science vs god essay

• The Big Think Interview
• Your Brain on Money
• Explore the Library
• The Universe. A History.
• The Progress Issue
• A Brief History Of Quantum Mechanics
• 6 Flaws In Our Understanding Of The Universe
• Michio Kaku
• Neil deGrasse Tyson
• Michelle Thaller
• Steven Pinker
• Ray Kurzweil
• Cornel West
• Helen Fisher
• Smart Skills
• High Culture
• The Present
• Hard Science
• Special Issues
• Starts With A Bang
• Everyday Philosophy
• The Learning Curve
• The Long Game
• Perception Box
• Strange Maps
• Free Newsletters
• Memberships

Science vs. God: Understanding reality is not a battle between reason and faith

• Science is more accessible than ever, yet it remains foreign to most people.
• The problem is that many people perceive science as an enterprise devoid of emotion and meaning. Science, in this view, is the enemy of faith.
• When science is seen as an expression of our need to make sense of existence, many more will embrace it.

Sometimes I feel discouraged when I witness the gulf between science and the general public. Sure, millions of people are avid consumers of science books, podcasts, TV shows, and videos, and that is wonderful. When I was growing up in the 1970s, it was much harder to access science. There were magazines like Scientific American and Popular Mechanics . There was the occasional documentary series — think Jacob Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man and Carl Sagan’s Cosmos . But the general public certainly has more accessibility to scientific content now. 

Despite this, little has changed. The people most interested in science are those who understand its relevance to their lives and who are legitimately curious about the workings of Nature. But the vast majority remains uninterested. Most people are dismissive of what science does and how scientists work. 

To these outsiders, science is a black box. They see scientists as weird, cold rationalists , devoid of any hint of spirituality — as people who care only about their own research and their grants. Sure, some admire what scientists produce, from the cures they find for diseases to the rovers they send to Mars. Science does have a massive “wow” factor. But these remarkable feats of human creativity and skill are seen from a distance that no one has felt compelled to shorten.

A moment of understanding

I will give an example of how I came to realize this problem in my own life. About twenty years ago, I did a live interview for a radio station in Brasília, the capital of Brazil. The interview took place during rush hour at the city’s busy bus terminal. The depot was crowded with workers from rural areas who came to the city to work all sorts of jobs, from cleaning the streets to working in factories and private homes. 

This interview made me rethink my understanding of how to bring science to the largest number of people. It impacted me for the rest of my life. It made me realize that making science relevant to a wider audience requires an emotional, not just a rational, appeal. 

When science speaks to people’s hearts, it makes a much deeper impact than any list of discoveries and clever accomplishments. The “wow” factor from achievements is ephemeral. The one that sticks is the one that shakes you inside.

The interviewer asked me questions about science’s take on the apocalypse. It was inspired by a book I had just published, The Prophet and the Astronomer: Apocalyptic Science and the End of the World . The book focuses on cataclysmic celestial events and how they have inspired religious narratives as well as scientific research. By cataclysmic, I mean asteroid or comet collisions, like the one that accelerated the extinction of dinosaurs; stars exploding and collapsing into neutron stars and black holes; or the fate of the Universe as a whole, either expanding forever, or shrinking back into a singularity.

A practice ancient and modern

I started the book arguing that images of celestial chaos stand out in many religious texts. Witness the many instances that stars, or fire and brimstone, fall from the sky in the Bible. Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, and the Apocalypse of John in the New, are but a couple examples. Remember also how the Celts believed that the skies would fall on their heads to mark the end of a time cycle. Signs of celestial chaos were obviously extremely scary, and they were frequently interpreted as messages of impending doom. In the late 17th century, scientists such as Edmond Halley and Isaac Newton used their science to try to make sense of such events. 

The practice has continued. It is common to hear of new possibilities of impending doom coming from the skies — or, even worse, cataclysms of man’s own making. Now, we call them “ existential risks .” Many books have been written on doomsday science since I published mine, including Martin Rees’s Our Final Hour , and, more recently, Katie Mack’s The End of Everything: (Astrophysically Speaking) and Brian Greene’s Until the End of Time .

Back to the interview in Brasília.

I mentioned how 65 million years ago, the collision of an asteroid six miles wide into Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula triggered the extinction of the dinosaurs. I made a point of explaining how that event changed the history of life on Earth, freeing small mammals from predator pressure while resetting the planet’s evolutionary drive — a long story that finally brought humans into the game some 200,000 years ago. My point was that no divine intervention was needed to explain these episodes in our planetary history. The processes are natural, not supernatural.

It was then that a hand went up from a small man with torn clothes and grease stains on his face: “So the doctor wants to take even God away from us?”

I froze. The despair in that man’s voice was apparent. He felt betrayed, as if the ground had just been taken from beneath his feet. His faith was the one thing he held on to, the one thing that gave him strength to come back to that bus station every day to work for a humiliatingly low wage. If I took God away from his world and offered instead the rational argumentation of science, with its methodology of empirical validation, what would that even mean to him? How would it help him go forward with his life? How could science teach him to cope with life in a world without the magic and comfort of supernatural belief?

Exploring the mystery

I realized then how far we scientists are from the needs of most people; how far removed our discourse is from those who do not already look to science for answers, as most of you reading this essay do. I realized that to reach a larger audience — to bring the wonders of science to a much larger slice of the population — we must start from the youngest age with an outstanding science education, one filled with wonder and discovery. 

We must inspire a sense of awe about the natural world, showing how our science illuminates our search for meaning. We must teach that science has a spiritual dimension — not in the sense of supernaturalism, but in the way it connects us to something bigger than we are. The bridge is our need to connect with the mystery of who we are. Faith and science both address this need, albeit from different perspectives. 

I also realized how completely futile it was to stand up there and proudly proclaim how much scientists have discovered about the world. I saw how useless such claims are to someone whose faith is the main tool for coping with life’s challenges. Why should that man believe me when I say that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old? From his perspective, it was my words against the Bible.

If we really are going to make scientific education not just informative but transformative, we have an enormous task ahead of us.

It’s not Science vs. God

I answered the man, in a shaky voice, that science does not want to take God away from people, even if some scientists do. I told him that science explains how the world works, revealing the wonders of the Universe big and small, for all to share and appreciate. I went on to explain that scientific research is a passionate enterprise, one that brings us closer to Nature, to the mysteries we still face as we try to understand more of the Universe and our place in it. The man smiled. He did not say anything, but I knew that he identified in the scientific drive for understanding the same passion that drove him toward his faith. He understood that there is room in our lives for both science and faith, if that is the choice we make. Science does not have an interest in taking faith away from people. We should not confuse what science is with what some scientists do. There are many ways of knowing, and they all have a place in our lives.

I left the interview and went for a long walk around a lake. I thought of Einstein and his belief that scientific enterprise is the only true religion. He meant it in a deeply spiritual way, seeing science as an act of devotion. Scientists should engage with the mystery of existence, inspired by a deep sense of awe and filled with humility. If science is seen this way, many more will be ready to embrace it as one of the highest expressions of the human spirit.

• 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

Bibliography

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 = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/religion-science/ >. [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

Acknowledgments

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

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

On the Intersection of Science and Religion

Over the centuries, the relationship between science and religion has ranged from conflict and hostility to harmony and collaboration, while various thinkers have argued that the two concepts are inherently at odds and entirely separate .

But much recent research and discussion on these issues has taken place in a Western context, primarily through a Christian lens. To better understand the ways in which science relates to religion around the world, Pew Research Center engaged a small group of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists to talk about their perspectives. These one-on-one, in-depth interviews took place in Malaysia and Singapore – two Southeast Asian nations that have made sizable investments in scientific research and development in recent years and that are home to religiously diverse populations.

The discussions reinforced the conclusion that there is no single, universally held view of the relationship between science and religion, but they also identified some common patterns and themes within each of the three religious groups. For example, many Muslims expressed the view that Islam and science are basically compatible, while, at the same time, acknowledging some areas of friction – such as the theory of evolution conflicting with religious beliefs about the origins and development of human life on Earth. Evolution also has been a point of discord between religion and science in the West .

Hindu interviewees generally took a different tack, describing science and religion as overlapping spheres. As was the case with Muslim interviewees, many Hindus maintained that their religion contains elements of science, and that Hinduism long ago identified concepts that were later illuminated by science – mentioning, for example, the antimicrobial properties of copper or the health benefits of turmeric. In contrast with Muslims, many Hindus said the theory of evolution is encompassed in their religious teachings.

Buddhist interviewees generally described religion and science as two separate and unrelated spheres. Several of the Buddhists talked about their religion as offering guidance on how to live a moral life, while describing science as observable phenomena. Often, they could not name any areas of scientific research that concerned them for religious reasons. Nor did Buddhist interviewees see the theory of evolution as a point of conflict with their religion. Some said they didn’t think their religion addressed the origins of life on Earth.

Some members of all three religious groups, however, did express religious concerns when asked to consider specific kinds of biotechnology research, such as gene editing to change a baby’s genetic characteristics and efforts to clone animals. For example, Muslim interviewees said cloning would tamper with the power of God, and God should be the only one to create living things. When Hindus and Buddhists discussed gene editing and cloning, some, though not all, voiced concern that these scientific developments might interfere with karma or reincarnation.

But religion was not always the foremost topic that came to mind when people thought about science. In response to questions about government investment in scientific research, interviewees generally spoke of the role of scientific achievements in national prestige and economic development; religious differences faded into the background.

These are some of the key findings from a qualitative analysis of 72 individual interviews with Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists conducted in Malaysia and Singapore between June 17 and Aug. 8, 2019.

The study included 24 people in each of three religious groups (Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists), with an equal number in each country. All interviewees said their religion was “very” or “somewhat” important to their lives, but they otherwise varied in terms of age, gender, profession and education level.

A majority of Malaysians are Muslim, and the country has experienced natural migration patterns over the years. As a result, Buddhist interviewees in Malaysia were typically of Chinese descent, Hindus were of Indian descent and Muslim interviewees were Malay. Singapore is known for its religious diversity; a 2014 Pew Research Center analysis found the city-state to have the highest level of religious diversity in the world.

Insights from these qualitative interviews are inherently limited in that they are based on small convenience samples of individuals and are not representative of religious groups either in their country or globally. Instead, in-depth interviews provide insight into how individuals describe their beliefs, in their own words, and the connections they see (or don’t see) with science. To help guard against putting too much weight on any single individual’s comments, all interviews were coded into themes, following a systematic procedure. Where possible throughout the rest of this report, these findings are shown in comparison with quantitative surveys conducted with representative samples of adults in global publics to help address questions about the extent to which certain viewpoints are widely held among members of each religious group. This also shows how Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists as well as Christians around the world compare with each other.

The goal of this project was to better understand how people think about science in connection with their religious beliefs. Past research on this topic has often focused on the views of Christians living in the U.S. or other economically advanced nations. This study sought to fill that gap by talking, one-on-one, with Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists living in two growing economies in Southeast Asia: Malaysia and Singapore. Pew Research Center conducted qualitative interviews with 72 people, including 24 in each of the three religious groups (12 in each country).

To be eligible for the study, interviewees had to identify their religious affiliation as Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, and describe religion as either “very” or “somewhat” important in their lives. They varied in other demographic characteristics, including age, gender, ethnicity, profession, employment status and educational attainment.

