frederick R., 1902, The Origin and Propagation of Sin , Cambridge: Cambridge University.
  • Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, 1971, “Christology and Evolution”, written 1933, collected in Comment je crois , Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1969. Translated in Christianity and Evolution , Rene Hague (trans.), San Diego: Harcourt, pp. 76–95.
  • Torrance, Thomas F., 1969, Theological Science , London: Oxford University Press.
  • Tylor, Edward Burnett, 1871, Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art, and Custom , London: John Murray.
  • Ungureanu, James, 2019, Science, Religion, and the Protestant Tradition: Retracing the Origins of Conflict, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • van Huyssteen, J. Wentzel, 1998, Duet or Duel? Theology and Science in a Postmodern World , London: SCM Press.
  • –––, 1999, The Shaping of Rationality: Towards Interdisciplinary in Theology and Science , Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
  • –––, 2006, Alone in the World? Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology , Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  • van Inwagen, Peter, 2004, “The Argument from Evil”, in Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil , Peter van Inwagen (ed.), Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, pp. 55–73.
  • Vivekananda, Swami, 1904, “The Vedanta for the World”, in Aspects of the Vedanta , Madras: Natesan & Co, pp. 124–160.
  • Whewell, William, 1834, “On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences. By Mrs. Somerville”, Quarterly Review , 51: 54–68.
  • White, Andrew Dickson, 1896, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom , New York: Appleton.
  • White, Claire, 2021, An Introduction to the Cognitive Science of Religion. Connecting Evolution, Brain, Cognition and Culture, Abingdon & New York: Routledge.
  • Wildman, Wesley, 2008, “The Divine Action Project, 1988–2003”, in Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action: Twenty Years of Challenge and Progress , Robert Russell, Nancey Murphy, and William Stoeger (eds.), Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, pp. 133–176.
  • Worrall, John, 2004, “Science Discredits Religion”, in Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion , Michael L. Peterson and Raymond J. VanArragon (eds.), Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 59–72.
  • Clayton, Philip and Zachary Simpson (eds.), 2006, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199543656.001.0001
  • Dixon, Thomas, G. N. Cantor, and Stephen Pumfrey (eds.), 2010, Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Fehige, Yiftach (ed.), 2016, Science and Religion: East and West , London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315659831
  • Harrison, Peter (ed.), 2010, The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521885386
  • McGrath, Alister, 2020, Science and Religion: A New Introduction , third edition, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Stump, J. B. and Alan G. Padgett (eds.), 2012, The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity , Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118241455
How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.
  • Brown, Malcolm, 2008, “Good Religion Needs Good science”, Church of England web site. [ Brown 2008 available online (archived) ].
  • Hackett, Conrad, 2015, “By 2050, India to Have World’s Largest Populations of Hindus and Muslims”, 21 April 2015, Pew Research Center. [ Hackett 2015 available online ].
  • Mitelman, Geoffrey A., 2011, “Why Judaism Embraces Science”, HuffPost , 20 June 2011; reposted on Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion web site. Mitelman 2011 available online
  • Pew Forum, 2021, “Most U.S. Jews Identify as Democrats, but Most Orthodox Are Republicans”, Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, 4 May 2021. [ Pew Forum 2021 available online ]
  • Plantinga, Alvin, “Religion and Science”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < >. [This was the previous entry on religion and science in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — see the version history .]
  • Wikipedia article on the relationship between religion and science .
  • National Center for Science Education: Science and Religion .
  • Evolution Resources by Kenneth R. Miller .

Comte, Auguste | cosmological argument | Hume, David: on religion | teleology: teleological arguments for God’s existence | theology, natural and natural religion


Many thanks to Bryce Huebner, Evan Thompson, Meir-Simchah Panzer, Teri Merrick, Geoff Mitelman, Joshua Yuter, Katherine Dormandy, Isaac Choi, Egil Asprem, Johan De Smedt, Taede Smedes, H.E. Baber, Fabio Gironi, Erkki Kojonen, Andreas Reif, Raphael Neelamkavil, Hans Van Eyghen, and Nicholas Joll, for their feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Copyright © 2022 by Helen De Cruz < helen . decruz @ slu . edu >

  • Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

  • Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Science and Religion: Historical Relationship

Introduction, differences between science and religion, areas where science and religion tend to agree, works cited.

The historical relation between science and religion is long and has not been that cozy throughout history. The main area of contention is the view that both hold on the world whereby, as science tends to base all its explanations through empirical observations, religion on the other hand makes explanations on the basis of faith and divine revelation. However, science and religion tend to have a slight element of tangency in the issue of evolution as the basis of creation, but they differ when it comes to investigating the existence of mankind. In this case, science leans on physical nature of evidence that can be empirically established while religion dwells on morality and metaphysics. With the religion trying to preserve and hold on to the purity of beliefs it deems true, science tries to explain the unknown, to probe and prove that which is a mystery. Religion has for a long time belonged to the masses whilst science has long been associated with a gifted few who had a knack for pursuing a path of life that involves coherent thought and often arcane experiments and that which is out of the ordinary to the common man; hence it has always been appraised with suspicion. This paper will discuss the historical relationship between science and religion including the areas of contention and agreement between the two.

While science in a way deals with the verification of truths into facts, religion seems to embrace the unknown, basing its argument on perceived powers. Basically, science embraces the physical aspects, coming up with convictions that explain the how and why of a phenomena (Luskin para. 2), the reason behind why things behave the way they do or what composes them while religion tends to adhere and base its existence merely on belief of the unknown, on that which can only be explained through allegory or allusion.

Difference between religion and science has had diverse effect on people. One of the most famous incidents where religion held sway over science only for religion to be proved as holding the false belief involved Galileo (Linder para.1). Galileo surmised that the world moved a round the sun, a statement the papacy vehemently opposed. The church then held the view that the Earth was stationary and the greatest of all heavenly bodies. Placed under house arrest, Galileo was forced to recant his views about the earth moving around the sun, only for religion to come to be proved as holding the false view in future (Linder para. 4).

However, not all religion has been wholly opposed to science. Manuscripts that have survived the ravages of time are giving researchers clues as to the beliefs the people held; to the possibility of a world long gone where man lived in far much advanced status than we do today and was wholly at peace with the environment and had sources of power, modes of travels to other distant planets and other feats that man can only dream of. Ancient Hindu texts called the Purana’s have an association with science that clearly lacks in Judeo-Christo religions and researchers have had to turn to these scriptures to get a better understanding. However, the society might as well be advanced technologically, but is emptiness within it that needs be satisfied or that needs be looked into, and this has called for the merging of the spiritual and the secular.

Religion can be said to be that which has acted as the check of scientific progress, determining at what stage the majority of mankind considers moral, putting in check ambitious plans that would otherwise have changed the order of things around the earth. Although religion, especially during the dark ages, committed atrocities in its scramble to convert non believers through conquest and conversion, religion has gone a long way to determine what can be done or should not be done. The protracted battle against cloning of human being can only be argued from a moral point of view, although advances in science have turned to try to explain the spiritual. Neotic science, which comes from the Greek word for intuitive knowing tries to address religion and science from a historical point of view, with science claiming religion is all about purporting a belief that cannot be supported with facts while religion slugging off science as arcane and going against the grain of what humanity is all about, steeped with outdated experiments and at times declarations that go against peoples beliefs.

Scientists believe that the earth is round, but selling this idea must have been a hard task for scientist. While science comes across as flexible and open to opinion and criticism and inviting room for clarification, advancement and collaboration, the history and trend of religion points otherwise. Religion has been steeped with controversy, seeking to eclipse the other beliefs, with branches of religion like Islam and Christianity seeking to destroy the presence of each other from the face of the earth and bringing untold suffering to the people. Science on the other hand has sought advancement through teamwork, with scientists exchanging views and ideas in order to arrive at a solution with ease.

Religion has clashed with science in that religion is less flexible than science. While science is universal especially on the truths and the fact about the earth and planets orbiting the sun, religion is dictated by diverse sects, beliefs and ways of life, social political structures and much more. With Religion tending to present itself in the diverse forms of the world’s diversity, then the consistencies of science have always been bound to clash with the fluidity nature of people’s beliefs.

In his article on Buddhism and Science Verhoeven (para.1), says that modern science led to a great divide between reason and faith and western religions suffered great setbacks and people started looking up to Buddhism, the reason being that it (Buddhism) embraced science as being within its sphere of belief. The issue of Darwinism may be viewed to have brought a crisis to the Judeo – Christo religions and affecting the creation belief; Darwinism has the alter effect on Buddhism. For instance, what was questionable in other religions was found present, appreciated and elevated in Buddhism.

Modernity has brought about great advances in technology and with information being available at the click of a mouse; people have come to question the viability of religion and to question the authenticity of God. Through research and knowledge easily found in books, people have come to be intimate with nature, learning the secrets behind what was treated as mystery and attributed to the invisible powers. Well, while this has opened a whole new school of thought on who really God is, it hasn’t watered down mans belief that there is a super power that is running things here. In the ancient times man has had the quest to understand and prove, through the injection of science which was hitherto seen to counter religious beliefs, the Mythical and mysteries surrounding human life in relation to spirituality and science ( Maniktala para. 5&6). This aspect has seen religion and science closely teaming up to speak at least in a similar angle although the chasm between the two remains.

Science, bound to treat each item as an individual has always been in conflict with religion on this especially when it comes to experiments that touch on reproduction. Religion over the years, unlike science, has not practiced what it preaches, for example, the taking away of lives in supposedly holy wars committed by believers against their enemies. From the Muslim Jihad to its prototype the Hebrew Herem, Idinopulos goes on to argue that the conflicts between science strives to lengthen and sustain life and he faults even the Christian Faith Tabernacle Church based in the United States that does not believe in partaking in any form of modern medicine. This is reason enough that regardless the advances in culture, crude religious beliefs will render smooth sailing relations between science and religion to remain just as a dream.

Religion and Science have gone hand in hand in some aspects. However, the powerful new views of that advances in science that went against the beliefs of the religious leaders would often lead to inquisitions. Perhaps the earliest known allusion of the religion working in cohorts with science is to be found in issue of creation with the view that complete society could only possible through evolution, both physically and in the mind (Brooke 16). Christianity, arguably the largest and most diverse religion on the face of the earth, holds on to the belief that the world, based on the creation theory, is less than 10,000 years old. Scientist on the other hand, with carbon dating and other arguments, say that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and that its through evolution that man really came to be, something that the ancient Buddhist religious texts seem to collaborate! Although Buddhists critique the scientific methods and validity of knowledge derived from science, they don’t however discount the benefits arising from scientific research (Nakasone para. 3&11), and to some extent agree on holistic view in matters of environmental science and biotechnological advances. Were it that religion speaks with one word on issues, science would be hard pressed to challenge its authority.