Interviews were conducted by Ipsos Qualitative with a local, professional interviewer, using a guide developed by Pew Research Center. Interviews lasted about one hour and were conducted in English in Singapore, and in English or Malay in Malaysia. The Singaporean interviews were conducted June 17 to July 26, 2019, and the Malaysian interviews were done July 31 to Aug. 8, 2019.

Center researchers listened to audio recordings of the interviews and systematically coded transcripts for thematic responses, using qualitative data analysis software. Themes were revised and integrated throughout the coding process, until researchers agreed upon a consistent set of categories. The qualitative interviews are based on small, convenience samples of individuals and are not representative of religious groups in either country. Whenever possible, these findings are shown in comparison with quantitative data from global surveys using representative samples of adults who identify as Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christian. You can find the interview guide  here .

Interviewees paint three distinct portraits of the science-religion relationship

One of the most striking takeaways from interviews conducted with Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists stems from the different ways that people in each group described their perspectives on the relationship between science and religion. The Muslims interviewed tended to speak of an overlap between their religion and science, and some raised areas of tension between the two. Hindu interviewees, by and large, described science and religion as overlapping but compatible spheres. By contrast, Buddhist interviewees described science and religion as parallel concepts, with no particular touchpoints between the two.

A similar pattern emerged when interviewees were asked about possible topics that should be off limits to scientific research for religious reasons. Many Muslim interviewees readily named research areas that concerned them, such as studies using non-halal substances or some applications of assisted reproductive technology (for example, in vitro fertilization using genetic material from someone other than a married couple). By contrast, the Hindus and Buddhists in the study did not regularly name any research topics that they felt should be off limits to scientists.

Muslim interviewees say science and religion are related, but they vary in how they see the nature of that relationship

On the relationship between science and islam.

“I don’t see any conflicts [between science and religion]. From what I know in the Quran, they say that there is science in Islam. They talk about the sun, the moon, the stars. They talk about how the water can go up to the sky and become the clouds. When it’s heavy, it goes down to the Earth where it’s taken by the plants when it evaporates up again. It’s part of science.” – Muslim man, age 35, Singapore

“I know that sometimes science and religion don’t tally. … As a person of religion, we tend to believe what our book says. Yeah, I believe what the Quran says, [rather] than scientific proof.” – Muslim woman, age 40, Singapore

Muslims frequently described science and their religion as related, rather than separate, concepts. They often said that their holy text, the Quran, contains many elements of science. The Muslims interviewed also said that Islam and science are often trying to describe similar things. “The research in science are related to the Quran. There are similarities between religion and what is explained by science,” said one Muslim woman (age 25, Malaysia).

The Muslims interviewed offered a wide variety of opinions about the nature of the relationship between science and religion, and whether the two are harmonious or conflicting. Some described science and Islam as compatible overall. For example, one Muslim man said that both science and his religion explain the same things, just from different perspectives: “I think there is not any conflict between them. … In my opinion, I still believe that it happens because of God, just that the science will help to explain the details about why it is happening” (age 24, Malaysia). Others qualified their statement by saying that science is compatible with religion, but the actions of individual scientists can be problematic. “Actually, science and religion don’t conflict with each other – it’s humans’ opinions that conflict,” said one interviewee (Muslim man, age 36, Malaysia).

“I think there is not any conflict between them. … In my opinion, I still believe that it happens because of God, just that the science will help to explain the details about why it is happening.” – Muslim man, 24, Malaysia

Still others described the relationship as conflictual. “I feel like, sometimes, or most of the time, they are against each other. … Science is about experimenting, researching, finding new things, or exploring different possibilities. But then, religion is very fixed, to me,” said one Muslim woman (age 20, Singapore). Another interviewee said scientists typically do not consider the views of religious people when conducting their research. “Scientists, whatever they do, they don’t ask for opinions from people well-versed in religious matters,” said another Muslim woman (age 39, Malaysia).

When asked, many of the Muslims interviewed identified specific areas of scientific research that bothered them on religious grounds. Some of the areas mentioned by multiple interviewees included research that uses non-halal substances (such as marijuana, alcohol or pigs), some pregnancy technologies that they considered unnatural (for example, “test tube babies” or procedures that use genetic material not taken from a husband and wife) or cloning.

Representative surveys of Muslims in countries around the world find variation in the share of Muslims who see any conflict between science and religion, although this share is less than half in most countries surveyed. The 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor asked respondents if “science has ever disagreed with the teachings of your religion.” Across 51 countries that have large enough samples of Muslims that their views can be broken out separately and analyzed, a common response is that science has “never disagreed” with Islamic religious teachings. 1

Muslims vary in their views about the conflict between science and the teachings of their religion

Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2011 and 2012 that examined the views of Muslims found that, in most regions, half or more said there was no conflict between religion and science, including 54% in Malaysia (Muslims in Singapore were not surveyed). Three-in-ten Malaysian Muslims said there is a conflict between science and religion; the share of Muslims around the world who took this position ranged from a high of 57% in Albania to a low of 14% in the Palestinian territories.

Hindu interviewees generally see science and religion as compatibly overlapping spheres

The predominant view among Hindus interviewed in Malaysia and Singapore is that science and Hinduism are related and compatible. Many of the Hindu interviewees offered – without prompting– the assertion that their religion contains many ancient insights that have been upheld by modern science. For instance, multiple interviewees described the use of turmeric in cleansing solutions, or the use of copper in drinking mugs. They said Hindus have known for thousands of years that these materials provide health benefits, but that scientists have only confirmed relatively recently that it’s because turmeric and copper have antimicrobial properties. “When you question certain rituals or rites in Hinduism, there’s also a relatively scientific explanation to it,” said a Hindu woman (age 29, Singapore).

On the relationship between science and Hinduism

“I believe that whatever science says, the purpose has already been told in my religion. For example, it is said that drinking water from a copper container is very good. This has been proven by the ancestors many years ago. But now only these scientific people come out and say that it is good to use it.” – Hindu woman, age 29, Malaysia

“No, feel free to go ahead and [research] everything. Why would you need to restrict yourself from information or knowledge? Because Hinduism is based on knowledge. It’s called ‘Nyaya.’ That’s ‘knowledge,’ literally translated.” – Hindu man, age 38, Singapore

While many of the Hindu interviewees said science and religion overlap, others described the two as separate realms. “Religion doesn’t really govern science, and it shouldn’t. Science should just be science. … Today, the researchers, even if they are religious, the research is your duty. The duty and religion are different,” said one Hindu man (age 42, Singapore).

Asked to think about areas of scientific research that might raise concerns or that should not be pursued for religious reasons, Hindu interviewees generally came up blank, saying they couldn’t think of any such areas. A few mentioned areas of research that concerned them, but no topic area came up consistently.

The sense that Hindus generally see little conflict with science aligns with survey findings to date. In three of the four countries in the 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor with large enough samples of Hindus for analysis, majorities said that science had “never disagreed” with the teachings of their religion, including two-thirds of Hindus in India – which is home to the vast majority of the world’s Hindus. In Singapore, however, Hindus expressed more ambivalence: About half (48%) said science has not disagreed with the teachings of Hinduism, while nearly four-in-ten (38%) said that it has. 2

Buddhist interviewees see science and religion as operating in parallel domains

Buddhist interviewees described science and religion in distinctly different ways than either Muslims or Hindus. For the most part, Buddhists said that science and religion are two unrelated domains. Some have long held that Buddhism and its practice are aligned with the empirically driven observations in the scientific method ; connections between Buddhism and science have been bolstered by neuroscience research into the effects of Buddhist meditation at the core of the mindfulness movement.

On the relationship between science and Buddhism

“Science is something more modern, but Buddhism is something like a mindset. And science is more practical, but Buddhism is theoretical. It is not conflicting.” – Buddhist man, age 40, Malaysia

“I would say that the two [science and religion] are running parallel. It’s difficult to merge the two.” – Buddhist man, age 64, Singapore

One Buddhist woman (age 39, Malaysia) said science is something that relates to “facts and figures,” while religion helps her live a good and moral life. Another Singaporean Buddhist woman (age 26) explained that, “Science to me is statistics, numbers, texts – something you can see, you can touch, you can hear. Religion is more of something you cannot see, you cannot touch, you cannot hear. I feel like they are different faculties.”

To many of the Buddhist interviewees, science and religion cannot be in conflict, because they are different or parallel realms. Therefore, the Malaysian and Singaporean Buddhists largely described the relationship between science and religion as one of compatibility.

Indeed, even when prompted to think about potential areas of scientific research that raised concerns for religious reasons, relatively few of the Buddhists mentioned any. Among those who did cite a concern, a common response involved animal testing. Buddhist interviewees talked about the importance of not killing living things in the practice of their religion, so some felt that research that causes harm or death to animals is worrisome.

The tenor of these comments is consistent with survey findings from the 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor. Majorities of Buddhists in all 10 countries with large enough samples for analysis said that science has “never disagreed” with the teachings of their religion. 3 This includes 59% of Buddhists in Singapore. (In Malaysia, 55% of Buddhists said the same. However, these results should be interpreted with extra caution because there were just 129 Malaysian Buddhists in the survey sample.) Far smaller shares of Buddhists in these countries see a conflict between science and their religion’s teachings.

Surveys among Christians find wide variation in perceptions of conflict between religion and science though more see at least some conflict than do not

For comparison, representative surveys of Christians around the world also find widely ranging views about whether religion and science have ever disagreed or are generally in conflict. The 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor survey finds wide variation in Christians’ views on this issue. 4 The U.S. stands out, along with several southern European nations, for its relatively high share of Christians reporting that science has disagreed with the teachings of their religion (61%). By contrast, 22% in Singapore, 18% in Sweden and 12% in the Czech Republic say the same.

Christians worldwide vary in whether they see disagreement between science and their religion’s teachings

Pew Research Center surveys asked a similar question in Central and Eastern Europe as well as in Latin America . Christians in these regions tilt toward saying that “there is generally a conflict between science and religion.” A median of 49% of Christians in Central and Eastern Europe say there is generally a conflict, and a median of 39% say there is not. The median view on this question in Latin American was similar (50% to 40%).

Views of conflict between science and religion by Christians in Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America

In a U.S.-based Pew Research Center survey , a majority of Christians (55%) said that science and religion are “often in conflict” when thinking in general terms about religion. When thinking about their own religious beliefs, however, fewer Christians (35%) said their personal religious beliefs sometimes conflict with science; a majority of U.S. Christians (63%) said the two do not conflict.

Such findings broadly align with Elaine Howard Ecklund and Christopher P. Scheitle’s analysis in “Religion vs. Science: What Religious People Really Think,” which finds that many U.S. Christians see little conflict between science and their faith.

This survey also provides a window into the kinds of things that Christians see as a conflict between science and religion. In an open-ended question included on the Center’s survey, respondents who said science conflicted with their personal religious beliefs were asked to identify up to three areas of conflict. Christians most commonly mentioned the creation of the universe, including evolution and the “Big Bang” (cited by 38% of U.S. Christians who saw a conflict between science and their religious beliefs). Respondents also mentioned broad tensions including the idea that man (rather than God) is “in charge,” beliefs in miracles, or a belief in the events of the Bible (26%). Others cited conflict over the beginning of life, abortion, and scientific technologies involving human embryos (12%) or other medical practices (7%).

Evolution is a more frequent point of conflict for those in Abrahamic faiths such as Islam and Christianity

Evolution raised areas of disagreement for many Muslim interviewees, who often said the theory of evolution is incompatible with the Islamic tenet that humans were created by Allah. Evolution is also a common, though by no means universal, friction point for Christians. By contrast, neither Buddhist interviewees, followers of a religion with no creator figure, nor Hindu interviewees, followers of a polytheistic faith, described discord with evolution either in their personal beliefs or in their views of how evolution comports with their religion.

Some Muslims interviewees see origination of humans from the prophet Nabi Adam as at odds with evolution

When asked about the theory of evolution, Muslim interviewees generally talked about conflict between the theory of evolution and their religious beliefs about the origins of human life – specifically, the belief that God created humans in their present form, and that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve. “This is one of the conflicts between religion and Western theory. Based on Western theory, they said we came from monkeys. For me, if we evolved from monkeys, where could we get the stories of [the prophet] Nabi? Was Nabi Muhammad like a monkey in the past? For me, he was human. Allah had created perfect humans, not from monkey to human,” said one Muslim man (age 21, Malaysia).

Islamic views on evolution

“Nonsense. I believe that Nabi Adam is the first human in the world. Before Nabi Adam was created, other living things such as dinosaurs and so on were also created. The theory of human evolution from apes to human is very different from the teaching in Islam.” – Muslim man, age 24, Malaysia

“That theory to me is absurd. People might be saying that during time of Mesopotamia, the people there hunch and bow, with appearance looking like an ape. Maybe that is why one says we come from apes. But, for me, I believe that we come from Adam and Adam came from heaven.” – Muslim woman, age 36, Malaysia

“Our ancestors are not monkeys. Maybe there’s similarity in the DNA, but in Islam the first human is Adam. He’s not a monkey.” – Muslim man, age 35, Singapore

Others emphasized that evolution is only a theory and has not been proven true. “It’s just a theory, because there is no specific evidence or justification. … Just because the DNA [of humans and primates] has a difference of a few percent, that doesn’t mean we are similar,” said a 29-year-old Singaporean Muslim man. Still others said that Charles Darwin developed this theory in order to get famous and did not put adequate thought or research into his theory.

However, a handful of Muslims said they personally believed that humans were descended from primates via the evolutionary process, even though they believed that this deviated from Islamic teaching. “Monkeys can crawl. After that, stand, stand, stand, then become human, right? Yes, I think so. I think, yeah, that one I believe. … [But] religion says all humans in the world come from God. A bit of conflict,” said a 44-year-old Muslim woman from Singapore. Another Muslim woman (age 39, Singapore) said she was open to the concept of evolution, even though her religion tells a different story. “According to religion, we don’t originate from monkeys. But being that we may be related, the possibility is there,” she said.

A Pew Research Center survey of Muslims worldwide conducted in 2011 and 2012 found a 22-public median of 53% said they believed humans and other living things evolved over time. However, levels of acceptance of evolution varied by region and country, with Muslims in South and Southeast Asian countries reporting lower levels of belief in evolution by this measure than Muslims in other regions. In Malaysia, for instance, 37% of Muslim adults said they believed humans and other living things evolved over time.

In the U.S. context, a 2011 Pew Research Center survey found that views of evolution among American Muslims were roughly split: 45% said they believed humans and other living things have evolved over time, while 44% said they have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

Hindu and Buddhist interviewees emphasize the absence of conflict with the theory of evolution

Evolution posed no conflict to the Hindus interviewed. In keeping with thematic comments that Hinduism contains elements of science, many interviewees said the concept of evolution was encompassed in their religious teachings. “In Hinduism we have something like this as well, that tells us we originated from different species, which is why we also believe in reincarnation, and how certain deities take different forms. This is why certain animals are seen as sacred animals, because it’s one of the forms that this particular deity had taken,” said a 29-year-old Hindu woman in Singapore. When asked about the origins of human life, many Hindu interviewees just quickly replied that humans came from primates.

The Buddhists interviewed also tended to say there was no conflict between their religion and evolution, and that they personally believed in the theory. Some added that they didn’t think their religion addressed humans’ origins at all. “I don’t think Buddhism has any theory on the first human being or anything. For Buddhism, we don’t really have a strong sense of how the first human came along,” said a Buddhist man in Singapore (age 22).

Hindu views on evolution

“I don’t think evolution has anything to do with religion, nothing to do with Hinduism. That was just adaptation. For example, apes to men. It was just adaptation that people eventually changed over time.” – Hindu man, age 26, Singapore

“The concept (of evolution) is the same. The Hindus say it in a different way, and modern science says it in a scientific way.” – Hindu woman, age 27, Malaysia

Buddhist views on evolution

“[Buddhism says] we are all made out of the atoms and molecules, not that we are created by God. Like Christians believe that we are created by God, but no, I as a practicing Buddhist do not believe in that.” – Buddhist woman, age 60, Malaysia

There is limited global survey data on this issue. However, Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study found that 86% of Buddhists and 80% of Hindus in the U.S. said that humans and other living things have evolved over time, with majorities also saying this was due to natural processes.

Surveys of Christians globally find that majorities in most publics surveyed accept the idea that humans and other living things have evolved over time

Pew Research Center surveys conducted in Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America find that a majority of Christians in most countries in these regions say humans and other living things have evolved over time. An 18-country median of 61% of Christians say this in Central and Eastern Europe, while a median of 30% say instead that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. The median views on this issue are similar in Latin America (59% and 35%, respectively).

Evolution beliefs by Christians in Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America

Views of American Christians are about the same as those global medians: 58% in a 2018 Pew Research Center survey said that humans and other living things have evolved over time, while 42% said they have always existed in their current form.

People’s responses to questions about evolution can vary depending on how the question is asked , however. Specifically, a 2018 Pew Research Center survey focusing on beliefs about the origins of humans found more white evangelical Protestants, Black Protestants and Catholics expressed a belief in evolution when given the option to say that humans evolved with guidance from God or a higher power .

Such differences in how Christians see the issue of evolution are broadly consistent with an analysis by Fern Elsdon-Baker and her research completed with colleagues in the UK and Canada, which suggest that people’s views on evolution can be nuanced, depending on the exact questions asked.

Interviewees across Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist groups cite tension with research that “goes against nature” or involves harm to animals

Two areas of potential conflict with science cut across religious groups. Interviewees from all three groups raised concerns about scientific research that interferes with nature in some way or that causes harm to animals.

Views on animal welfare and scientific research

“When we do scientific research, we just have to ensure we did not endanger other living things, including animals and humans. We don’t bring harm to any of the people, that is the basic moral value.” – Hindu man, age 22, Malaysia

“In Islam, for example, you shouldn’t subject any human or animals to cruelty. So, I believe if you want to do any testing on rats, you need to ask yourself: “Will the rats suffer?’” – Muslim man, age 59, Singapore

In discussing scientific research using gene editing, cloning and reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist interviewees raised the idea that such practices may go against the natural order or interfere with nature. As one Buddhist man simply put it: “If you have anything that interferes with the law of nature, you will have conflict. If you leave nature alone, you will have no conflict” (age 64, Singapore). Similarly, a Muslim woman said “anything that disrupts or changes the natural state” goes against religious beliefs (age 20, Singapore).

When probed about potential areas of scientific research that should be “off limits” from a religious perspective, individuals from all three religious groups talked about the need to consider animal welfare (and sometimes human welfare) in scientific research. This idea occasionally came up when interviewees were asked for their thoughts about cloning and gene editing; others mentioned animal welfare concerns at other points of the interview, along with the need for ethical treatment of living things in general. Buddhists and Hindus in particular emphasized the need to “do no harm” when probed about characteristics that make someone a good follower of their religions.

A few interviewees thought one other topic should be off limits to scientific exploration: research aimed at core beliefs such as the existence of God, the heavens or holy scripture.

Touchpoints between religion and biotechnology research areas

Interviewees were asked to talk about their awareness of and views about each of three specific research areas in biotechnology – new technologies to help women get pregnant, gene editing for babies, and animal cloning. People had generally positive views of pregnancy technology such as in vitro fertilization, although Muslim interviewees pointed out potential objections depending on how these techniques are used. Views of gene editing and cloning were more wide-ranging, with no particular patterns associated with the religious affiliation of the interviewees.

Individuals from all three religions generally approved of pregnancy technology and in vitro fertilization

The first scientific development raised for discussion involved technologies to help women get pregnant. Interviewees often volunteered that they were familiar with in vitro fertilization, commonly referred to as IVF, which is an assisted reproductive technology. Individuals who expressed positive views about IVF mentioned things pertaining to the help it brings to people trying to conceive in modern times. Some even surmised that IVF itself or the knowledge to develop it was a gift from God.

Buddhists and Hindus on IVF

“I don’t think my religion would have any comments on [IVF and surrogacy]. I think Christians would have more comments on it. Like the very staunch Christians, they think that they can’t do this and that. They are very specific.” – Buddhist woman, age 26, Singapore

“It’s a good thing. Some couples don’t have the chance to get babies. With these technologies, people are finding happiness.” – Hindu man, age 24, Malaysia

Muslims accept pregnancy technologies, with conditions

“You cannot use another person to carry your baby, but people want their own flesh-and-blood baby. So, [IVF] is a really good opportunity. Because otherwise people usually just adopt, and it’s not their flesh and blood. They don’t want that.” – Muslim woman, age 24, Singapore

“In my opinion, IVF does not have any conflict with the religion because it helps to continue the descendants and it involves the correct and qualified person. … The man should be the person who is qualified and marry the woman, and the wife should be the person who is qualified to receive the fetus from the man.” – Muslim man, age 24, Malaysia

“For that particular woman to perform this scientific procedure, the company that executes this procedure must make sure that the woman has a certificate of marriage, meaning legitimately married. I think it is that simple. If she is not married, but she wants (to perform this procedure), I don’t think the company should do it. It is immoral.” – Muslim man, age 36, Malaysia

Even among supporters of these technologies, one common sentiment was that people were either unsure of where their religion stood on this issue or thought that other people – those who were older, more conservative or more religious – might be against it. “I think the old-timers are having a bit of a difficult time with being OK with [IVF]. The young generation, my generation, and the ones younger are OK with this,” said one Hindu man (age 26, Singapore).

Some Hindus and Buddhists noted that they were comfortable with pregnancy technologies themselves, but said that there is pushback from other religions, particularly Islam and Christianity. For instance, when asked about IVF, one Buddhist man said, “Oh, wow, that’s a very good question. Controversy, right? I heard about such before, I think, especially coming from Christianity. But, my personal take, I feel it is fine. It’s still trying to get the balance of being a believer of a religion vs. overly superstitious or believing too much in that religion that you forgo the reality of life going on” (Singapore, age 37). Another noted that Buddhism and Hinduism don’t have the same staunch views on IVF as Muslims. “In Buddhism, we don’t have this type of restriction. It’s totally different from other [religions], if I’m not wrong. If you talk about Muslims, there is. If you talk about Hindus, I think also they don’t,” he said (age 43, Singapore).

Muslim interviewees tended to accept technologies to facilitate pregnancy. However, some Muslims emphasized that they would only be OK with these technologies if certain criteria were met – specifically, if the technologies were used by married couples, and with the couples’ own genetic material. “IVF is fine with me because it uses the couple’s egg and sperm and the mother’s body. You need help inseminating the egg, that’s all,” said one Muslim man (age 59, Singapore). Some Muslims also expressed concern about surrogacy in particular; they said Islam prohibits bringing outside parties into a marriage, and that surrogacy is effectively having a third person enter the marriage. A few other Muslims in the study mentioned the need to consult edicts or talk with leaders in the religious community before they would be able to be fully supportive, a common practice for many controversial issues in Islam.