To take a chronological view on the historical view at how different religions have related to science we have to go back to the ancients religions. The ancient Egyptian had conducted matters of state and religion as one, with the head of state, the pharaoh, being the divinely appointed ruler of the Egyptian. There were high priests who conducted the ceremonies, and with Egypt being a place of many gods’ appeared in many forms. The close relationship and respect between the religion and science saw to it that Egypt prospered, with the pyramids hat have come to be associated with this period standing royal to this say. Religion and science seems to have come out to build this lasting impression, the pyramids, built for religious purposes as a passage to the other world and being works of great scientific feats that still baffle mankind to-date. That the pyramids are flawlessly built and lie along cardinal lines of the earth and universe tells us that he Egyptians were a highly evolved people who combined religion and science to reach levels of innovation we can only dream of, an innate understanding of the world as it is and how to utilize the power the world has. This close collaboration between religion and science that gave rise to great innovations is reason enough to suspect that religions that tend to curtail the development of scientific progress actually sound a death knell for human development.

Another ancient religion that seems to have greatly complemented religion and science to great levels of civilization is the Mayan Empire. Situated in what is today Mexico, the Maya people’s exploits are still a scientific wonder to the current world. Religion seems to have been as deeply ingrained into the people as science was. The human sacrifices the Maya people are said to have made were not for a god; they were not wholly devoted despite the great civilization they are credited with. Even touching on the great City of Atlantis that pundits say is the last vestige of a civilization that was there before us, science and religion seem to be driving further apart instead of complimenting each other. The Mayans had calendars dating back over four hundred years yet they lived in the stone age and were using more than seventeen calendars and were able to calculate the earths length or revolving around the earth almost to faultless decimals yet they were deeply steeped in religion is a modern wonder (Arguelles, Jose 18). Moreover, the little known Dogon people of Mali in West Africa have knowledge about the cosmic make up second only to that of the Maya. The religious ceremonies that accompany the ways of this highly gifted people are another pointer at what science with religion can attain, especially in relation to how the Dogon view the issue of Sirius star (Benest and Duvent 1-4)

Perhaps Christianity faced the greatest test of time, and still does, appertaining to science shattering some of the beliefs it held as fact, and having to embrace science as an integral part of human development and go hand in hand with the changes that were all along inevitable.

Religion and state have often ganged up to control the advances of science, gathering strength in numbers to control that which is new and threatens to usurp the status quo and to destabilize the equilibrium of the order of things. Scientific knowledge that seemed to change the nature of belief among Christians was not only received with skepticism but also seen as an insult to the God and Christianity as a whole. Thoughts that abounded to the tune of lightening and thunder were the result of demons and the after effects of such natural happenings that science came to explain were put into question and its was not a walk in the park for scientist to prove their discoveries often faced with hostile religionists who often than not, took their religions as the only truth to be adhered to. Natural calamities that were attributed to the workings of God, brought about by plagues which spread due to lack of proper sanitation aided by infancy in scientific development, or high mortality rate in children was generally accepted; all these could have been averted by science and were not enthusiastically accepted by the Christians (Robinson para. 16).

In conclusion, science seems to be the path to the future. Religion, from whatever angle one looks at it from seems to be immature, like it needs time to decide on what it really wants to be. The thousands divisions of religion, with sects springing up each day, major religions having cracks as to what they really are all about and religious fundamentalism coming to the fore of things, dictating the relations between nations, like the west and the middle east countries disqualifies religion as the way forward. Where religion is irrational, science steps and where religion speaks in different voices, science displays a united front, speaking in unison, in one voice the world over. Where religion comes across as a competition for who has the most acceptable beliefs or who can gather the most fervent believers, science is all about the collective good for humanity.

Modern science, as opposed to religion, can now claim more miracles than religion can. From medical advances where even the most intricate and delicate operations can be made and lives which if left to the power of prayer would perish are saved, the balance that science brings to ease mans daily encounter with nature, making life easier and worthier to live, the plaudits belong to science.

Brooke, John H. Science and religion: some historical perspectives . Cambridge University Press. 1991. Web.

Benest, Daniel and Duvent, J.L. “The Dogon and the Sirius Mystery.” Astronomy and Astrophysics , Volume 299, 1995 pp. 621-628. Web.

Linder, Douglas. “The Trial of Galileo.” The Trial of Galileo. 2002. Web.

Luskin, Casey. “Intelligent Design Theory and the Relationship between Science and Religion.” Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center . 2010. Web.

Maniktala, Rakesh. “ Spiritualism, modern science and ancient history.” Science Mysteries . N.d. 2010. Web.

Nakasone, Ronald Y. “Buddhism, Contemporary Issues in Science and Religion.” Buddhism, Contemporary Issues in Science and Religion . 2010.

Robinson, B. A. 2003. “The conflict between science and religion.” Religious Tolerance . Web.

Verhoeven, Martin. “Buddhism and Science: Probing the Boundaries of Faith and Reason.” Religion East and West, Issue 1, 2001. Web.

Cite this paper

  • Chicago (N-B)
  • Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, December 11). Science and Religion: Historical Relationship.

"Science and Religion: Historical Relationship." StudyCorgi , 11 Dec. 2021,

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'Science and Religion: Historical Relationship'. 11 December.

1. StudyCorgi . "Science and Religion: Historical Relationship." December 11, 2021.


StudyCorgi . "Science and Religion: Historical Relationship." December 11, 2021.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "Science and Religion: Historical Relationship." December 11, 2021.

This paper, “Science and Religion: Historical Relationship”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: December 27, 2021 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

The Relationships Between Science and Religion Research Paper

Introduction, science replaces religion, religion replaces science, science and religion are independent, religion and science in dialogue.

According to Campbell and Looy (2009), there exist numerous opinions and understanding of the concepts of religion and science. Moreover, different scholars perceive the relationship between religion and science in dissimilar ways. Nevertheless, it is apparent that there exists a link between the two realms as it has been addressed by several theorists (McGrath, 2011).

It is imperative to note that the concept of religion and science differs to a larger extent and are independent from each other. However, research has revealed that to some extent, they often overlap and conflict each other (Ruse, 1975). From a careful review of literature, it is evident that there have been proliferations on the relationship between science and religion (McGrath, 2011). It is against this backdrop that this paper intends to explore an in-depth relationship between science and religion.

In a more subtle way, numerous scholars and philosophers have tried to define the term science in various ways for several decades. Due to recent philosophical development, the concept has remained as a challenge and puzzle to the minds of many people (McGrath, 2011). A controversy has emerged on how to distinguish science from non-science facts. Therefore, there is no specific demarcation to define science.

Nevertheless, in-depth research has enabled scholars to come up with a definite definition of the term (McGrath, 2011). Therefore, science can be defined as a discipline that deals with the study of nature. To elaborate further, science focuses on the study of natural forces, processes and development. As a discipline, it assumes, formulates and works on a hypothesis in order to identify how events occur in a natural setting.

It is arguable that science is based on analysis of observable facts in order to get evidence of nature. Therefore, the primary goal of science it to organize information derived from nature and convert it into knowledge. Science seeks to understand natural phenomena, their cause, effects and relationships (Brooke & Numbers, 2011).

Of greatest importance to note is that evidences derived from observation and experiments must be sustained by other scholars or scientists in order to be regarded as scientific. It is important to point out that science rarely intrudes matters related to morality, spirituality, existence and nature of divinity.

On the other hand, religion is a discipline that aims at exploring the natural world. However, religion particularly deals with matters related to faith. Fuller (2008) observes that the main basis of religion is based on understanding of divinity. Unlike science that is based on observation and experiment, religion is orally transmitted.

To some extent, religion is more of a revelation and it addresses the existence of numerous deities in the universe. Primarily, religion plays a very crucial role in teaching morality, ethics, mankind, nature, gods, human behavior and spirituality (Fuller, 2008).

It is notable that there exists a difference between religion and science. The major difference is that religion uses faith as its major aspect to understand the world unlike science. It is imperative to note that statements related to faith cannot be observed (Brooke & Numbers, 2011).

Moreover, faith cannot be experimented, falsified or tested in a scientific way. This implies that the component of faith goes beyond observable evidence to issues that are innate and abstract. Notably, religious beliefs are held absolutely even in the absence of observable or confirmed evidences (Fuller, 2008).

Contrastingly, scientific beliefs are absolutely tentative. In this case, evidences based on science are clearly proven and thus are supported by a certain degree of evidence. Scientists consider religion to be dogmatic due to the fact that whatever is perceived to be religious is taken to be absolutely true. This is different in the case of science since nothing is perceived as completely true or accurate until it is tested.

Moreover, the truth of the matter must be supported by observable evidence. It is unfortunate that even science has been perceived as dogmatic since it holds on the assumption that anything that can not be tested is unscientific. Thus science perceives religious beliefs as irrational and this is not always the case.

This claim has drawn attention among numerous philosophers, historians and empirical intellectuals. To support the argument, religious scholars argues that the fact that faith is detestable does not make religion invalid or irrational as scientists claim. Furthermore, not all religious issues lack evidence to account for their existence, cause and effects.

Research has shown that there are other specific areas where both science and religion overlap and thus result into conflicting claims. For instance, in the areas of Geology, Cosmology and Astronomy, there are specific assumptions held by believers that contradict scientific claims. In most cases, believers such as Christians interpret geological processes such as storm and earthquakes in a biblical point of view.

However, more than 95% of scientists decline such interpretations referring to them as just “literal” (Brooke & Numbers, 2011). Additionally, in the aspect of linguistics, Christians believe that humanity adopted numerous languages after the fall of the Tower of Babel. The claim is derived in the book of Genesis where they argue that out of the confusion which God caused to the builders, humanity abandoned a single language. Nonetheless, scientists decline the fact that human language does not develop in this manner.

That notwithstanding, numerous controversies have emerged in the field of medicine particularly on health related issues. For instance, religion promotes the belief of supernatural powers that has the ability to heal. Besides, there are believers who assume that human life commences at conception (Fuller, 2008).

Basing their argument on this claim, they heavily criticize abortion with the assertion that the practice results into murder of innocent being. Contrastingly, scientists believe that drugs cure human ailments. Moreover, scientific scholars argue that abortion is necessary evil especially if the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy. Scientists also apply scientific knowledge to enforce the issue of mercy killing for terminally ill patients, a factor that is heavily criticized by Christians.

It is imperative to note that common religious practices such as “speaking in tongues” appear gibberish to scientists (Fuller, 2008). Notably, practices such as homosexual and bisexual behaviors are often regarded as abnormal by religious groups. However, science considers them as normal and genetically determined and that they are not subject to change through the power of prayers. Generally speaking, there are some issues that cannot be permanently resolved and thus the debate continues.

Historically, it has been argued that religion and science have a close relationship. There are numerous theoretical approaches that have been used to demonstrate how they relate to each other. In this case, examples of theoretical assumptions that have been used to demonstrate the relationship include the fact that science replaces religion, religion replaces science, science shapes religion, and religion shapes science (Brooke & Numbers, 2011). Moreover, there is an assumption that both science and religion are independent.

Brooke and Numbers (2011) assert that science conflicts with some religious views to an extent that it makes the latter to appear redundant. This is due to the fact that there is much prevalence of historical myths that hinder believers from understanding the reality as presented in science. However, it is important to note that religion is a societal entity and is assumed to be as old as mankind existence.

Science is a discipline that came lately due to the quest for human beings to advance their knowledge. The fact that there are numerous religious and spiritual belief systems, disagreements is inevitable (McGrath, 2011). In this case, science comes in handy and provides a solution to eliminate existing conflicts. It is essential to note that science is crucial since it provide physical and mechanical knowledge to understand aspects that goe beyond religious comprehension.