Opinions varied widely on gene editing and animal cloning

Interviewees, regardless of their religion, said the idea of curing a baby of disease before birth or preventing a disease that a child could develop later in life would be a helpful, acceptable use of gene editing. But they often viewed gene editing for cosmetic reasons much more negatively.

Views on gene editing vary depending on how it is used

“I think science and technology aims to help the people. If you modify the baby, it is not good for them. The baby might also not want what the parents edited. In terms of the treatment of diseases, I think is good, as you can cure the baby.” – Buddhist man, age 23, Malaysia

“I like one half of it, the other half I don’t like. The half that I like was eliminating the diseases. The part where you can make the eye color and all that? I wouldn’t say I’m against it, but I’m definitely not up for it.” – Hindu woman, age 40, Singapore

Muslims’ concerns with “playing God”

“Cloning, to put it simply, you’re delving into an area where you’re playing God. It is concerning because if it’s taken as something that’s normal, it means that humans can do things that previously no one could do. That means we could create ourselves. That goes against the beliefs that I have, because as a Muslim, while we have the ability to do certain things, it does not mean that we should do those things.” – Muslim man, age 29, Singapore

Several interviewees brought up the idea of not agreeing with gene editing out of fear that people might want to Westernize their children. For example, some repeated the concern that gene editing would be used to create babies with blond hair and blue eyes. “In terms of the diseases, I think it is acceptable. If they want to change the hair or eyes color? We are not European people,” said one Muslim woman (age 47, Malaysia).

Views of cloning were similarly conditional. Individuals from all three religions remarked on their disapproval of cloning for humans. But interviewees generally found animal cloning to be a much more acceptable practice. Many people interviewed envisioned useful outcomes for society from animal cloning, such as providing meat to feed more people, or to help preserve nearly extinct animals. For example, a Hindu woman said, cloning “is a good idea because some of the animals, like tigers, are on the brink of extinction, so I think it is good to clone before they are extinct” (age 27, Malaysia).

Many of the issues raised about gene editing and cloning mirrored each other. Some of the concerns were based on religious traditions and values. For example, primarily Muslim interviewees mentioned that cloning could interfere with the power of God, who should be the only one who can create.

To the extent Hindus and Buddhists in the study expressed religious concerns pertaining to gene editing and cloning, they generally brought up the idea that these scientific methods might interfere with karma or reincarnation. (Some interviewees also mentioned the potential of IVF to interfere with karma, but they were generally less concerned about this.) One Buddhist woman, talking about gene editing, said: “Sometimes the person is born with sufferings, and it is because maybe previously he had been doing some evil things” (age 45, Singapore). When asked about cloning, a Hindu man expressed similar views. “For Hinduism, we believe that how we look like, how we are, our hands and our legs, it’s because of our past life. So, for example, they will always say that if I am handsome and I’m smart, it’s because in my past life I actually was a nicer person to people. Because of karma, because of reincarnation, I was born back into the better person” (Hindu man, age 25, Singapore).

Pew Research Center surveys in the U.S. survey find a strong relationship between levels of religious commitment and views on biotechnology developments, including gene editing. In a 2018 survey , majorities of U.S. Christians, including white evangelicals and other Protestants as well as Catholics, said if the development of gene editing for babies entailed embryonic testing, it would be taking the technology too far. A common finding in Center surveys of Americans on emerging biotechnology issues such as gene editing for babies and animal genetic engineering is that public opinion depends on the use and effects of emergent technologies for society. 5

Religious differences fade as interviewees think about the value of government investments in scientific research

Not all aspects of science are seen through a religious lens. Regardless of their religion, the people we spoke with overwhelmingly described investment in scientific research, including medicine, engineering and technology, as worthwhile. Malaysians and Singaporeans alike broadly shared this feeling.

Support for investment in scientific research

“I think it is very, very worth investing because the research is not just gathering information and data, but indirectly it creates job opportunities for the future. These would be very useful for the future and it can directly help a country to develop.” – Muslim man, age 33, Malaysia

“For me, engineering and technology investment is worthwhile because we want to be comparable to other advanced countries.” – Muslim man, age 21, Malaysia

“It’s never enough [investment], because the more we do, the better results we’ll get. … Maybe one day there would be a cure for cancer in a very easy way. Maybe they will be able to detect mental illnesses through scans. If that is possible through research, it will be a breakthrough for a lot of people.” – Hindu man, age 38, Singapore

On scientific research and national prestige

“If we do something that no other countries have been doing, we can make good money out of it and we can be a pioneer in that field. A lot of Malaysians have been contributing their ideas to other countries, but not to their own country. … So why not we do it for our own country, and get a name for Malaysia, and get famous.” – Hindu woman, age 29, Malaysia

In both countries, interviewees described government investment in science as a way to encourage economic development while also improving the lives of everyday people. People often were particularly enthusiastic about government investment in medicine and spoke of its potential to improve their country’s medical infrastructure and care for an aging population.

But others expressed some hesitation about government investment because they felt their government wasn’t doing a good job of ensuring that the research produced meaningful results, or because they thought the research didn’t benefit the public directly. “If there’s results, then it will be worthwhile. … I don’t think [there are results] because I’ve never heard anybody say ‘Wow, Singapore has discovered a new drug,’” said one Buddhist woman (Singapore, 26). Some interviewees also said they supported government investment in medical research, but that they thought the private sector could take care of investment in engineering or technology.

Malaysians also mentioned that a sense of national pride or prestige could come from government investment in science and the subsequent achievements. For example, one Buddhist woman (age 29) said research on medicine and technology could help Malaysia “become famous compared with other countries.” A Hindu man, 24, said he hoped the government would increase its spending on engineering and technology, because it would provide more jobs and show that Malaysia is a high-achieving country. He said more investment would “[help] a lot of people to achieve their dreams. You are putting Malaysia in the top table.” Another Malaysian man expressed a similar sentiment, saying: “For me, engineering and technology investment is worthwhile because we want to be comparable to other advanced countries” (Muslim, age 21).

We appreciate the thoughtful comments and guidance from Sharon Suh, Ajay Verghese and Pew Research Center religion experts including Besheer Mohamed, Neha Sahgal and Director of Religion Research Alan Cooperman on an earlier draft of this essay.

We greatly benefited from Mike Lipka’s editorial guidance, graphic design from Bill Webster, and copy editing from Aleksandra Sandstrom.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center

A complex God: why science and religion can  co-exist

Associate Professor of Physics, The University of Melbourne

Disclosure statement

Associate Professor Martin Sevior receives ARC funding to conduct experiments in fundamental particle physics at the KEK National accelerator Laboratory in Japan and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Switzerland. He is also an Elder and the congregation chair of St. Columbas Uniting Church in Balwyn, Victoria. This essay grew out of a series of lectures on the topic of "Intelligent and Intelligible Design" delivered at St. Columbas in 2008 with Professor Emeritus Reverend Harry Wardlaw, also of St. Columbas. Martin gratefully acknowledges many fruitful conversations with Harry.

University of Melbourne provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Science and religion are often cast as opponents in a battle for human hearts and minds.

But far from the silo of strict creationism and the fundamentalist view that evolution simply didn’t happen lies the truth: science and religion are complementary.

God cast us in his own image. We have free will and intelligence. Without science we could only ever operate at the whim of God.

Discussion of the idea that our universe is fundamentally intelligible is even more profound. Through science and the use of mathematical rules, we can and do understand how nature works.

The fact our universe is intelligible has profound implications for humankind and perhaps for the existence of God.

Does science work?

It’s very clear that science “works”. We can explain and predict how nature will behave over an extraordinary range of scales.

There are various limits to scientific understanding but, within these limits, science makes a complete and compelling picture.

We know that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. The “Big Bang” model of universal creation makes a number of very specific and numerical predictions which are observed and measured with high accuracy.

The Standard Model of Particle Physics employs something known as “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking” to explain the strength of the laws of nature.

Within the Standard Model the strength of these laws are not predicted. At present our current best theory is that they arose “by chance”.

But these strengths have to be exquisitely fine-tuned in order for life to exist. How so?

The strength of the gravitational attraction must be tuned to ensure that the expansion of the universe is not too fast and not too slow.

It must be strong enough to enable stars and planets to form but not too strong, otherwise stars would burn through their nuclear fuel too quickly.

The imbalance between matter and anti-matter in the early Universe must be fine tuned to 12 orders of magnitude to create enough mass to form stars and galaxies.

The strength of the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions must be finely-tuned to create stable protons and neutrons.

They must also be fine-tuned to enable complex nuclei to be synthesized in supernovae.

Finally the mass of the electron and the strength of the electromagnetic interaction must be tuned to provide the chemical reaction rates that enables life to evolve over the timescale of the Universe.

The fine tuning of gravitational attraction and electromagnetic interactions which allow the laws of nature to enable life to form are too clever to be simply a coincidence.

Is intelligent life special?

It has taken 4.5 billion years for humans to evolve on earth. This is more than 25% of the age of the universe itself.

We are the only intelligent life that has existed on the planet and we have only been here for 0.005% of the time the planet has been here.

This is a mere blink in the age of the galaxy. If some other intelligent life had emerged elsewhere in the galaxy before us, why haven’t we seen it here?

To me this is a strong argument that we are the first intelligent life in the galaxy.

Designed for life

One interpretation of the collection of unlikely coincidences that lead to our existence is that a designer made the universe this way in order for it to create us; in other words, this designer created a dynamic evolving whole whose output is our creation.

Many take exception to this idea and argue instead that our universe is but one of an uncountable multitude that has happened to create us.

Other ideas are that there are as-yet unobserved principles of nature that will explain why the strengths of the forces are as they are.

To me, neither argument is in principle against an intelligent design.

The designer is simply clever enough to have devised either an evolving multitude of universes or to have devised a way to make our present universe create us.

Intelligible Design

We do know a lot about the design of the universe, so clearly the design is in good measure intelligible.

But why is it that we can understand nature so well?

One answer is that evolution favours organisms that can exploit their environment. Most organisms have a set of “wired” instructions passed from earlier generations.

Over the evolutionary history of Earth, organisms that can learn how to manipulate their surroundings have prospered.

Humans are not unique in this trait but we’re definitely the best at learning. So in other words nature has built us to understand the rules of nature.

Mathematics and science

All of this rests on the predictability which results from nature obeying rules. As we’ve learned about these rules we’ve discovered that they can be expressed in purely mathematical form.

Mathematics has a validity that is independent of its ability to describe nature and the universe.

One could imagine mathematics with its complex relationships being true outside of our universe and having the ability to exist outside it.

The outcome of humankind’s investigations into nature is science. And the fundamental tenet of science is that there is an objective reality which can be understood by anybody who is willing to learn.

A universe without laws?

The only way I can imagine a universe without rules is for every action to be the result of an off-screen director who controls all.

Such a thing is almost beyond comprehension as everything would need to be the result of premeditation.

Events would appear to occur by pure random chance. Furthermore the level of detail required for godly oversight is absolutely beyond human comprehension.

Each of the hundreds of billions of cells in our bodies operates within a complex set of biochemical reactions, all of which have to work individually and as well as collectively for just one human body to function.

So for a start our offscreen director would have to ensure that all these processes happen correctly for every one of the trillions of living organisms on earth.

We are all the stuff of the universe, absolutely embedded within, and subject to, the rules which govern nature. Because we’re self-aware, one can argue that the universe is self-aware.

Without an intelligible design it would be impossible for humans to have free will as all actions would be as a consequence of the will of the director. Free will is a fundamental element of Christian doctrine.

The Christian statement “God made man in His own image” implies both free will and intelligence for humans. Intelligible design is thus a necessary condition for the existence of a Christian God.

Given we are intelligent, we can imagine sharing this aspect with a God who made us in “His own image”.

Free will is only possible in a universe with rules and hence predictability.

Intelligence has application beyond our physical universe – which is indicative, but not proof of, God to me.

On the other hand, the existence of a God providing free will to humans requires the existence of science.

Otherwise we could only ever operate at the whim of God.

Science and religion go hand in hand.

We all know the subjective reality of experience. I personally feel the power of the redemption which is at the core of Christianity.

Each of us has access to that through our own free will to exercise choice.

This article is dedicated to the memory of Reverend Jim Martin.

Are science and religion compatible? Leave your views below.

• Science and religion
• Intelligent design

Senior Administrator, Property Contracts

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Head of Evidence to Action

To arrive at the edge of the world's knowledge, seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves.

GOD VS. SCIENCE: A Debate Between Natalie Angier and David Sloan Wilson, Moderated by Thomas A. Bass

I see some fundamental contradiction here. Everybody criticizes Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. But at least they're talking about how ludicrous some of these belief systems are. I know that David Sloan Wilson doesn't take issue with the way I've framed these questions, but to see religion as having a positive influence does not get at the fundamental   question of what it means to have faith. What is so good about having faith when you don't have evidence? What is the real advantage to that? Why is this something that we want to encourage? Why not say, as I do with my daughter, "Let's see some proof." She asked her friend, who believes in Jesus, if she could wait up one night and see Him for herself, and it didn't happen. Why is that OK? Why is it OK for scientists to say that skepticism is the default position, except when it comes to mainstream religion? — Natalie Angier

With apologies to Natalie, I think there's a kind of a silliness to banging away at religious beliefs for their obvious falsehood, when in fact, if you're an evolutionist, the only way you would want to evaluate these beliefs is to examine what they cause people to do. Do they help people function in their communities? Then this might be an explanation for why they exist. It also makes it unnecessary to criticize these ideas, again and again, because they depart from factual reality. We should be more sophisticated in the way we evaluate beliefs. — David Sloan Wilson 

NATALIE ANGIER is a Pulitzer prize winning science writer for The New York Times. Her most recent book is  The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science.

Natalie Angier's Edge Bio Page  

DAVID SLOAN WILSON is distinguished professor of biology and anthropology at Binghamton University. He also directs EvoS, a campus-wide program that relates evolution to all aspects of humanity in addition to the natural world. His most recent book is  Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives .

David Sloan Wilson's Edge Bio Page

THOMAS A. BASS, a writer, is Professor of English at the University at Albany. His most recent book is  The Predictors.

Thomas A. Bass's Edge Bio Page 

A DEBATE BETWEEN NATALIE ANGIER AND DAVID SLOAN WILSON, MODERATED BY THOMAS A. BASS

Natalie Angier:  I want to say first of all that I deeply admire David's work and that I probably shouldn't think of this as a debate. Let me begin by reading this interesting little excerpt I came across recently—I will tell you afterward who wrote it. 

In face of the onslaught of the fundamentalists, some scientists are content to repeat over and over that they believe in evolution but that there is no conflict between science and religion. They only obscure the real issue. This statement may be true, but it depends entirely upon the definition of religion. If religion means the emotions of sympathy, charity, and humanity—which to some extent are part of every human structure—then this statement is no doubt true. If it means that great seers and prophets of the world from the earliest times have, almost without exception, emphasized these emotions, then the statement is true. The scientists, who repeat that there is no conflict, evidently define religion in some such way. If religion means that the earth, and man, were created in six days, measured by the morning and evening; that the sun was made on the fourth day; that the first woman was made from Adam's rib; that the sun stood still for Joshua; that the earth was completely drowned out by a flood; that the arc saved two of every kind of organic life gathered from all over the globe to start a new world; that all present life comes from animals that were saved from the arc; that each species is the result of a separate creation; that the human race was doomed to eternal torture because Eve was tempted by the serpent and man was tempted by Eve; that two or three thousand years later man was offered a chance for redemption by believing in an immaculate conception and a physical resurrection; if all this is part of religion, and it must be believed if one is religious, then the chances are that there are no scientists who will say that religion and science are in harmony. Why should not these scientists, who say that science and religion do not conflict, define in plain terms what they mean by religion? The time is past due for the scientists to speak in no uncertain terms: the fundamentalist does not quibble or dodge; he is using every means in his power to place the Bible and his interpretation of religion in the field of learning. The battle has been fought many times in the history of the world. Once more the combat is upon us, it cannot be won by quibbling and dodging. Science must openly and fairly meet the issue. The question to be determined is whether learning should be hampered and measured by dogma and creeds.

I thought this was wonderful, and it was written in 1927 by Clarence Darrow. All of which is to say that these are still issues to deal with and that, quite frankly, I think science is not necessarily rising to that challenge. In an article I wrote for the American Scholar ["My God Problem and Theirs," 2004], I talked about this. Everywhere I went when I was reporting my last book [The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science, 2007], scientists kept saying to me "Please try to tell people that evolution is real, that it happens, that it's a great thing that explains the structure of life."

But none of them ever addressed the other questions engendered by the fundamentalist revival. Nobody wants to tackle the statistics: 82% of Americans are convinced that heaven is real and 63% believe that they are going there; 51% believe in ghosts, but only 28% are swayed by the theory of evolution; 77% of Americans insist that Jesus was born to a virgin. … If evolution is real, can that be possible? From what we know of mammalian genetics, can that be possible? I guess we could think of ways it could happen. I mean, maybe she started fooling around with someone, but didn't have intercourse with them and some of the sperm got up into her vaginal tract, and she got pregnant. Yes, we could say that. Could she have done it by some act of spiritual parthenogenesis? The answer is no, but nobody says that. They tell me, talk about evolution, but all this other stuff we're not going to mention; we're going to put it aside and try to ignore it. And then what happens is that we have a lot of problems with lack of scientific understanding, with this constant battle over creationism being taught in the schools, with people not believing science, people thinking it's all just a matter of opinion.

I was very interested—and I also cover this in my article—in the different ways that scientists talk about certain things. They're willing to go on the attack when it comes to creationism or spoon-bending. But when it comes to the miracles of conventional religion … no … we don't touch that; we don't deal with it. And I'm considered rude and insulting, just willfully provocative to bring it up.

I went to the Cornell website and came up with this example of how two different questions were treated. On the "Ask an Astronomer" website, to the query, "do most astronomers believe in God based on the available evidence?" astronomer Dave Chernoff replied that, in his opinion, modern science leaves plenty of room for the existence of God. People who believe in God can fit their beliefs in the scientific framework without creating any contradictions. He cited the Big Bang as offering solace to those who want to believe in a Genesis equivalent. The probabilistic realms of quantum mechanics raise the possibility of "God intervening every time a measurement occurs." He concluded that, ultimately, science can never prove or disprove the existence of God and religious belief doesn't, and shouldn't, have anything to do with scientific reasoning.

Notice how much less kind was the response to a reader asking whether astronomers believe in astrology: "No, astronomers do not believe in astrology," said Dave Chernoff. "It is considered to be a ludicrous scam. There is no evidence that it works, and plenty of evidence to the contrary." He ended his dismissal with the assertion that in science "one does not need a reason not to believe in something. Skepticism is the default position and one requires proof if one is to be convinced of something's existence." In other words, for horoscope fans, the burden of proof is entirely on them—poor gullible gits. But for the multitude to believe that, in one way or another, religious divine intelligence guides the path of every leaping lepton …that's OK.

I see some fundamental contradiction here. Everybody criticizes Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. But at least they're talking about how ludicrous some of these belief systems are. I know that David Sloan Wilson doesn't take issue with the way I've framed these questions, but to see religion as having a positive influence does not get at the fundamental question of what it means to have faith. What is so good about having faith when you don't have evidence? What is the real advantage to that? Why is this something that we want to encourage? Why not say, as I do with my daughter, "Let's see some proof." She asked her friend, who believes in Jesus, if she could wait up one night and see Him for herself, and it didn't happen. Why is that OK? Why is it OK for scientists to say that skepticism is the default position, except when it comes to mainstream religion?

David Sloan Wilson:  I want to begin by clarifying my approach to religion. Since I'm a scientist, I have one goal and one goal only, which is to explain things as natural phenomena, and that includes religion. This is not a new enterprise. People have been interested in religious studies for a long time. You go back to folks like Durkheim, and whether they call themselves sociologists or psychologists or students of religious studies, they are attempting to explain religion as a natural phenomenon. The amount of scholarship on this is huge. One of my problems with Dan Dennett's book is that he acts as if this is a new thing. "Gosh, we should really be studying religion as a natural phenomenon." As if we haven't been already.

The question is whether evolutionary theory can succeed, where previous approaches have failed. Can evolutionary theory—which has unified the biological sciences—provide an explanation of religion which is more satisfying than previous explanations, including economic approaches and sociological approaches? I think the answer to that is, "Yes," because evolutionary theory can explain most aspects of our species, and this particular enterprise is very new.

For reasons that are complex, evolutionary theory has been confined to the biological sciences for most of the twentieth century. It's only been within the last ten or twenty years that this way of thinking, which is so powerful, has finally spread out and is being used to explain all human-related subjects. And how exciting is that! We really need to understand the study of religion from an evolutionary perspective, against the broader background of studying all things human from an evolutionary perspective. I think we're living in very exciting times, intellectually.

So what does evolution say about religion? It turns out that there is not one evolutionary theory of religion; there are at least six, and this shouldn't surprise us, because when evolutionists ask questions about any activity, they begin with a number of major hypotheses. They want to know, for example, is the activity adaptive? Is it something that evolved because it enhances survival or reproduction? Does it enhance group survival? Does it increase the fitness of individuals compared to other individuals within groups?

Other questions open up when we are discussing cultural evolution. Because culture hops from head to head, it has an intriguing resemblance to a disease organism. It is possible that culture can be parasitic. It can spread on its own terms, for its own good. It can be destructive to both individuals and groups, like the AIDS virus. Not everything that evolves is adaptive. There's lots of stuff out there that doesn't increase the survival or reproduction of anything. Steven J. Gould was famous for making this his great theme. It's possible that something can be a byproduct; it can be a spandrel. Religion might be good for nothing whatsoever, but it's connected to something else which does have a benefit. Or it might have been adaptive in the ancestral environment, in the Stone Age, but is no longer adaptive in the present; as is true with our eating habits, for example. Today, our eating habits are killing us, but they used to make great sense in an environment of food scarcity. So maybe religion is like obesity; it's bad for us today, like our eating habits. On the other hand, maybe religion is neutral. It's like all the genes out there that have no effect on fitness; they just drift into the population. This is why we have molecular "clocks." We can date things from this kind of genetic drift.

These are some of the vastly different conceptions of religion, and it makes a difference which one we accept. Not all of them are mutually exclusive, but a scientist—whether or not you call yourself an evolutionist—needs to determine which of these different hypotheses fits the data. 

Let me focus on two. One is the parasite theory. If you read the books of Dennett and Dawkins, they present religion as a disease, which we would be better off if we could get rid of. That's why it's a delusion and why we want to "break the spell." When I read those books I feel as if I'm watching that old movie Reefer Madness. One whiff of "killer weed," and you're a goner. It infects your mind, and that's it. It's like the demons of old. We're possessed, and we need to exorcize these demons. I titled my review of Dennett's book "Scientific Exorcist."