In this case, existing research has shown that science acts as a legitimate tool that is instrumental to all forms of knowledge. In this case, it is used to legitimize all forms of knowledge derived from various aspects of life (Brooke & Numbers, 2011). Nevertheless, there is an ongoing debate that science cannot replace religion since there are religious aspects that may not be measured, observed or experimented upon. Such aspects include beauty, love, harmony, wisdom, faith and fairness.

It is arguable that to some extent, religious understanding of the world’s nature can replace the position of science (Ruse, 1975). For instance, creationists highly reject the assumptions held by creation theories. This is due to the fact that creationists believe the idea of the six-day creation as interpreted in the book of Genesis (Fuller, 2008).

They perceive scientific assumptions on creation as non-purposive, non-directional, self-contained and subjective. In this case, religion has played a large part in convincing human beings that creation is super-natural, purposive, complete and externally directed. Thus, it is beyond doubt that the science of evolution has been replaced by creation science. To some extent, one can argue that presuppositions derived from religious theory shapes scientific perspective on creation.

Of essence to note is that religion is important to mankind and this makes it probable that to some extent, human beings decline from scientific facts and go for religious knowledge. Needless to say, science often criticizes stories about religion in the Bible (McGrath, 2011). It is thus worthy to note that religion goes beyond such stories and this makes it hard to separate man from religion.

The fact that science and religion are independent from each other is one of the broad paradigms concerning their relationship (McGrath, 2011). Scholars and philosophers argue that both religion and science cover two different and independent realms. However, according to Harrison (2010), both science and religion are social constructs developed to satisfy certain human needs or interests. There are individuals who claim that there exists no relationship between religion and science.

For instance, according to Brooke and Numbers (2011), the concepts address and understand the world’s nature in different points of view. In this case, science takes an empirical realm of theories and facts. Contrastingly, religion occupies the realm of moral values and spirituality. From a careful review of literature, it is evident that religion and science are distinctly independent (Brooke & Numbers, 2011).

One scholar argued that the two realms rarely interact with each other. However, this argument has been criticized by philosophers who argue that though the realms are independent, they shape each other (Adams, Schrempf & Craig, 2010). At this juncture, it is arguable the approach of independence to determine their relationship can be classified as strong and weak.

Furthermore, the strong independence approach perceives the two realms as non-permeable and hence there is a great barrier between them. Adams, Schrempf and Craig (2010) argue that Science and religion are separate but incompatible entities. Fundamentally, scholars emphasizes that the concepts have a common goal of understanding the world but in different approaches.

What causes the strong independence between the two realms is the fact that they use different human experiences to understand nature. It is imperative to note that the concepts co-exist peacefully with each other even though there are differences that trigger debate concerning their approaches on nature (McGrath, 2011). Scholars argue the exclusivity in the two realms makes it hard to present human thoughts in a similar context.

For instance, if one presents a religious belief in a scientific way, it will automatically lead to misunderstanding. Additionally, the disciplines deal with different kind of reality. For instance, religion deals with spiritual reality that is not amenable to scientific experiments, descriptions and observation. On the other hand, though science is neither false nor true it intends to use laws to give a satisfactory picture of reality.

Definitely, religion and science complement each other and this can be addressed using the weak independence approach (Adams, Schrempf & Craig, 2010). This approach holds the claim that though science and religion are independent, they give room for interaction at some points. Therefore, one can argue that the barrier between the two realms is semi-permeable. This can be deduced from the fact that the realms address common references such as creation and humanity even though they make dissimilar allegations.

It is Apparent that there is a degree of accord between science and religion. This harmony can be detected from the fact that in order to come to a consensus in regard to nature, both realms come together and exchange their views. In this case, they supplement each other with views and explanations on issues that appear contradictory. Nonetheless, there is no way religion can be reduced to science neither science to religion (McGrath, 2011).

To recap it all, both science and religion are crucial in understanding the world’s nature. In this case, there is no way we can rule out either of the realm. This is due to the fact that the realms are consistent and they take hold of their position to shape each other. Just like science is an important source of knowledge, one cannot separate human beings from religion.

Ultimately, both scientific and religious beliefs have an integral role to play in understanding nature. This is regardless of the fact that the realms often conflict each other. Therefore, it is definite that though the realms are independent from each other, they harmoniously interact at some point. In this case, it is absolutely impossible for the two realms to replace each other holistically.

Adams, V. Schrempf, M & Craig, S. (2010). Medicine between Science and Religion: Explorations On Tibetan Grounds . New York: Berghahn Books.

Brooke, J. & Numbers, R. (2011). Science and Religion Around the World . New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Campbell, H, & Looy, H. (2009). Science and Religion Primer . Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Fuller, R. (2008). Spirituality in the Flesh: Bodily Sources of Religious Experiences . New York: Oxford University Press.

McGrath, E. (2011). Science and Religion: A New Introduction . Malden: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Ruse, M. (1975). The Relationship between Science and Religion in Britain, 1830–1870. Church History , 44 (3): 505-522.

  • Chicago (A-D)
  • Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, October 1). The Relationships Between Science and Religion.

"The Relationships Between Science and Religion." IvyPanda , 1 Oct. 2019,

IvyPanda . (2019) 'The Relationships Between Science and Religion'. 1 October.

IvyPanda . 2019. "The Relationships Between Science and Religion." October 1, 2019.

1. IvyPanda . "The Relationships Between Science and Religion." October 1, 2019.


IvyPanda . "The Relationships Between Science and Religion." October 1, 2019.

  • “The Revenger’s Tragedy” a Play by Brain Gibbons
  • Structure of UK Business
  • Baxter Robots and Company Performance
  • Franz Kafka: His Life and Novels
  • 3D Printing Technology in Medicine
  • Emily Dickinson and Death as a Theme in Her Poetry
  • NASCAR: Foundation, History, Expansion in North America and Mexico
  • Disaster Damage Prevention Costs
  • Cindy Sherman's Adaptation of Fornarina
  • Jhumpa Lahiri’s “Interpreter of Maladies”: Main Themes
  • Day of the Dead
  • The Christian Canon, Oral Traditions and the Synoptic Problem
  • Dalai Lama and Buddhism Tradition
  • Religious Values in War and Peace
  • Sacrifice: Symbol Transformation in Various Traditions

Join us April 17-19 for the BioLogos national conference,  Faith & Science 2024 , as we explore God’s Word and God’s World together!

The Relationship Between Science and Religion

Ian Barbour—arguably the first true scholar of science-and-religion—identified four ways that science and religion could relate.

Science and religion have had a long and interesting relationship and many scholars have proposed various strategies for relating them to each other. When I was the editor of  Science & Theology News  I regularly received elaborate proposals from unknown scholars, often accompanied by diagrams, for the proper way to relate science and religion. None of them ever made it into print, either because they were nonsense or because they did not engage the conversation as it has developed over the past few decades.

All such conversations take the seminal work of Ian Barbour as the starting point. Barbour—arguably the first true scholar of science-and-religion—identified four ways that science and religion could relate. His analysis first appeared in 1988 and was expanded in 1990 with his influential Gifford lectures. A discussion for a wider audience appeared in 2000. His 4 interaction modes are:

  • Conflict : Barbour pits the scientific materialism of, say, Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne against the biblical literalism of Ken Ham or Al Mohler.
  • Independence : The emphasis here is on the non-overlapping and even contrasting methods of religion and science. The philosopher Ludwigs Wittegenstein’s concept of language games is relevant here, with science and religion said to have differing languages that serve different purposes that would prevent them ever coming in conflict.
  • Dialogue : There are boundary questions at the edge of both disciplines that engage the others. Why is there something rather than nothing? Is Design detectable? What is the nature of randomness? What is time? Such questions bring religion and science into dialogue, but usually not in a way that threatens either by entailing adjustments of key ideas. There are also methodological parallels that can be compared. Is there such a thing as “testable religious hypotheses” in religion as there is in science? Scholars from the liberal protestant Phil Hefner (in  The Human Factor ) to the conservative apologist Hugh Ross (in  More than a Theory ) have argued that there can indeed be testable religious claims. Similarly, Nancey Murphy (in  Theology in an Age of Scientific Reasoning , and elsewhere) has developed some provocative and, I think, deeply insightful models suggesting that science and theology share a common epistemology.
  • Integration : The final model that Barbour outlines involves major conversation in which science and religion—particularly theology—interact in ways that demand metaphysical speculation about meaning. The most familiar is natural theology, defined as the search for evidence of God—his existence, attributes, and actions—in nature. The Intelligent Design Movement, which claims that the Designer’s handiwork can be seen in phenomena such as the flagellum of the bacteria, is the best known example of natural theology today. Closely related is theology of nature, which starts with God, rather than nature, and asks what interpretations we might put on nature, given that it was created by God. For example, from the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for all forms of life, from bugs to people, we might project that the fine-tuning is actually “for” human life, since that life-form has a special relationship to God.

The first and second models above are the ones that have engaged the secularists the most. In  The Language of Science and Faith  we note the interesting contrast between the Independence model of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA), which the late Stephen Jay Gould articulated first in Natural History magazine in 1997 and later in  Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life , and the Conflict model:

[Each] subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority—and these magisteria do not overlap (the principle that I would like to designate as NOMA, or “non-overlapping magisteria”). The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact), and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty).

NOMA has been strongly criticized recently by  Jerry Coyne  but we argue that it is, nevertheless, very useful:

“NOMA maps much of the relevant terrain, as we have seen, and has to be the starting point for any discussion of science and religion. We must start by understanding that we are not obliged to seek out religious meaning in the esoteric nooks and crannies of contemporary science, as if every fact about the natural world is like a fortune cookie with a little religious message inside.”

We suggest that NOMA in fact is a useful balance to the conflict model.

NOMA confronts the enduring but discredited myth that science and religion have forever been in conflict. This view, known as the “warfare metaphor,” originated in a pair of influential and widely read books in the 19th century: Andrew Dickson White’s  A History of Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom  and William Draper’s History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science . Prior to the appearance of these books, science and religion, except for the occasional skirmish like the Galileo Affair, got along fine and were actually supportive of one another, as recent scholarship has clearly shown. And even the infamous Galileo Affair was nothing like its urban legend would have us believe. Galileo was not tortured and his so-called “imprisonment” was confinement to his house. There was indeed a tragic conflict, but not in the sense that polemicists like White and Draper portrayed.

Given the current highly publicized controversy over evolution, the warfare metaphor can seem all too obvious, if we forget about all the activity taking place off the media radar. In the big picture, warfare is but a minor facet of the interaction between science and religion. Unfortunately, this facet is the most interesting and, far and away, the one likely to appear in a newspaper. When creation and evolution clash in a courtroom, to take the most familiar example, the daily news fills up with stories reminding us of the supposed conflict between science and religion. There is a “Here comes the Galileo Affair” template being dusted off and trotted out to make sense of the issue.

The NOMA aspect, of course, does not make the news for, alas, it is not news. Who can imagine an evening news science report beginning with, “Scientists at Yale University today announced that they have discovered the origins of dark matter. Yale theologians report that this discovery has no relevance to religion.” On the other hand, we often hear stories like “Religious leaders in Kansas City have demanded a meeting with local school board officials to protest the teaching of evolution in local high schools.”

Just as the majority of scientists work on topics that do not come into contact with religion, so theologians and biblical scholars pursue topics in fields unrelated to science—topics like the origins and development of scriptures, philosophical solutions to the problem of evil and the promise of eternal life. These topics do not connect in any natural way to science. NOMA helps by highlighting the extended non-overlapping nature of science and religion.

NOMA, however, over-compartmentalizes by equating science simplistically with factual knowledge and religion with value or opinion. In that case, there would clearly be no overlap between the two pursuits, but only if we accept those overly narrow and restrictive definitions.

Science is not the only source of factual statements and there are important statements made by science that are not purely factual in any simple sense. Cosmologists, for example, speak in meaningful ways about the existence of other universes but these statements cannot be considered factual in the same sense as statements about other planets. In the same way, religion reaches beyond the realm of values and morals. If statements like “God exists” or “child abuse is wrong” are considered factual claims about reality then, according to NOMA, they could not be religious statements. On the other hand, few scientists would consider statements like these to be “scientific.” So what kind of statements are they? The inability of NOMA to handle claims like these about reality highlights its limitations as a universally applicable model.

Gould acknowledged that science was limited to making factual claims about the world’s physical behavior, and therefore provides only a limited picture of reality. Many, however, are seduced by the success of science into assuming that science is capable of discovering all possible facts about the world. The great astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington developed a winsome analogy for this assumption, describing a “man who set out to study deep-sea life using a net that had a mesh-size of three inches. After catching many wild and wonderful creatures from the depths, the man concluded that there are no deep-sea fish that are smaller than three inches in length!”

NOMA, while certainly helpful and broadly applicable, is too limiting. Its definition of science breaks down at those murky theoretical boundaries where observation becomes impossible, like the claims about other universes. Likewise, religion in almost all of its manifestations is more than just a collection of value judgments and moral directives. Religion often makes claims about “the way things are.”

The previous blog is adapted from  The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions  by Karl Giberson and Francis Collins. The book, which will appear in February 2011, is the first in a series of books that BioLogos will be producing in concert with InterVarsity Press. (Collins’s contributions to this volume ended when he became head of the NIH).

About the author

Karl Giberson Headshot

Karl Giberson

Related resources.

If you enjoyed this article, we recommend you check out the following resources:


Podcast Episode

The Gift of Food | Economics, Justice, Fellowship (part 5)


Loving Our Neighbors by Knowing Our Genomes


David Brooks | To See and Be Seen


Jessica Moerman | No Act Too Small


Making Faith and Science Matter to Youth


Talking to Pentecostals about Origins and Evolution

3940 Peninsular Dr SE #220, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 BioLogos is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization EIN-26-2112272

Get Involved

Common Questions

Resource Centers

BioLogos Basics Videos

Language of God Podcast

Impact Stories

Recommended Books

Christianity and Science

Scientific Evidence

Biblical Interpretation

God’s Relationship to Creation

Human Origins

K-12 Educators

Small Groups

Youth Ministry

Campus Ministry

© BioLogos 2022  Terms of Use    Privacy     Contact Us     RSS

The New York Times

The learning network | text to text | einstein and ‘where science and religion coexist’.

The Learning Network - Teaching and Learning With The New York Times

Text to Text | Einstein and ‘Where Science and Religion Coexist’

The Dalai Lama with Buddhist and Western scholars during the third day of the Mind & Life XXVI conference. <a href="//">Go to related article </a><a href="//"><strong>»</strong></a>

Teaching ideas based on New York Times content.

  • See all in Science »
  • See all lesson plans »

In this Text to Text , we take on the question of the compatibility of science and religion, with an excerpt from a Times Opinion piece written by Albert Einstein in 1930; a 2013 report on a conference between scientists and Buddhist monks hosted by the Dalai Lama; and a video in which the theoretical physicist Richard Feynman talks about trying to find answers to life’s big questions while living with doubt.

Background: Science and religion are often portrayed as in conflict, yet their histories are intimately intertwined. And while public debate about topics like evolution and global warming suggest that some people believe certain scientific ideas are incompatible with religious beliefs, there are many examples of great scientific and religious minds who see much in common between the two domains.

Here we present three such examples. In Albert Einstein’s 1930 Times Op-Ed, “Science and Religion,” one of history’s great scientists attempts to explain the role religion plays in understanding — and failing to understand — our universe. We’ve paired it with a recent Times piece, “Where Science and Religion Coexist,” that describes work the Dalai Lama is doing to bring science and religion together. Finally, we embed a video in which Richard Feynman talks about the big questions that both science and religion seek to answer.

Key Question: How are the goals and practices of science and religion similar, and how might the two domains be brought together?

Activity Sheets: As students read and discuss, they might take notes using one or more of the three graphic organizers (PDFs) we have created for our Text to Text feature:

  • Comparing Two or More Texts
  • Double-Entry Chart for Close Reading
  • Document Analysis Questions

Excerpt 1: “Religion and Science,” (PDF) by Albert Einstein, from The New York Times, Nov. 9, 1930

Albert Einstein. <a href="//">Go to related Times Topic page</a> <a href="//">»</a>

…From the study of history, one is inclined to regard religion and science as irreconcilable antagonists, and this for a reason that is very easily seen. For anyone who is pervaded with the sense of causal law in all that happens, who accepts in real earnest the assumption of causality, the idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible … A God who rewards and punishes is for him unthinkable, because man acts in accordance with an inner and outer necessity, and would, in the eyes of God, be as little responsible as an inanimate object is for movements which it makes. Science, in consequence, has been accused of undermining morals—but wrongly. The ethical behavior of man is better based on sympathy, education and social relationships, and requires no support from religion. Man’s plight would, indeed, be sad if he had to be kept in order through fear of punishment and hope of rewards after death. It is therefore, quite natural that the churches have always fought against science, and have persecuted its supporters. But, on the other hand, I assert that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and the noblest driving force behind scientific research … What a deep faith in the rationality of the structure of the world and what a longing to understand even a glimpse of the reason revealed in the world there must have been in Kepler and Newton to enable them to unravel the mechanism of the heavens in long years of lonely work! A contemporary has rightly said that the only deeply religious people of our largely materialistic age are the earnest men of research.

Excerpt 2: “Where Science and Religion Coexist,” by Saskia De Rothschild, from The International New York Times, Jan. 25, 2013

The Dalai Lama. <a href="//">Go to related Times Topics page</a> <a href="//">»</a>

Religion and science have not always been easy friends, as Galileo could attest. But over the last week scientists and Buddhist scholars have been working in this small Tibetan enclave in southern India to prove that these two worlds cannot only coexist — but benefit each another. It is the 26th edition of the Mind & Life Conference and the first held in a monastery, for thousands of Buddhist monks gathered here. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the leader of Tibetan Buddhism, greeted the scientists last Friday and introduced the weeklong dialogue about science and religion. The examination is rooted in the personal story of the Dalai Lama. During his secluded training as a child in Tibet, he would gaze at the night sky through a telescope on the roof of the Potala Palace. He looked at the moon with such intensity he realized the shadows and asperities on its surface contradicted the Tibetan belief that it was lit from within. He took his findings to his tutors. “When I told my tutors of my interest in science, they replied that it made sense,” said the Dalai Lama during his welcome speech to the conference. “However, although we have an interest in science, that doesn’t mean we have to devote all our energy to it. I spend the majority of my time in meditation on love, compassion and wisdom, which is the source of my interest in science.” It is this interest he is trying to spark in all Tibetan monks by adding science to their instruction. “In the Buddhist investigation of reality we traditionally employ four principles of reasoning: dependence, function, nature and evidence,” said the Dalai Lama. Not a far stretch from the way scientists look for evidence. “Both approaches seem to work in parallel,” he said.

Video from a BBC documentary about Richard Feynman, “No Ordinary Genius.”

For Writing or Discussion

  • What are the three types of religious experience described by Albert Einstein? Which of these types is comparable to the experience of the scientist? How are they similar?
  • What are the four basic principles Buddhists use to investigate reality, as described by the Dalai Lama? How are these principles compatible with those of the scientist?
  • What is Einstein’s “cosmic religious sense”? How does this concept influence both religion and science?
  • What are some things that the Buddhist monks hope to learn from the scientists at the Mind & Life conference? What are some things that the scientists hope to learn from the monks?
  • In the video, the theoretical physicist Richard Feynman talks about living in doubt, and rejecting “stories that have been made up about our special relationship to the universe.” Do you agree with him that “It is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong”? Why or why not?
  • It is often argued that science and religion are at odds. Why might people think this? What might Einstein, the Dalai Lama and Mr. Feynman have to say about this?

Going Further

–Read more about the collaboration between Buddhist monks and scientists :

Quantum theory tells us that the world is a product of an infinite number of random events. Buddhism teaches us that nothing happens without a cause, trapping the universe in an unending karmic cycle. Reconciling the two might seem as challenging as trying to explain the Higgs boson to a kindergarten class. But if someone has to do it, it might as well be the team of scholars, translators and six Tibetan monks clad in maroon robes who can be spied wandering among the magnolias at Emory University here.

This effort that has included 2,500 new scientific terms being added to the Tibetan language. How are they seeking to unite understanding of the “internal”and “external” world?

An illustration from <a href="//">this 2005 article</a> about a forum on science and religion.

–Some scientists view the relationship between science and religion as one of conflict . What do you think of the statement in this article about a 2005 forum on science and religion in which the main message seemed to be, “In a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told”?

And in this 2013 Opinionator blog , Stanley Fish discusses the differences, and similarities, between what constitutes evidence for the scientific and religious communities: “What makes one chapter and verse more authoritative for citing than the other?,” he asks. How do you reconcile the conflicts between science and religion for yourself?

–Learn more about the three thinkers we have featured here. The Times Topics pages for Albert Einstein and the Dalai Lama are good places to start, as is this obituary of Richard Feynman . Imagine a conversation between the three. What might they say to each other if the topic was “science and religion”? Why? Whom else would you want to “invite” to such a conversation?

–How might schools and teachers handle the relationship between science and religion, especially given that the new guidelines for teaching science take a firm stand that children must learn about evolution — an idea that still provokes a backlash among some religious conservatives?

More Resources

The National Academy of Sciences | Statement on the Compatibility of Science and Religion

2005 Times Op-Ed | Science and Religion Can Coexist

2006 Science Times article | Faith, Reason, God, and Other Imponderables

The Learning Network | Teaching Collection: World Religions

Read more about our Text to Text format , and consider submitting an idea.

This resource may be used to address the academic standards listed below.

Common Core E.L.A. Anchor Standards

1   Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.

2   Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas.

7   Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse media and formats, including visually and quantitatively, as well as in words.

9   Analyze how two or more texts address similar themes or topics in order to build knowledge or to compare the approaches the authors take.

Common Core Standards for Mathematical Practice

11   Understands the nature of scientific knowledge.

12   Understands the nature of scientific inquiry.

13   Understands the scientific enterprise.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

In Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature, he said we look into the nature of the physical world around us to examine the nature of god, to better understand the mysteries manifest all around us, to show us more about the mystery that we are made up of; so it’s irresistable to look at the pioneering and penetrating visions of the universe from today’s space telescopes, and to wonder for the first time in the history of humanity about the sky in ways never imagined.