What I claim, on the other hand, is that when you examine the evidence for religion—of which there is a great deal—you see that religious groups function more or less as organisms. Let me read a quote that piqued my interest in this subject. It was written, not in the 1920s, but in the 1650s, by a member of the Hutterite faith, who said:

True love means growth for the whole organism, whose members are all interdependent and serve each other. That is the outward form of the inner working of the Spirit, the organism of the Body governed by Christ. We see the same thing among the bees, who all work with equal zeal in gathering honey.

If you have any knowledge of religious belief, you know that religious believers are always comparing their communities to single organisms and beehives. Now, I'm a biologist. I study single organisms and beehives. What's interesting about evolutionary theory is that it provides an explanation for how single organisms evolve and how beehives evolve. Now it turn out that human evolution is a similar story. Human groups, including the small groups that formed during human evolution and the larger groups that formed from cultural evolution, are like bodies and beehives—they are that cooperative.

Against the background of intellectual thought over the last fifty years, this is a new concept, because we've been dominated intellectually by individualism. We've been trying to explain all aspects of human affairs as varieties of self interest. In 1970, Margaret Thatcher said in a speech, "There's no such thing as society; there are only individuals and families."

Now in a compelling and scientific way we can say, "No." We are a group organism, and much of what we do is orchestrated by culture—not by our genes, but by culture. If you're an evolutionist, you believe that most things evolve because of their effects on behavior. If we're going to think about human beliefs this way—the mind is an organ for producing beliefs—how should we evaluate these beliefs? Should we evaluate them in terms of their correspondence to reality? Or should we evaluate them in terms of what they cause people to do? I think that when you look at beliefs, not just religious beliefs, but non-religious beliefs, as well—there's something in my book I call "stealth-religions;" they don't invoke supernatural agents, but they're massive distortions of reality, nonetheless—and ask why these phenomena exist, the simple answer is that they motivate people to act together.

With apologies to Natalie, I think there's a kind of a silliness to banging away at religious beliefs for their obvious falsehood, when in fact, if you're an evolutionist, the only way you would want to evaluate these beliefs is to examine what they cause people to do. Do they help people function in their communities? Then this might be an explanation for why they exist. It also makes it unnecessary to criticize these ideas, again and again, because they depart from factual reality. We should be more sophisticated in the way we evaluate beliefs. 

Thomas A. Bass:  Natalie, to even up the score here, you have three minutes.

Natalie Angier:  This reminds me of the White Queen who says, "I can believe six impossible things before breakfast." First of all, this is the kind of thinking that can be easily manipulated. Second, this seems to be the antithesis of what science is about. Believing in something that isn't true, because it motivates you to act, is not the kind of fundamental understanding that motivates science. If you believe you're going to be resurrected after you die, which I think is a fairy tale, this is ultimately a dissatisfying way to promote life, and I don't think that it's going to get us anywhere as a culture. I think it's a barrier that cultural evolution has to take us past. We need to move in the direction of accepting the universe as it truly is, rather than as we wish it to be.

Thomas A. Bass:  Some definitions might help. What is science, what is religion, and why are they opposed to each other? 

David Sloan Wilson:  Science is an effort to understand the world as it really is. That's the god of science, to understand "natural reality." Religion has many definitions, and they are all unsatisfying. It's not right to define religion in terms of belief in supernatural agents. Buddhism doesn't follow that, much less Confucianism. There's more to religion than that, or else there would be no difference between God and the Easter Bunny. Durkheim defines religion as a symbolic system that emphasizes the sacred and unites into a community, call it a church, all of its members. I think there's something about religion which is dedicated to helping communities function well, and that's not part of the definition of science, per se, although it might be a side effect of science.

Natalie Angier:  I think that science is based on evidence and that religion is based on faith. That to me is the fundamental difference. When you have faith in something, it requires that you not ask for evidence. It is opposed to the scientific mindset. People assume that those who aren't religious don't have a rich inner life. This is a falsehood, but it explains why people say that they would rather vote for a child molester for president than an atheist. I think that art fulfills a lot of the functions that religion is supposed to . . . at least for me it does. I was just reading a poem by Elizabeth Bishop about death, and it made me cry. She wasn't asking me to take anything on faith. It was a wonderful experience. It pulled my mind and all my senses into it, but she wasn't asking me to believe something patently foolish. I don't think it's true that religions are not necessarily based on supernatural beliefs. That's what is being promoted nowadays. We're getting away from hazy, new-agey religions and back to the old-fashioned, orthodox, fundamentalist religions. These are the ones that are authoritarian. They say, "You will believe this." You have to show your fealty by saying you believe something that, as Mark Twain said, "you know ain't so." To me, this is what religion really is. There is also the desire for an afterlife, which is a strong pull for a lot of people who get involved in religion.

Thomas A. Bass:  Harvard paleontologist Steven G. Gould called science and religion "two non-overlapping magisteria." In other words, science and religion are discrete realms of knowledge capable of co-existing. Is this possible, or are science and religion really opponents squared off against each other?

David Sloan Wilson:  It's important to point out that two or three hundred years ago creationism was a perfectly good scientific hypothesis. It was what most people endorsed and were trying to work with. What happened was that it failed, again and again. Now, religious belief has been driven from the field of empirical inquiry. There's no subject anywhere which is being approached scientifically and empirically that tries to understand factual aspects of the world with religious belief playing a role. This is not because people have conspired against religion. It is simply because religion has failed as a way to explain the world. If you really take this seriously, and if you're intellectually honest with yourself, you have to wonder what's left over. This is why I'm an atheist, just as much as Natalie. But what's left over—which science doesn't give you by itself—is a value system, a set of guidelines for how to behave.

If you want to talk about separate magisteria, I say, "Fine." We all need value systems for how to behave. Science might inform that, but it doesn't constitute a value system by itself. Our value systems might be religious, they might be non-religious, but they're social constructions. This is what interests me—although it may be troubling to other people—what happens when science, having explained all aspects of the biological world, begins in the same way to explain all aspects of religion, its institutions and beliefs?

I have a research project right now on religious conceptions of the afterlife from a cultural evolutionary prospective. Natalie said that we like to believe in a pleasant afterlife to allay our fear of death. That's a long-standing hypothesis. It turns out that it fails miserably, as soon as you consult the evidence for it, because there are many religions that don't feature a pleasant afterlife. Do you know what one of them is? Judaism. I didn't know this until I started to learn about religion myself, but the afterlife figured much less in Judaism than in Christianity. When the Hebrew God spoke to his people, he was punishing them or rewarding them in this life. He scarcely had anything to say about what happens in the afterlife. Science does not by itself provide a value system. Nor do I believe that religion is a separate magisteria in the sense that there's a God out there who is not impinging on the natural world in some way that we can't measure.

Thomas A. Bass:  Why did you start thinking and writing about science and religion, and what are the stakes for you in this debate?

Natalie Angier:  The first time I wrote about this was after George Bush was elected [audience laughs]. The campaign leading up to his election was steeped in religiosity. You had people like Joe Lieberman saying that you can't take religion out of morality, and George Bush Sr. saying that atheists did not deserve to be citizens. I remember reporters hounding Howard Dean, demanding that he say he believed in the Resurrection and eternal life and that Jesus was God's son. Howard Dean, who's probably not religious at all, had to play the game.

I thought that this was really getting out of control. So I wrote my article, "Confessions of a Lonely Atheist," where I talked about how hard it is to be an outed atheist. I got hundreds of letters in response, and almost all of them said the same thing:  "This will probably be the only positive letter that you get, but …." Everyone assumed I would get a lot of hate mail, but I had tapped into a kind of desire, maybe it's a desire for a community of our own. I felt that somebody had to say that not everybody was buying into this—whatever was going on, which had gotten so extreme.

I was raised in a very weird religious household. My father was … ugh. I had my own emotional history with religion, but that wasn't what made me become an atheist. I didn't see any reason not to be. I don't want to spend my life being a professional atheist. It seems like a very narrow, not very interesting position. But I feel that scientists have been really cowardly in some aspects of this.

I also wrote about Darrell Lambert. Some of you may remember his story. When he was promoted to Eagle Scout-dom he either had to say that he believed in God, or he would be kicked out of the Boy Scouts. He had already gone through a kind of conversion experience in his 9th grade biology class, when he decided that he was going to study evolution. He had gone to Bible classes his whole childhood, but, finally, he understood the world. He couldn't lie, and he wouldn't do what people were advising him to do, which was fake it and say "I believe." I thought this guy was a hero. I kept waiting for scientists to say "Yeh! This biology class really made a difference in his life." But nobody did. Darrell went on Connie Chung right after the Mafia family. People should have been rallying around him. Instead, it was sad to see what happened to him.

Scientists have been hounding me to talk about how evolution is real. Well, you guys have to stand up, too, and say that a lot of this stuff is just …. Let's be more sensible about the terms of our discussion. I'm not saying that you have to walk around insulting people, but lay out what we think is likely, what sort of probability you would expect for the Resurrection, virgin birth, and all of that. Don't just condemn spoon bending and telekinesis. Include all this other stuff that no one talks about. Why not put it together in one big basket and say, "Come on. Let's be reasonable people, and here's why we don't think this is so."

David Wilson:  I agree with Natalie that in the modern world we need to have good facts interpreted by a good value system. We need a strong scientific culture that understands the world the way it is, and then we need to interpret these facts with good values. It's interesting to go back to the founding fathers of this country. What did they think about religion, and why was the separation of church and state so important? It was important because most of these guys were irreverent. They were nothing like the religious zealots of today. They thought that religions were good on an intermediate scale, in providing services for their own members, but religions were a problem when you thought about the larger social unit. That's why the separation of church and state was so important.

Yes, the world is full of intolerance, and atheists are despised in our culture, but when it comes to doing something about it, this is where it helps to think like an ecologist. An ecologist and evolutionist tries to explain human diversity in the same way that he explains biological diversity. What does that mean? In biological communities there are many species because there are many niches, and every niche calls for a different strategy for survival and reproduction. If you ask, what is the environment that favors the kind of society that we would like—a society grounded in good facts, informing a good value system—the only environment in which such a society can survive is a wealthy, stable environment. That's what you find in Europe. I won't talk about America for the moment. In Europe, you're born into a safe environment; you have lots of resources; you can pack your individuals with education; and you can expect to live until you're in your late seventies. You can figure stuff out. You can experiment. The consequences of failing aren't so bad. This is where liberalism thrives.

A lot of what you're talking about isn't religion versus non-religion. It's conservatism versus liberalism, just as there are liberal religions and conservative religions. I like to quote someone who converted from a conservative religion to a liberal religion. "I wanted a religion that asks questions rather than providing the answers." Many religions pose the kind of open-ended questions that get confused with non-religion or atheism. Now, where do conservatism and authoritarianism thrive? They thrive in dangerous, chaotic environments, where people don't have the resources to educate themselves. This is where you have a society in which people are told what to do. Other parts of the world, such as Europe, are becoming more secular, because the environment is favoring that. But the world as a whole is becoming more religious, more fundamentalist. Why is this? It's because it's becoming more dangerous and chaotic. Governments aren't providing the services that people need, and religions are. Again and again you hear about these so-called terrorist organizations providing services for their people. When I hear my respected colleagues, such as Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins, talk about religion, I think they are smart people doing something which is not so smart. They ask, "How can people believe such dumb stuff?" But they are not looking at the ecological bases for these beliefs. If you think of these systems as successful in some environments, but not others, then you can isolate the environmental factors. If you want liberalism to thrive, religious or non-religious, then provide the proper environment, and it will grow spontaneously.