I think when we study the grand visions of cosmologists on what the universe is, how it’s made, where it’s going, it isn’t necessarily about reality; of course it makes efforts to map back to reality, but we are as much studying humanity’s imagination as we are the relation of the components of the universe. It’s not necessarily a study of the universe as much as it is a study of visions of the universe in mankind, and the changes possible to these visions based on the unpresecedented science of today.

But one other reason I think the study of the object called the universe is important, though it is admittedly a very diferent size species of organism than our peers, is the holgraphic idea that we are all microcosms of the macrocosm; the study of flow has made it clear that there are principles that span space and time in this universe, and from the star to the stellar mass black hole to the supermassive black hole and the quasar core of the HLIRG’s (hyperluminous infrared galaxies), and right back down to human beings, there is a nature to the flow through time, a presence of grace in that flow, and an all-permeating mystery. The more clues we can get, at any scale, allow us to better model and predict all the other scales, to light up aspects of thick dark reality that were hidden from all the shamans and sorcerers of the past millenia.

It is a great mistake to say “religion” when one means “organized religion” or “religious institutions.” A Navajo friend of mine, when asked by a visitor to explain his religion replied “We do not have a religion, we are a spiritual people.” I suppose it is a quite common experience to feel that unconfined creative activity within one that is identified with “God,” but we lack words to convey or discuss it, and turn to approved metaphors or texts, principally the Bible.

Scientists engage that experience directly and express it usually in mathematical symbols. But that doesn’t make it easier for them to discuss it verbally. Meditation is another path to the same experience, perhaps with a different point of departure but thereafter akin to science in many ways; what separates it from “science” is simply a convention of our language, along with a family of prejudices about the supposed greater practical utility of science. The supposed duality between the two is a sad fiction.

It seems to me religion these days is all too often about assertion rather than listening and opening up.

I call it making God in our image. Admitting we don’t know should be the first step. Silence is key.

Unfortunately, people looking in at this bossy behavior find it profoundly boring and disturbing, and it causes a lot of harm.

Most of the world’s great religions have at their core compassion and humility, but so many are so busy they have lost their way.

Religion is like investing in Lottery. Science like investing in Stock market.

What's Next

Read our research on: TikTok | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Religion and science in the united states.

The relationship between faith and science in the United States seems, at least on the surface, to be paradoxical. Surveys repeatedly show that most Americans respect science and the benefits it brings to society, such as new technologies and medical treatments. Nevertheless, strong religious convictions can affect some Americans’ willingness to accept certain scientific theories and discoveries, such as evolution, and new, life-changing technologies, such as genetic engineering.

Religion and Science as Adversaries

Science and religion have often been viewed as adversaries. A number of famous battles between scientists and religious authorities have helped to fuel this perception. For instance, Italian scientist Galileo Galilei, who 400 years ago began the first systematic astronomical observations using a telescope, was tried and convicted of heresy by the Catholic Church for his defense of the Copernican model that put the sun, rather than the Earth, at the center of the universe. Roughly 250 years later, British naturalist Charles Darwin was criticized by Anglican Church authorities who rejected his theory that life evolved through natural selection, particularly when the theory was explicitly applied to human beings. (See Darwin and His Theory of Evolution .)

There have been and still are scientists who are hostile to religious belief. For instance, British biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins, in his bestselling book The God Delusion , argues that many social ills – from bigotry to ignorance – can be blamed, at least in part, on religion. Other scientists, such as Nobel Prize-winning American physicist Steven Weinberg, contend that one of the purposes of science is to free people from what they call “religious superstition.”

In addition, scientists tend to be much less religious than the public overall. A poll of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, found that 51% of scientists believe in God or a higher power. That figure is far below the 95% of the American public that professes such belief, according to a Pew Research Center survey of the general public conducted in July 2006. (See Scientists and Belief .)

Religion and Science as Allies

Despite instances of hostility toward religion and high levels of disbelief in the scientific community, however, science and religion have often operated in tandem rather than at cross-purposes.

Indeed, throughout much of ancient and modern human history, religious institutions have actively supported scientific endeavors. For centuries, throughout Europe and the Middle East, almost all universities and other institutions of learning were religiously affiliated, and many scientists, including astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus and biologist Gregor Mendel (known as the father of genetics), were men of the cloth. Others, including Galileo, physicist Sir Isaac Newton and astronomer Johannes Kepler, were deeply devout and often viewed their work as a way to illuminate God’s creation. (See Religion and Science: A Timeline .)

Even in the 20th century, some of the greatest scientists, such as Georges Lemaitre (the Catholic priest who first proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory) and physicist Max Planck (the founder of the quantum theory of physics), have been people of faith. More recently, geneticist Francis Collins, the founder of the Human Genome Project as well as President Barack Obama’s choice to head the National Institutes of Health, has spoken publicly about how he believes his evangelical Christian faith and his work in science are compatible.

In addition, many scientists, including many who are not personally religious, tend to view science and religion as distinct rather than in conflict, with each attempting to answer different kinds of questions using different methods. Albert Einstein, for instance, once said that “science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.” And the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould famously referred to this separate but complementary relationship as “nonoverlapping magisteria.”

Debates Over Evolution and Other Issues

There are times when these “magisteria” do seem to overlap, however. In the United States, the debate over the origins and development of life offers a compelling example of this conflict.

All but a small number of scientists accept Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection; according to the 2009 Pew Research Center survey of scientists, 87% of scientists accept evolution through natural processes. But a complementary May 2009 Pew Research Center poll of public attitudes toward science shows that only 32% of the general public fully embraces Darwin’s theory. One-in-five (22%) believe that evolution has occurred but that it has been guided by a supreme being, and 31% contend that humans and other livings things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. (See Public Opinion on Religion and Science in the United States .)

There is a similar divide between the public and the scientific community on the issue of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. But unlike the divide on evolution, which revolves around questions of fact, the division on embryonic stem cell research is largely driven by moral questions, including disputes over the status of embryos. (See the full Pew Research Center survey report for differences between scientists and the public on this and other issues.) And yet the poll of the public shows that the vast majority of Americans, including religious Americans, hold science and scientists in very high regard. (See Public Opinion on Religion and Science in the United States .)

What is at work here? How can majorities of Americans say they respect science and yet still disagree with the scientific community on some fundamental questions? The answer may be that many in the general public choose not to believe scientific theories and discoveries that seem to contradict religious or other important beliefs. When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, for instance, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people in an October 2006 Time magazine poll said they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept a contrary scientific finding.

Looking Ahead

Meanwhile scientists continue to use increasingly sophisticated instruments – from MRI brain scanners to the Hubble Space Telescope – to probe the natural world, raising the prospect that researchers in one field or another will continue to produce evidence that challenges some core religious beliefs. For example, some scientists claim that recent research on the human brain shows that the brain and the brain alone is the seat of consciousness and that such evidence disproves the existence of a soul.

While religion and science usually strive to answer different questions, the battles over issues such as evolution and the study of consciousness show that they also sometimes tread on each other’s turf. So far, at least in the United States, both faith and scientific endeavor have survived these clashes. And if the past is any guide, the United States will likely continue to be a nation of both high levels of religious commitment and high regard for scientific achievement.

This report was written by David Masci, Senior Researcher, Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Sign up for our Religion newsletter

Sent weekly on Wednesday

Table of Contents

5 facts about the interplay between religion and science, video: are science and religion in conflict with each other, religion and science, religion and science: conflict or harmony, what brain science tells us about religious belief, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts . no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center

paper cover thumbnail

The relationship between science and religion. An introduction

Profile image of Agustin  Udias

Science and religion are the two grand visions of the world, so it is important to study their relationship. This relationship can be considered from the historical, philosophical and social point of view. The nature of science and technology on one side and of religion and religiosity on the other are briefly considered. After some preliminary considerations the difference between science and ideology is established. The relationship between science and religion is considered under five categories: conflict, independence, dialogue, complementariness and integration. Inevitable conflict is rejected on historical ground, although attitudes generating conflicts are present in the religious and scientific fundamentalisms. Independence assures the necessary autonomy of each one, but it is not sufficient. Dialogue is a good and desirable relationship that will enrich both of them. Complementariness adds to the dialogue that both visions of the world are not complete in themselves, so that they need to complement each other. Integration is a more problematic proposition and several approaches have been proposed. They can be grouped into those that go from the knowledge of nature to God and from a religious position to the knowledge of nature and science. As a conclusion a fruitful dialogue is proposed which recognizes the mutual autonomy between science and religion.

Related Papers

Joshua Moritz

essay on relationship between science and religion

Helen De Cruz

This is a draft paper of the SEP entry on Religion and Science.

The Heythrop Journal

Willem Drees

John E Horsfield

Theology Essay - Are faith and science compatible?

International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on the Dialogue between Sciences & Arts, Religion & Education

Ion Croitoru

Although scientific research is in full bloom regarding, for instance, the environment, the fact of creation cannot be ignored either, even if some scientists deny it, while others ascertain it, albeit from perspectives, however, foreign to the patristic vision specific of the Orthodoxy. Consequently, the limits of cosmology are structured as well by Christian theology, which shows that the study of the world, guided by laws of physics in a limited framework, is carried out inside the creation affected by the consequences of the primordial sin, so that the reality of the world before sin is known only to those who reach spiritual perfection and holiness, therefore, from an eschatological perspective, since they, too, go through the moment of separation of the soul from the body, waiting for the general resurrection. Therefore, a new way of being is affirmed in the Orthodox Church, by the personal experience of each believer, which is a transformation on the personal and cosmic level...

Theology and Science

This article updates previous articles: "Theology and Science: Where Are We?"

Science and Religion

Alexandru Arion

The present paper takes into consideration a few aspects related to the relation between the two disputed domains of knowledge: science and religion. After having pointed out the main eight warfare and nonwarfare models of interaction between science and religion, the study focuses on the motives of Eastern and Western Christianity breach, which resides on the very different attitude to Science and Nature. The main part of depicting the nexus between the two fields of research is focusing on the doctrine of creation, the one Christian theology truly revolutionized. The Christian Weltanschauung was so new in comparison with Greek cosmology that it had to raise new questions and make radical modifications, especially regarding the understanding of space and time. The Fathers of the Orthodox Church were happy to use the science and philosophy of their time in their theological thinking. However, they did not pursue a natural theology in the sense the term is often now understood based ...

One can note that science tends to turn man into a master of the external and material, yet at the cost of turning him, on the level of his inner and spiritual life, into a slave of instincts altered by sin. All these, without a moral norm, become a power of destruction for man and represent issues addressed not just by bioethics, where the opinion of ‘theologians’ is consulted as well, but especially by the Church and by the Orthodoxy. The pressure of events imposes the issue of the recognition or, according to some, reformulation of the bases of ethics. Yet, this ethics ought to be constrained to a revision founded neither just on the progress of science, whose truths are partial, nor on the principles of rationalist or positivist philosophy, which try to convince man that he is no different from all the other living beings and needs to be treated in the same way as them, but on the reality of the religious fact, and, moreover, on the evidence of God’s Revelation and, implicitly, ...

Scientia et Fides

Josep Corcó Juviñá


The SIKH REVIEW ( Special Volume)


Journal of Critical Realism

Fabio Gironi

Plural Spiritualities: North American Experiences

Melody Layton McMahon

Diligentia: Journal of Theology and Christian Education

Ridwanta Manogu

Kevin Mongrain

Erica VanSteenhuyse, M.A.

Oliver Putz

Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences

alexei nesteruk

Michal Valčo

Engineering and the Catholic University

Jame Schaefer

Jurnal Pendidikan Islam

muhammad thoyib

Encyclopedia of Science and Religion

Dennis Bielfeldt

William Grassie

Encyclopedia of Science and Religion (New York: Macmillan), 714-717

Holder/The Blackwell

Joseph Stewart-Sicking

Sixbert SANGWA, Ph.D.

George N Vlahakis

Ñāṇiswar Library : Online Version (English &Bengali) জ্ঞানীশ্বর গ্রন্থাগার : অনলাইন ভার্সন (ইংরেজী ও বাংলা)

Enclyclopedia of Science and Religion

Taede Smedes

Dan Bruiger

Prof. Danie Veldsman

Michael J Reiss

Kelebogile Thomas Resane

Andrew Ter Ern Loke

DIALOGO. ISSN: 2393-1744, vol. 7, issue 2 (May 2021): 178-188. DOI: 10.51917/dialogo.2021.7.2.15.

Nicoleta Stanca

International Journal of Public Theology

Benjamin Ogbonna

Gianna Katsiampoura

David Muthukumar S.

Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy

Piotr Bylica

Peter Stork

Samson Chiru


  •   We're Hiring!
  •   Help Center
  • Find new research papers in:
  • Health Sciences
  • Earth Sciences
  • Cognitive Science
  • Mathematics
  • Computer Science
  • Academia ©2024
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

essay on relationship between science and religion

Understanding Science

How science REALLY works...

People of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction between science and religion.

Science and religion: Reconcilable differences

In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Many simply acknowledge that the two institutions deal with different realms of human experience. Science investigates the ​​ natural world , while religion deals with the spiritual and ​​ supernatural  — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution. 1

Furthermore, contrary to stereotype, one certainly doesn’t have to be an atheist in order to become a scientist. A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths. 2  Some scientists — like Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and George Coyne, astronomer and priest — have been outspoken about the satisfaction they find in viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith.

This is not to suggest that science and religion  never  come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (​​ natural  vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims. For example, when religious tenets make strong claims about the natural world (e.g., claiming that the world was created in six days, as some literal interpretations of the Bible might require), faith and science can find themselves in conflict.

Though such clashes may garner print, airwave, and bandwidth headlines, it’s important to remember that, behind the scenes and out of the spotlight, many cases exist in which religious and scientific perspectives present no conflict at all. Thousands of scientists busily carry out their research while maintaining personal spiritual beliefs, and an even larger number of everyday folks fruitfully view the natural world through an ​​ evidence -based, scientific lens and the supernatural world through a spiritual lens. Accepting a scientific worldview needn’t require giving up religious faith.

1 National Center for Science Education.  Voices for evolution . Retrieved December 29, 2008. 2 Ecklund, E.H., and C.P. Scheitle. 2007. Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographics.  Social Problems  54(2):289-307.

Subscribe to our newsletter

  • Understanding Science 101
  • The science flowchart
  • Science stories
  • Grade-level teaching guides
  • Teaching resource database
  • Journaling tool
  • Misconceptions

Science and Religion in Conflict, Part 1: Preliminaries

  • Published: 25 August 2022

Cite this article

  • R. I. Damper   ORCID: 1  

405 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Science and religion have been described as the “two dominant forces in our culture”. As such, the relation between them has been a matter of intense debate, having profound implications for deeper understanding of our place in the universe. One position naturally associated with scientists of a materialistic outlook is that science and religion are contradictory, incompatible worldviews; however, a great deal of recent literature criticises this “conflict thesis” as simple-minded, essentially ignorant of the nature of religion and its philosophical and theological underpinnings. In this first part of a two-part article, I set out the wide-ranging background required for a proper understanding of the debate as a preliminary for the second part, in which Ian Barbour ’s influential four-fold typology of science-religion relations is critically assessed, leading to the conclusion that the conflict model is not to be so easily dismissed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

essay on relationship between science and religion

Similar content being viewed by others

essay on relationship between science and religion

Science and Religion in Conflict, Part 2: Barbour’s Four Models Revisited

R. I. Damper

essay on relationship between science and religion

Philosophy of religion and religious studies in modern-day Russia

K. V. Karpov & T. V. Malevich

essay on relationship between science and religion

Philosophical Perspectives on the Relationship Between Religion and Science: Averroes, Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas and Galileo

McGrath holds a doctorate in molecular biophysics, placing him in the category of scientist-theologians.

In 2015, 31.2% of the world’s population identified as Christian according to , last accessed 30 January 2022. The next largest group was Muslims comprising 24.1%.

See , last accessed 23 March 2021.

Some authors maintain a distinction between materialism and naturalism, and even between various subtle flavours of the two. To avoid undue complication, I will treat them as loosely synonymous for the purposes of this paper.

... as is plain to see from the book’s combative subtitle: A Scientist Refutes Religion-Denying, Reason-Destroying Scientism.

An apologist is one who defends Christian belief against criticism. , last accessed 6 December 2021. “Biola” stands for Bible Institute of Los Angeles.

Pantheism holds that ‘God’ is a metaphor for the whole of creation, i.e., God is identical with the universe and everything within it, and has no separate existence as a personal or anthropomorphic entity.

The Bible (or more precisely, the letters of Paul of Tarsus) says: “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14).

In The Demon-Haunted World , he cites Thomas Huxley (1825–95) to the effect that assertions should “require corroborative evidence in exact proportion to the contravention of probability by the thing testified” (Sagan, 1996 , p. 80).

One of these, the use of sponges soaked in lemon juice, is even to be found in the Talmud. So much for tradition as a source of religious knowledge in Judaism.

Such as grace, theodicy, hamartiology, Christology, soteriology, lapsarian, kenosis, noetics, pneumatology, gospel, exigesis, hypostatic unity, eschatology, heurmeneutics, perichoresis, ...

From Dawkins’ speech at the Edinburgh International Science Festival, 15 April 1992.

Albl, M. (2009). Faith, Reason, Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology . Winnona, MN: St. Mary’s Press.

Google Scholar  

Ayer, A. J. (1936). Language, Truth and Logic . London, UK: Victor Gollanz.

Badham, P. (1996). What is theology? Theology, 99 (788), 101–106.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baggini, J. (2016). The Edge of Reason: A Rational Skeptic in an Irrational World . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Baggini, J. (2021). Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Barbour, I. G. (1990). Religion in an Age of Science: The Gifford Lectures, Vol. 1 . HarperSanFrancisco.

Barbour, I. G. (1997). Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues . HarperSanFrancisco.

Barbour, I. G. (2000). When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers or Partners?  London, UK: HarperCollins.

Barbour, I. G. (2008). Taking science seriously without scientism: A response to Taede Smedes. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 43 (1), 259–269.

Beckermann, A. (1992). Introduction – reductive and nonreductive physicalism. In Beckermann et al. (1992), pages 1–22.

Beckermann, A., Flohr, H., & Kim, J. editors (1992). Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism. De Gruyter, Berlin, Germany.

Binkley, L. J. (1962). What characterizes religious language? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2 (1), 18–22.

Bloom, P. (2015). Scientific faith is different from religious faith. The Atlantic . Online at , last retrieved on 2 February 2021.

Boudry, M., & Pigliucci, M. editors. (2018). Science Unlimited? The Challenges of Scientism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Broad, C. D. (1919). Mechanical explanation and its alternatives. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 19 (1), 86–124.

Brock, S., & Mares, E. (2007). Realism and Anti-Realism . Stocksfield, UK: Acumen.

Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Pagination refers to Canto Classics edition 2014).

Brown, M. J., & Kidd, I. J. (2015). Introduction: Reappraising Paul Feyerabend. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 57 (1), 1–8.

Bschir, K., Lohse, S., & Chang, H. (2019). Introduction: systematicity, the nature of science? Synthese, 196 (3), 761–773.

Bunge, M. (2015). In defense of scientism. Free Enquiry , 305 (1).

Bunge, M. (2016). Between Two Worlds: Memoirs of a Scientist-Philosopher . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Carrier, R. (2014). On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt . Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

Cartwright, N. (1999). The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Collins, F. S. (2006). The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief . New York, NY: Free Press.

Conner, J. D. (2017). All That’s Wrong With the Bible: Contradictions, Absurdities and More (2nd ed.). Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.

Consolmagno, G. & Mueller, P. (2014). Would you Baptize an Extraterrestrial? ... And Other Questions from the Astronomers’ In-box at the Vatican Observatory . New York, NY: Image.

Coyne, J. A. (2015). Fact versus Faith: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible . New York, NY: Penguin Random House.

Crick, F. (1994). The Astonishing Hypothesis . London, UK: Simon & Schuster.

Cupitt, D. (2006). Radical Theology . Salem, OR: Polebridge Press.

Damer, T. E. (2013). Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Davies, P. (1983). God and the New Physics . London, UK: J. M. Dent & Sons.

Davies, P. (1992). The Mind of God: Science & the Search for Ultimate Meaning . London, UK: Simon & Schuster.

Dawkins, R. (1997). Is science a religion? The Humanist, 57 (1), 26–29.

Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion . London, UK: Transworld Publishers.

Dawkins, R., Dennett, D. C., Harris, S., & Hitchens, C. (2019). The Four Horsemen: The Discussion that Sparked an Atheist Revolution . London, UK: Bantam Press.

de Mey, M. (1982). The Cognitive Paradigm . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.

Deane-Drummond, C. (2009). Christ and Evolution: Wonder and Wisdom . London, UK: SCM Press.

Dennett, D. C. (2006). Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon . New York, NY: Viking.

Derricourt, R. (2021). Creating God: The Birth and Growth of Major Religions . Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Dickson, J. (2019). Is Jesus History? Epsom, UK: The Good Book Company.

Dixon, T. (2008). Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Doherty, E. (2009). Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus . Ottawa, Canada: Age of Reason.

Donovan, P. (1979). Interpreting Religious Experience . London, UK: Sheldon Press.

Duhem, P. (1906). La Théorie Physique: son objets et sa structure . Paris, France: Chevalier et Rivière. (English language translation The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory by P. P. Weiner, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1954).

Dupré, J. (1983). The disunity of science. Mind, XCI I (367), 321–346.

Dupré, J. (1993). The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dupré, J. (2001). Human Nature and the Limits of Science . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ehrman, B. D. (2012). Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fann, K. T. (1970). Pierce’s Theory of Abduction . The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

Feuerbach, L. (1854). The Essence of Christianity . London, UK: John Chapman. (Translated from the original 1841 German edition by Mary Ann Evans, aka. George Eliot).

Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge . London, UK: Verso Books.

Feyerabend, P. (1987). Farewell to Reason . London, UK: Verso/New Left Books.

Firestone, R. S. (2014). Why the Bible cannot and should not be taken literally. Open Journal of Philosophy , 4 (3), 303–318. Online at , last retrieved 3 February 2021.

Fitzgerald, D. (2010). Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show that Jesus Never Existed at All . Self-published via

Flew, A. (2000). The presumption of atheism. In B. Davies (Ed.), Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology (pp. 36–41). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fumagalli, R. (2018). Who is afraid of scientific imperialism? Synthese, 195 , 4125–4146.