Thomas A. Bass:  We have a question from the audience.

Audience Member : You said you weren't going to refer to the United States just now. Can you put the United States back in your equation?

David Sloan Wilson:  The United States is an anomaly for people who study religion because it's an affluent society, and yet, it's highly religious. The idea that it's a free religious economy doesn't work out very well, because if this were the case, then Australia and New Zealand should be like the United States, and they're not. Another possibility is that the income inequality and inequality in general are so great in the United States that we combine an affluent nation like Europe, with a third world nation. There are many people who are not getting the fundamental ingredients of life, financial, psychological, or sociological, and who then turn to religion.

Audience Member:  I came here prepared to say "a plague on both your houses." The idea that you know what religion is and that science operates without it's own kind of faith is for the birds.

David Sloan Wilson:  There's a lot about science that has the trappings of religion, but at the end of the day I want to disagree with you. I'm a veteran of the group selection wars.  There are a lot of heresies in science, a lot of stuff that's taboo. Science is often taught by rote, and one could use religious terminology to describe the process: heresy, taboo, priests. Dan Dennett makes this point himself. Much of what we know we take on faith. We take the theory of relativity on faith; we can't derive all the equations from scratch. But at the end of the day, no matter how complicated it is, and how filled with paradigms and incommensurability, there is something about the scientific method that makes our representation of the world converge on what's actually out there. This is a magnificent thing, and, unless it was the goal of science, it wouldn't happen. Individuals won't do it by themselves. The mind is full of all sorts of distortions. Unless you have a culture that says, "It's our goal to have beliefs that accurately represent reality, and then a procedure—a set of procedures—which converge to reach that goal," there is no way you will achieve scientific knowledge. 

Natalie Angier:  I do think scientists try—not all of them, but the good ones—to be their own worst enemy. They try to disprove their own pet theories. This is what the controls are all about. You know that you do have a lot of pre-conceived notions, and you have to fight against them all the time. Really good scientists will do that. It's an ideal; obviously hard to reach. It's an enterprise that's being performed by people in all different cultures, all over the world, and they're sharing their results. This circle has been widening, so that scientists are working in all sorts of countries that we otherwise would have little contact with. These scientists are working together. There's something very powerful about this; it's really kind of amazing.

Audience Member:  I'm teaching a course here at SUNY Albany on the ethnology of religion. I also have a Master's degree in religious studies from a Methodist seminary. I can see both scientific and theoretical approaches to religion. Part of the problem with this debate is the fact that there is no universally agreed upon set of terms for defining religion. Many societies don't even have a term for religion, because what we, from a scientific perspective, consider to be a religion is so embedded in their worldview and social behavior that it can't be separated from the rest of their culture. Evolutionary models for explaining the origins of religion have been around since the end of the 19th century, but many of these have been criticized for their ethnocentrism. Part of the problem with this whole "religion versus science" debate is that it seems to preclude other forms of religiosity that do not depend on empirical thought—such as Buddhism. I think there's a problem with Christi-centric and dogmatic views of religion. We're evolving toward this supreme form of rational thought, and Western rationalism determines what this highest form is. It's akin to scientists arguing that evolution is progressing toward what we have already attained. 

David Sloan Wilson:  That was a nice comment. It reflects a lot of background and knowledge in anthropology. I think that salvaging an old idea that's been rejected is much more difficult than coming up with a new idea. I know this is true in biology, because I have spent quite a few years trying to salvage the concept of group selection, which was a heresy for much of the 20th century. The same is true for theories of religion in anthropology. Most enduring cultures are impressively organized to manage the affairs of their people. I think this can explain some of the things you're pointing out—the great diversity of religions, for example. This is exactly what you would expect from the postulates of evolutionary theory. There can be many different ways to organize groups of people, a huge diversity of ways. So we don't expect uniformity at that level. Without plunging into an academic discussion, I think that what's so exciting now is that we can revive some of these old ideas and return to a concept in which society means something.

Thomas A. Bass:  I have a written question here in front of me. "Religions have highly developed systems for distinguishing believers from non-believers. In an age of fundamentalism and excess, such as our own, this leads to lots of people killing other people in the name of religion. Is this inevitable or avoidable?"

Natalie Angier:  Is which part inevitable and unavoidable?

Thomas A. Bass:  People killing each other in the name of religion—which we see a great deal of lately, don't we?

Natalie Angier:  Yes, we do. I think it is not inevitable; it is avoidable. Do we have to get beyond religion to get to that point? Well, probably not. If what David is saying is true, that if we have stability, which tends, naturally, to give rise to a more secular perspective, then we have a chicken and egg question. How do you attain this stability if you still have religious fundamentalists? At which point in the system do you intervene? Economically? Do you do it through political will? How do we get to this great stabilizer that will prevent people from damaging society? I'm amazed at how many suicide bombers appear everyday. I thought there might be a limit. But persecution seems to be attracting more people. This is a scary development. Sam Harris talks about this, how terrifying it is to have super powerful weapons in the hands of people with ancient beliefs. How do we stabilize things? Does anybody know this? Can anybody in this audience tell me how?

[Audience laughs]

David Sloan Wilson:  I can! One of the pleasures of studying a subject scientifically, including religion, is to find answers to these kinds of questions. I've studied a random sample of religions. I went to an encyclopedia of world religions, the sixteen-volume set compiled by Mircea Eliade, and I wrote a little computer program that picked volume numbers at random and page numbers at random within volumes. In this fashion I more or less grabbed a sample of religions, thirty-six religions, totally at random from this encyclopedia, without reference to any particular hypothesis. So I can answer the question, how many religions in this sample were spread by violent conquest? How many do you think?

Audience Member:  All.

David Sloan Wilson:  Really? It turns out that the minority were spread by violent conquest. Think of Mormonism. It didn't spread by violent conquest. Think of early Christianity.

Thomas A. Bass:  Mormonism might be thought to have spread by violent conquest … if you were a Native American.

David Sloan Wilson:  Yes, but every white person in America was displacing the Native Americans. You don't want to lay this at the doorstep of religion do you? Were Mormons different from anyone else? Do you think that the atheists among the pioneers weren't displacing Native Americans like everyone else?

Thomas A. Bass:  Were there any atheists among the pioneers?

David Sloan Wilson:  Yes, there were! A lot of the people who came over were businessmen …entrepreneurs. The religiosity within the pioneers was much less than we think. By no means were there only pious puritans who came over.

Thomas A. Bass:  Do you remember Garrison Keeler's quip on this subject? He said America was settled by people who were looking for more religious repression than was available to them in Europe.

David Sloan Wilson:  Does religion exacerbate between-group conflict? Or, when you look closely at religious conflict, do you see sociopolitical conflict lying behind it? Religion might only be framing the debate. To pick suicide bombing as an example, this is a strategic move. There is good literature on how this tactic is employed by Marxist groups, such as the Tamil tigers, as well as by religious groups. So the idea that you get infected by this religious fervor which causes you to strap a bomb on yourself is not true.

Audience Member:  I have a question for Natalie. In the beginning, you took scientists to task, saying that they should make a bigger deal out of all of the untruths in religion. Could you explain what you have in mind?  How can they do this in a way that won't exacerbate the "us versus them" phenomenon that draws the ranks of the religious even tighter and seems to be so counter-productive?

Natalie Angier:  What is it exactly that's at stake? Is the scientific enterprise at stake? Is our future as scientific leaders in the world at stake? It might be. If we allow this kind of irrational thinking to spread into all areas of academic research, then the integrity of the scientific enterprise is going to be compromised, along with our economic future, which is built on it—and I believe this. We're concerned that a spreading irrationality is affecting scientific progress. Scientists are willing to speak out against part of it. They criticize people who do Ouija boards and horoscopes. They say, "That's ridiculous," but for some reason they think they shouldn't speak out against creation science and other religious beliefs that are even more commonly believed by Americans.

If this is the approach that scientists are going to take, then it seems to me that they're not going to accomplish what they set out to accomplish, which is to encourage people to think scientifically. The scientific way of thinking and of understanding the world has an economic, rational, and perhaps even a pacifying aspect to it. I recognize that scientists have done terrible things. We have the nuclear bomb because of Oppenheimer. Scientists are speaking out now and asking, "You guys in the media, why don't you help us here?" And I'm saying, "Well, you're asking us to help you in this one specific way, but we can't accomplish the job as long as you're ignoring other aspects of irrational and superstitious thinking." Superstition is not necessarily synonymous with religion, but it does seem that—in America at least—the two often go together. So when it comes to criticizing superstition, do we carve out an exception for religion? Is it bad to have creationism taught in school, or isn't it? Scientists seem to think it is. Is it bad that there are horoscopes in almost every newspaper in the United States, while at the same time they're closing down their science sections? I think these are decisions that we have to make as a society.

Audience Member:  Has communication advanced past group selection?

David Sloan Wilson:  Yes. I think the reason that social units became larger in Europe is because of the widespread print media …newspapers and so on. People were addressing common issues, and that's true even more so now. Communication can be a nervous system that creates larger groups, but it's important to say that that's not inevitable, by any means. There are all kinds of dystopic scenarios. Just because the scale of things has become larger does not mean that we're going to turn into a great big organism. It could go the other way. We could turn into a big group in which some elements take over, and we get permanent inequality. This is another reason why I think it's important to study religions respectfully. If we're going to understand how society might work at a large-scale, we damn-well better understand how it works at a small-scale. That's the only model we have. Then we can try to take some of those elements and scale them up. Our best models for large-scale cooperation are smaller-scale groups in which cooperation does exist.

Audience Member:  I was wondering if either of you are familiar with the work of Desmond Morris, particularly The Naked Ape and his theory of why the concept of God evolved. Basically, when humans were hunter-gatherers there was one despotic alpha who kept everyone in order, and then, as we evolved to become cooperative hunters, we created the ultimate alpha—God—who keeps us all in line. We have evidence for this in the submissive gestures that most religious groups make to their God, kneeling and bowing their heads and so on.  

David Sloan Wilson: T hat's not quite right. Many of the high gods or moralizing gods didn't come into existence until later on, with larger-scale societies. Hunter-gatherer societies are very egalitarian. They don't need to have a high-god in the way that we envision it. But Morris did make one good point in his discussion of monotheistic religion. Why did monotheism come about? Its origins lie in cultural dislocation. Humans used to be born into a culture. You had no choice about joining another culture. In this world, there was no need to distinguish between religion and other aspects of society. It was all merged together, and you could have many different deities and spirits orchestrating various aspects of your life. Modern religions do things differently. They have to get people to join the religion, and the religion has to monitor its members. The group is larger. There are many more people, so the opportunities for policing, for people to survey each other, are more limited. At this point, the idea of a deity that's all-seeing comes into play.

Audience Member:  Natalie Angier describes a slippery slope in many versions of religion toward authoritarianism. Yet, as I listen to David Sloan Wilson, he seems to be describing a happy version of ecology, in which religion does a lot of good in terms of spreading values and bringing good things to groups. I'd like to hear from both you—maybe just one more time—if, in your view, religion exacerbates conflicts between peoples or affirms values and community?