Giessibl, F. J. (2021). Probing the nature of chemical bonds by atomic force microscopy. Molecules , 26 (13). Article number 4068.

Gilovich, T. (1991). How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life . New York, NY: Free Press.

Gomory, R. E. (1995). The known, the unknown and the unknowable. Scientific American , June, p. 120.

Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Harman, G. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. The Philosophical Review, 74 (1), 88–95.

Harris, S. (2005). The End of Faith: Religion,Terror and the Future of Reason.  London, UK: Simon & Schuster.

Harrison, P. (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Haught, J. F. (2008). God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens . Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything . London, UK: Atlantic Books.

Holland, T. (2019). Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind . London, UK: Little, Brown.

Houlden, L. (1989). What counts as theology? Theology, 92 (775), 3–4.

Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2013). Systematicity: The Nature of Science . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hutchinson, I. (2011). Monopolizing Knowledge: A Scientist Refutes Religion-Denying Reason-Destroying Scientism . Belmont, MA: Fias Publishing.

Hyslop, A. (1995). Other Minds . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Isaacson, W. (2007). Einstein: His Life and Universe . London, UK: Simon & Schuster.

Kim, J. (1998). Philosophy of Mind . Oxford, UK: Westview/Perseus.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Lakatos and Musgrave (1970), pages 91–138 and 189–195.

Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. editors. (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lennox, J. C. (2019). Can Science Explain Everything? Epsom, UK: The Good Book Company.

Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere Christianity . London, UK: Geoffrey Bles. (Pagination refers to 2012 William Collins Signature Classics Edition).

Lipton, P. (2000). Inference to the best explanation. In W. H. Newton-Smith (Ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Science (pp. 184–193). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Martin, C. B. (1952). A religious way of knowing. Mind, 61 (244), 497–512.

Martin, M. (1990). Atheism: A Philosophical Justification . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Matson, W. I. (1965). The Existence of God . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

McGrath, A. (2007). The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine . London, UK: SPCK Publishing. (With Joanne Collicutt McGrath).

McGrath, A. E. (2018). Theology – An Introduction (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Wiley.

Medawar, P. B. (1985). The Limits of Science . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Miller, D. (1974). Popper’s qualitative theory of verisimilitude. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (2), 166–177.

Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (1986). Critical Thinking: Evaluating Claims and Arguments in Everyday Life . Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.

Mucci, G. (2018). Science and religion in Ian G. Barbour. La Civiltà Cattolica . Online at , last retrieved on 2 February 2021.

Nielsen, K. (1982). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion . Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Numbers, R. L., & Hardin, J. (2018). The New Atheists. In J. Hardin, R. L. Numbers, & R. A. Binzley (Eds.), The Warfare Between Science and Religion: The Idea That Wouldn’t Die (pp. 220–238). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (1923). The Meaning of Meaning . London, UK: Kegan Paul.

Ogden, S. M. (1978). Theology and religious studies: Their difference and the difference it makes. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 46 (1), 3–17.

Oppy, G. (2013). The Best Argument Against God . Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Outler, A. C. (1985). The Wesleyan Quadrilateral in Wesley. Wesleyan Theological Journal, 20 (1), 7–18.

Owen, H. P. (1969). The Christian Knowledge of God . London, UK: Athlone Press.

Paine, T. (1794). The Age of Reason; Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology . Paris, France: Barrois.

Peacocke, A. (1999). Biology and a theory of evolution. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 34 (4), 695–712.

Pepper, S. C. (1926). Emergence. Journal of Philosophy, 23 (9), 241–245.

Peters, T. (2018). Science and religion: Ten models of war, truce and partnership. Theology and Science, 16 (1), 11–53.

Phillips, D. Z. (1976). Religion without Explanation . Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Pigliucci, M. (2010). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Pinker, S. (2021). Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce Why It Matters . London, UK: Allen Lane.

Plantinga, A. (1967). God and Other Minds . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference: Certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others. Science, 146 (3642), 347–353.

Polanyi, M. (1946). Science, Faith and Society . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Polanyi, M. (1957). Problem solving. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 8 (30), 89–103.

Polkinghorne, J. (1986). One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology . London, UK: SPCK Publishing. (Pagination refers to 2007 edition published by Templeton Foundation Press).

Polkinghorne, J. (2000). Faith Science and Understanding . London, UK: SPCK Publishing.

Polkinghorne, J. (2011). The incompleteness of science: Reflections for Christian teachers and for others interested in the science-religion debate. International Studies in Catholic Education, 3 (2), 136–144.

Pólya, G. (1945). How to Solve It . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Popper, K. (1935). Logik der Forschung: Zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen Naturwissenschaft . Vienna, Austria: Julius Springer. (English language rewrite The Logic of Scientific Discovery published by Routledge, Abingdon, UK in 1959).

Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge . London, UK: Routledge.

Popper, K. (1970). Normal science and its dangers. In Lakatos and Musgrave, 1970 , 51–58.

Popper, K. (1976). A note on verisimilitude. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 27 (2), 147–159.

Popper, K. (1978). Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica, 32 (3/4), 339–355.

Quine, W. V. O. (1951). Main trends in recent philosophy: Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60 (1), 20–43.

Rhees, R. (1997). Rush Rhees on Religion and Philosophy . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Collection of previously unpublished papers edited by D. Z. Phillips).

Robinson, M. (2015). The Givenness of Things: Essays . London, UK: Virago.

Ross, S. (1962). Scientist: The story of a word. Annals of Science, 18 (2), 65–85.

Rowbottom, D. P. (2011). Kuhn vs. Popper on criticism and dogmatism in science: A resolution at the group level. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 42 (1), 117–124.

Rue, L. (2005). Religion is not About God: How Spiritual Traditions Nurture our Biological Nature and What to Expect When They Fail . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Rue, L. (2007). A guide to thinking about emergence. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 42 (4), 829–835.

Russell, B. (1927). Why I am not a Christian . London, UK: Pamphlet issued by National Secular Society.

Russell, R. J. (2014). Ian G. Barbour (1923–2013): In memorium to the pioneer of science and religion. Theology and Science , 12 (2), 123–128.

Sagan, C. (1996). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark . New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Schellenberg, J. (1993). Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason . Itaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Smedes, T. A. (2008). Beyond Barbour or back to basics: The future of science-and-religion and the quest for unity. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 43 (1), 235–258.

Stanley, M. (2009). Myth 21: That Einstein believed in a personal God. In R. L. Numbers (Ed.), Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (pp. 187–195). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Stodolna, A. S., Rouzeé, A., Lépine, F., Cohen, S., Robicheaux, F., Gijsbertsen, A., Jungmann, J. H., Bordas, C., & Vrakking, M. J. J. (2013). Hydrogen atoms under magnification: Direct observation of the nodal structure of stark states. Physical Review Letters , 110 . Article number 213001.

Swinburne, R. G. (2005). Faith and Reason (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Swinburne, R. G. (2007). Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1957). The Divine Milieu: An Essay on the Interior Life . London, UK: Collins. (1960 English language translation).

Theocharis, T., & Psimopoulos, M. (1987). Where science has gone wrong. Nature, 329 , 595–598.

Tichý, P. (1974). On Popper’s definition of verisimilitude. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (2), 155–160.

Tracy, T. F. (2006). Theologies of divine action. In P. Clayton & Z. Simpson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (pp. 596–611). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Usó-Doménech, J. L., & Nescolarde-Selva, J. (2016). What are belief systems? Foundations of Science, 21 (1), 147–152.

van Fraassen, B. (1989). Laws and Symmetry . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

van Huyssteen, J. W. (1998). Duet or Duel? Theology and Science in a Postmodern World . London, UK: SCM Press.

van Huyssteen, J. W. (1999). The Shaping of Rationality: Toward Interdisciplinarity in Theology and Science . Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing.

van Huyssteen, J. W. (2006). When our bodies do the thinking, theology and science converge. American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, 27 (2/3), 127–153.

Vaughn, L. (2018). The Power of Critical Thinking: Effective Reasoning About Ordinary and Extraordinary Claims (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, USA.

Vermes, G. (1973). Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels . Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Vermes, G. (2010). Jesus: Nativity - Passion - Resurrection . London, UK: Penguin.

Veronesi, C. (2014). Falsifications and scientific progress: Popper as sceptical optimist. Lettera Matematica: International Edition, 1 (4), 179–184.

Walton, D. N. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ward, K. (1990). Divine Action: Examining God’s Role in an Open and Emergent Universe . London, UK: Collins.

Ward, K. (2008). Why There Almost Certainly is a God: Doubting Dawkins . Oxford, UK: Lion Hudson.

Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12 (3), 129–140.

Wells, G. A. (1975). Did Jesus Exist? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Wetzel, L. (2002). On types and words. Journal of Philosophical Research, 27 , 239–265.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations . London, UK: Macmillan. (Translated from the original German by Elizabeth Anscombe).

Worrall, J. (2004). Science discredits religion. In M. Peterson and R. J. VanArragon, editors, Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Religion , pages 59–71. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, first edition.

Zuersher, B. (2014). Seeing through Christianity: A Critique of Beliefs and Evidence . Bloomington, IN: Xlibris.

Download references


I am grateful to Keith Ward and John H. Brooke for taking the time to reply with commendable good grace to several questions that I posed to them during the writing of this two-part paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. I. Damper .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Damper, R.I. Science and Religion in Conflict, Part 1: Preliminaries. Found Sci (2022).

Download citation

Accepted : 09 August 2022

Published : 25 August 2022


Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Science and religion
  • Philosophy of science
  • Philosophy of religion
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

Relationship Between

Relationship Between Science And Religion Essay

As humans, we often struggle to find a balance between our beliefs in science and religion. Is there a way to reconcile the two? This essay will explore the complex relationship between science and religion, and how understanding this relationship can help us to better understand our own beliefs.

We will look at the history of the two and how they have interacted with each other over the centuries. We then examine the current state of the debate and how both sides are responding to one another.

Finally, we will consider how an understanding of the relationship between science and religion can help us to better understand our own views and beliefs.

Historical interactions: examining the history of science and religion.

Historical interactions: examining the history of science and religion

The relationship between science and religion has been a long and complicated one. Throughout history, there have been times of great tension and conflict between the two, as well as periods of cooperation and mutual understanding. Examining this history can help us gain a better understanding of the complex dynamics of the relationship between science and religion.

An essay on the topic can explore the history of this relationship, the arguments that have been made on both sides, and the various ways in which these two disciplines have interacted over time. It can also discuss the implications of the relationship for our present and future.

By delving into this fascinating subject, we can gain a greater appreciation for the complex and ever-evolving nature of the relationship between science and religion.

Current philosophical debates: analyzing current debates surrounding the relationship between science and religion.

Current philosophical debates: analyzing current debates surrounding the relationship between science and religion

The relationship between science and religion has been a fraught one for centuries, but in recent years it has become even more complex. As advances in science and technology continue to expand our knowledge of the universe and humanity, the divides between the two camps have become increasingly difficult to bridge. In this essay, we will analyze some of the current philosophical debates surrounding the relationship between science and religion and consider how they may be reconciled.

We will look at the various approaches to the issue, the historical context, and the implications for the future of both science and religion. By examining the current state of the debate, we can gain insight into how this relationship might evolve in the years to come.

Religious perspectives: exploring the different religious perspectives on the relationship between science and religion.

Religious perspectives: exploring the different religious perspectives on the relationship between science and religion

The relationship between science and religion has been a topic of debate for centuries. With a variety of different religious perspectives, it can be hard to find a common ground.

In this essay, we’ll examine how various religious traditions view the relationship between science and religion, and explore how these perspectives inform our understanding of the world. We’ll also discuss the ways in which science and religion can co-exist, and how each can benefit from the other.

By examining the relationship between science and religion from a variety of perspectives, we can gain a greater appreciation for the complexity of this debate and the importance of keeping an open mind.

Scientific perspectives: examining how science views the relationship between science and religion.

Scientific perspectives: examining how science views the relationship between science and religion

The relationship between science and religion has been a hotly contested topic for centuries. For many, it is an untenable dichotomy where one must choose either science or religion.

However, there is much to be explored when examining how science views the relationship between the two. By exploring the scientific perspective on this topic, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of this relationship, and how it has been studied, debated, and debated again. From Charles Darwin’s seminal work on evolution to modern-day breakthroughs in technology, science has provided us with a wealth of evidence and insight on the relationship between science and religion.

By exploring this evidence, we can gain a better understanding of how the two disciplines interact and how they can coexist in harmony. In this essay, we will take a look at some of the scientific perspectives on the relationship between science and religion and how they have shaped our understanding of the two.

The benefits of collaboration: examining the potential benefits of collaboration between science and religion.

The benefits of collaboration: examining the potential benefits of collaboration between science and religion

The relationship between science and religion has long been debated, and there is much to be said about the potential benefits of collaboration between the two. By examining the potential benefits of collaboration between science and religion, we can uncover a deeper understanding of how these two seemingly disparate entities can work together.

This understanding can lead to improved communication and greater respect for different beliefs, ultimately enabling both science and religion to benefit from each other. Furthermore, collaboration between science and religion can help foster a greater appreciation for the natural world, and can encourage individuals to seek out knowledge and understanding in order to create a better world for all.

Ultimately, collaboration between science and religion has the potential to open new avenues of exploration, and to help build bridges between different beliefs, all working towards a common goal.

Bottom Line

In conclusion, while science and religion have often been seen as diametrically opposed ways of understanding the world, they can in fact be complementary and mutually beneficial to each other. The relationship between science and religion is a complex one, and there is no single, definitive answer to how they should interact.

What is important is that both sides show respect and an openness to learn from each other, so that the best of both worlds can be realized.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Writing Universe - logo

  • Environment
  • Information Science
  • Social Issues
  • Argumentative
  • Cause and Effect
  • Classification
  • Compare and Contrast
  • Descriptive
  • Exemplification
  • Informative
  • Controversial
  • Exploratory
  • What Is an Essay
  • Length of an Essay
  • Generate Ideas
  • Types of Essays
  • Structuring an Essay
  • Outline For Essay
  • Essay Introduction
  • Thesis Statement
  • Body of an Essay
  • Writing a Conclusion
  • Essay Writing Tips
  • Drafting an Essay
  • Revision Process
  • Fix a Broken Essay
  • Format of an Essay
  • Essay Examples
  • Essay Checklist
  • Essay Writing Service
  • Pay for Research Paper
  • Write My Research Paper
  • Write My Essay
  • Custom Essay Writing Service
  • Admission Essay Writing Service
  • Pay for Essay
  • Academic Ghostwriting
  • Write My Book Report
  • Case Study Writing Service
  • Dissertation Writing Service
  • Coursework Writing Service
  • Lab Report Writing Service
  • Do My Assignment
  • Buy College Papers
  • Capstone Project Writing Service
  • Buy Research Paper
  • Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

  • Free Essay Samples

The Relationship Between Religion and Science

Updated 24 November 2023

Subject Myself

Downloads 25

Category Life ,  Philosophy ,  Religion

Topic Belief ,  Faith

Debates about Fact and Faith

From the times of Galileo and Humes, there have always been debates concerning fact and faith. Philosophy borrows some of its tenets from science. Some of the philosophers like Galileo believed that religion and science could exist together as all of them were from the same source, God. Thus, by studying both nature and scripture rationally, we would be able to appreciate the different occurrences and contrasting views of science and religion. According to him, science was the key accorded to human beings by God to enable them to understand him better. On the other hand, Hume's refuted different claims advanced by religious scholars on his Treatise and Enquires publications. In this paper just like Thomas Kuhn, we attempt to show that only the scientific method is objective and universal. The contrasting arguments basing on Galileo's and Hume's beliefs are explored in detail.

The Truths of Nature and Scripture

The scripture was written by God, and so was nature created by God. Scientists argue that the truth can only be found in nature whereas religious philosophers say that the truth can only be derived from the scriptures. Both the scripture and nature are traceable to the same source, and thus both are true and equal (none is more significant than the other). Through learning the scripture rationally, we can discover essential truths. Similarly, by studying the nature rationally, we can also find other vital truths. As such since the two sets of truths trace their origin to a similar source, they ought to be compatible. Galileo asserted that God's work (nature and scripture) is miraculous. Miracles form a vital part of the present-day religions. They are used to signify Gods supernatural power and build people's belief in God. To doubt the existence of miracles is just like refuting the existence of God. How then would you explain incidences such as the biblical resurrection story? Arguably daily there arise new occurrences which cannot be defined by human reason and experiences. The pieces of evidence do not conform to the laws of nature (miracles). They are only traceable to an immaterial being with the capability to produce actions which cannot be explained by reason.

The Principle of Causation

The principle of causation argues that whatever exists on earth must have been triggered by another thing. Additionally, it is impossible to find a cause or reason that leads to a perfect or excellent situation that is not possessed by the cause. As such if we are to trace back the causes and effects, should we find an infinite succession of causes and effects, then this infinite succession of causes and effects must have been caused by an ultimate cause. Violation of this argument would necessitate us to explain the reasons why that particular infinite succession originated from eternity and not any other succession. As such the existence of the infinite series of causes and effects is attributable to an intelligent and immaterial being (God). Any violation of the argument leads to a contradiction.

The Human Understanding of God

A man has no affirmative idea of a God with infinite qualities. The imaginations of human beings are finite. It is impossible for any human being to have an image of infinite power on his mind. Equally, it is impractical to conceive a state of infinite time, power, and force. Thus, in this realm, the concept of God is not used for us to conceive him but rather for us to accord him honor. The argument advanced by different religions is that God is incomprehensible and the human mind cannot conceive God's greatness and power. Usually whatever is conceived by human beings must have first been perceived by his senses, either in entirety or parts; and thus, no human being can have an idea or concept that has not been first subjected to sense. It is then apparent that the religion's view of God is analogous to a blind man's concept of fire. A blind man does not demonstrate any positive idea of fire. According to a blind man, fire is anything that warms him. Similarly, religions' attempts to assign infinite qualities to God passes as anthropomorphism. In the events where we find a particular concept to be ambiguous, we always revert to the parts that perceived the idea. If no evidence can be found for the perceived idea, then this means that the idea is insignificant. Therefore, the concept of a God with infinite characters as portrayed by religion only serves to show the limited nature of human understanding.

The Existence of God

The principle of causation used by various religion philosophers' states that nothing can come from nothing. Therefore, the existence of a particular thing, idea or object must have been triggered by another thing. Thus, in this regard whatever exists must have been caused by a particular thing, and therefore when we track back, we find an infinite series of causes and effects which derive their existence from a cause that is necessarily existent. Religions argue that thus the universe must have originated from the necessarily existent being; God. Therefore, supposing the non-existence of God as portrayed by religion is a contradiction. However, it is still possible for human beings to conceive the existence of a specific thing without a primary cause. It is not contradictory denying this argument which shows it is not intuitive. Therefore, having shown the possibility of having something that is conceivable and non-contradictory. Therefore, it is equally possible for the existence of a cause and effect series that came into existence uncreated by a supernatural being and has always existed without any extra cause or reason for its existence. Again, just like as nothing comes from nothing, also anything can cause anything. Our idea of the causes and effects is restricted to our imaginations and experiences. As a result, the argument that the earth in itself could not have caused the existence of present-day features, ideas and consciousness is only restricted to our past experiences and imaginations. As such the argument that there must have existed a supernatural being that is both immaterial and intelligent lacks any basis.

The Imperfect Nature of God

Following on the principle of causation reasoning, religious philosophers argue that a particular thing must have triggered all that exists on the earth, in this case, God. Further, God is ascribed desirable qualities and put forward as the embodiment of perfection. However, perfection is relative. As earlier shown it is impossible for human beings to imagine the qualities of God, assign desirable attributes to God and make analogous comparisons to the perfection of human nature since human's understanding of God is limited. Human's idea cannot exist beyond the individual experiences. It is also clear that humans lack the experience of God's perfect nature and adorability, and thus their concept of a perfect and adorable God is flawed since the nature of God is both incomprehensible and eerie. Further, the argument used by religious philosophers that there exists some form of likeness between the earth and human-made machinery as evidenced by a similar structure, order, and harmony is flawed. Although the argument can be considered to be logically sound because it is based on experience instead of a priori reasoning, its weakness stems from whatever the argument tries to prove. However, we can only infer a similar cause when there exists a close similarity between different cases. In the event you move away from the same case, the evidence likewise diminishes proportionately making the argument susceptible to errors and design. There exists a huge difference between the universe and human-made objects, and therefore it is illogical to infer similar causes based on the reduced similarity between human-made objects and the universe. Again, the perfect nature of the world is usually used to describe the perfect nature of the God. However, based on our experiences we know that the earth is not entirely perfect as it has been shown by its numerous flaws. Hence it can be argued that the imperfect nature of the earth is a reflection of the imperfect nature of God (an apparent contradiction since we earlier showed that human beings could not conceive the nature of God, due to limitations on their understanding of God).

Science vs Religion

We have observed that although both science and religion may try to use philosophy to explain various conflicting concepts, religion is restricted to the use of faith and science is restricted to the use of empirical evidence. In this regard, science seems to have the edge over religion as it is the only one that is based on actual experiences.

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Related Essays

Related topics.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Type your email

By clicking “Submit”, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy policy. Sometimes you will receive account related emails.

Home / Essay Samples / Science / Science Vs. Religion / Relationship Between Science and Religion

Relationship Between Science and Religion

  • Category: Science
  • Topic: Science Vs. Religion

Pages: 7 (3059 words)

  • Downloads: -->

Science and Religion Defined

Co-existence, harmony and conflict, bibliography.

  • Altobello, Robert. Meditation from Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist Perspectives. New York: Peter Lang, 2009.
  • Attridge, Harold W., and Ronald L. Numbers. The Religion and Science Debate: Why Does It Continue? 2009.
  • Ayala, Francisco Jose?. Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press, 2007.
  • Berthold, Fred. God, Evil, and Human Learning A Critique and Revision of the Free Will Defense in Theodicy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2004.
  • Bowler, Peter J. Reconciling Science and Religion The Debate in Early-Twentieth-Century Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Stem Cell Essays

Biodiversity Essays

Photosynthesis Essays

Evolution Essays

Cell Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper. uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->