Natalie Angier:  I think in this country it's tending toward exacerbating conflict. The problem is that it's no longer sufficient to be a vague believer in religion. You have to show evidence of belief. This is what I meant when I talked about religion veering toward authoritarian and extreme positions, and this is why I finally felt compelled to speak out. Public figures didn't used to have to declare their religious beliefs. Now, even Al Gore has to put himself on display. He gives this fantastic scientific presentation about understanding the world and understanding the atmosphere. He has this incredible ability to synthesis enormous amounts of information. But at the end of his talk he feels compelled to speak about the creator. He's making some kind of gesture so that he won't be attacked, at least from thatdirection.

Where is this coming from? Why is this happening in this country? We can't just leave it where I thought it was—evolving toward a place where you say, "OK, let's put religion aside." Kennedy, who was Catholic, wanted to do that. "I'm not going to be run by the Catholic Church while I'm in office," he said. "This is not part of the discussion." But all of a sudden you can't get away from it. This is not a healthy development for this society. Scientists are suffering. People are starting to see the United States as compromised by the rise of extreme religiosity. I believe that science in America has been an incredible enterprise, and I think scientists have to protect it, not just when they feel immediately threatened, but as a general thing. This is the direction we need the country to go in—the exploration and adventure that everybody can participate in, not just those who show their fealty to something. This is not a good thing going on here.

Of course, I think it's terrible what's going on in the Middle East. It's much more complicated than religion, and I understand that. Economic systems are a part of it, too. I don't want to sound like some kind of simplistic idiot just thinking you can blame it all on religion. Not at all. My point is that when scientists ask me to speak out against This and I say, "Well what about That?" It's someplace they don't want to go. And I say, "Don't you think that this outbreak of irrational thinking has a larger cause than just the creation scientists? They're not that powerful." There's some larger phenomenon that we need to address, and scientists are ducking it.

David Sloan Wilson:  We want to end on a note of agreement. Much of what's going on here is a dismantling of the separation of church and state. Instead, we should be cultivating the attitude that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin had, that it's perfectly acceptable to be an atheist, that an atheist could be elected to public office, and that all religious faiths should be open to criticism and public discourse. I haven't mentioned stealth religions yet, but they're all over the place. If you think of nationalism, if you think of free-market economics, these are stealth religions. The "invisible hand" of the markets is not invoking a supernatural agent, but it is pure fiction. If you really think everyone operating in their self interest is going to make large-scale society work well—this is funny. And yet people will defend this idea to the death. If you look at intellectual movements, academic movements, what the hell does it mean to be politically correct? What it means is that there's inadmissible stuff that you can't believe, and if you do, you're out of here. Many aspects of intellectual and academic culture are just as intolerant as any fundamentalist religious movements. I think what we need to talk about is the nature of belief of all kinds. All the things that we're talking about in respect to religion, we need to think about more broadly, in order to diagnose these problems that we both agree are problems.

What's Related

Beyond Edge

Conversations at Edge

• Our Program Divisions
• Our Three Academies
• Government Affairs
• In Service to the Nation and the World
• Our Study Process
• Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures
• Project Comments and Information
• Read Our Expert Reports and Published Proceedings
• Explore PNAS, the Flagship Scientific Journal of NAS
• Explore PNAS Nexus, the Open Access Scientific Journal of NAS
• Access Transportation Research Board Publications
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Misinformation
• Artificial Intelligence
• Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
• Mobilizing Support for Ukraine
• Fellowships and Grants

Evolution Resources at the National Academies

• Evolution and Society

Science and Religion

• Definitions
• Legal Issues

Introduction

Scientific and technological advances have had profound effects on human life. In the 19th century, most families could expect to lose one or more children to disease. Today, in the United States and other developed countries, the death of a child from disease is uncommon. Every day we rely on technologies made possible through the application of scientific knowledge and processes. The computers and cell phones which we use, the cars and airplanes in which we travel, the medicines that we take, and many of the foods that we eat were developed in part through insights obtained from scientific research. Science has boosted living standards, has enabled humans to travel into Earth’s orbit and to the moon, and has given us new ways of thinking about ourselves and the universe.

Evolutionary biology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science. This booklet documents some of the major contributions that an understanding of evolution has made to human well-being, including its contributions to preventing and treating human disease, developing new agricultural products, and creating industrial innovations. More broadly, evolution is a core concept in biology that is based both in the study of past life forms and in the study of the relatedness and diversity of present-day organisms. The rapid advances now being made in the life sciences and in medicine rest on principles derived from an understanding of evolution. That understanding has arisen both through the study of an ever-expanding fossil record and, equally importantly, through the application of modern biological and molecular sciences and technologies to the study of evolution. Of course, as with any active area of science, many fascinating questions remain, and this booklet highlights some of the active research that is currently under way that addresses questions about evolution.

However, polls show that many people continue to have questions about our knowledge of biological evolution. They may have been told that scientific understanding of evolution is incomplete, incorrect, or in doubt. They may be skeptical that the natural process of biological evolution could have produced such an incredible array of living things, from microscopic bacteria to whales and redwood trees, from simple sponges on coral reefs to humans capable of contemplating life’s history on this planet. They may wonder if it is possible to accept evolution and still adhere to religious beliefs.

This Web site speaks to those questions. It is written to serve as a resource for people who find themselves embroiled in debates about evolution. It provides information about the role that evolution plays in modern biology and the reasons why only scientifically based explanations should be included in public school science courses. Interested readers may include school board members, science teachers and other education leaders, policymakers, legal scholars, and others in the community who are committed to providing students with quality science education. This site is also directed to the broader audience of high-quality school and college students as well as adults who wish to become more familiar with the many strands of evidence supporting evolution and to understand why evolution is both a fact and a process that accounts for the diversity of life on Earth.

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

Compatibility

Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations. Because biological evolution accounts for events that are also central concerns of religion — including the origins of biological diversity and especially the origins of humans — evolution has been a contentious idea within society since it was first articulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858.

Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith. Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

Religious Leader Statements

Excerpts of Statements by Religious Leaders Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science  

Many religious denominations and individual religious leaders have issued statements acknowledging the occurrence of evolution and pointing out that evolution and faith do not conflict.

"[T]here is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator."   — General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church

"[S]tudents' ignorance about evolution will seriously undermine their understanding of the world and the natural laws governing it, and their introduction to other explanations described as 'scientific' will give them false ideas about scientific methods and criteria."   — Central Conference of American Rabbis

"In his encyclical  Humani Generis  (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points…. Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies — which was neither planned nor sought — constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”   — Pope John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996.

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator…. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."   — "The Clergy Letter Project"  signed by more than 10,000 Christian clergy members.

Scientist Statements

Excerpts of Statements by Scientists Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science

Scientists, like people in other professions, hold a wide range of positions about religion and the role of supernatural forces or entities in the universe. Some adhere to a position known as scientism, which holds that the methods of science alone are sufficient for discovering everything there is to know about the universe. Others ascribe to an idea known as deism, which posits that God created all things and set the universe in motion but no longer actively directs physical phenomena. Others are theists, who believe that God actively intervenes in the world. Many scientists who believe in God, either as a prime mover or as an active force in the universe, have written eloquently about their beliefs.

"Creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained." — Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University and author of Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Religion. Quote is excerpted from an interview available  here .

"In my view, there is no conflict in being a rigorous scientist and a person who believes in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us. Science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul." — Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Excerpted from his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (p. 6).

"Our scientific understanding of the universe … provides for those who believe in God a marvelous opportunity to reflect upon their beliefs." — Father George Coyne, Catholic priest and former director of the Vatican Observatory. Quote is from a talk,  "Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution,"  at Palm Beach Atlantic University, January 31, 2006.

Creationist Perspectives

Creationist views reject scientific findings and methods.

Advocates of the ideas collectively known as "creationism" and, recently, "intelligent design creationism" hold a wide variety of views. Most broadly, a "creationist" is someone who rejects natural scientific explanations of the known universe in favor of special creation by a supernatural entity. Creationism in its various forms is not the same thing as belief in God because, as was discussed earlier, many believers as well as many mainstream religious groups accept the findings of science, including evolution. Nor is creationism necessarily tied to Christians who interpret the Bible literally. Some non-Christian religious believers also want to replace scientific explanations with their own religion's supernatural accounts of physical phenomena.

In the United States, various views of creationism typically have been promoted by small groups of politically active religious fundamentalists who believe that only a supernatural entity could account for the physical changes in the universe and for the biological diversity of life on Earth. But even these creationists hold very different views. Some, known as "young Earth" creationists, believe the biblical account that the universe and the Earth were created just a few thousand years ago. Proponents of this form of creationism also believe that all living things, including humans, were created in a very short period of time in essentially the forms in which they exist today. Other creationists, known as "old Earth" creationists, accept that the Earth may be very old but reject other scientific findings regarding the evolution of living things.

No scientific evidence supports these viewpoints. On the contrary, as discussed earlier, several independent lines of evidence indicate that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is about 14 billion years old. Rejecting the evidence for these age estimates would mean rejecting not just biological evolution but also fundamental discoveries of modern physics, chemistry, astrophysics, and geology.

Some creationists believe that Earth's present form and the distribution of fossils can be explained by a worldwide flood. But this claim also is at odds with observations and evidence understood scientifically. The belief that Earth's sediments, with their fossils, were deposited in a short period does not accord either with the known processes of sedimentation or with the estimated volume of water needed to deposit sediments on the top of some of Earth's highest mountains.

Creationists sometimes cite what they claim to be an incomplete fossil record as evidence that living things were created in their modern forms. But this argument ignores the rich and extremely detailed record of evolutionary history that paleontologists and other biologists have constructed over the past two centuries and are continuing to construct. Paleontological research has filled in many of the parts of the fossil record that were incomplete in Charles Darwin's time. The claim that the fossil record is "full of gaps" that undermine evolution is simply false. Indeed, paleontologists now know enough about the ages of sediments to predict where they will be able to find particularly significant transitional fossils, as happened with Tiktaalik and the ancestors of modern humans. Researchers also are using new techniques, such as computed axial tomography (CT), to learn even more about the internal structures and composition of delicate bones of fossils. Exciting new discoveries of fossils continue to be reported in both the scientific literature and popular media.

Another compelling feature of the fossil record is its consistency. Nowhere on Earth are fossils from dinosaurs, which went extinct 65 million years ago, found together with fossils from humans, who evolved in just the last few million years. Nowhere are the fossils of mammals found in sediments that are more than about 220 million years old. Whenever creationists point to sediments where these relationships appear to be altered or even reversed, scientists have clearly demonstrated that this reversal has resulted from the folding of geological strata over or under others. Sediments containing the fossils of only unicellular organisms appear earlier in the fossil record than do sediments containing the remains of both unicellular and multicellular organisms. The sequence of fossils across Earth's sediments points unambiguously toward the occurrence of evolution.

Creationists sometimes argue that the idea of evolution must remain hypothetical because "no one has ever seen evolution occur." This kind of statement also reveals that some creationists misunderstand an important characteristic of scientific reasoning. Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations. Even with the launch of Earth-orbiting spacecraft, scientists could not directly see the Earth going around the Sun. But they inferred from a wealth of independent measurements that the Sun is at the center of the solar system. Until the recent development of extremely powerful microscopes, scientists could not observe atoms, but the behavior of physical objects left no doubt about the atomic nature of matter. Scientists hypothesized the existence of viruses for many years before microscopes became powerful enough to see them.

Thus, for many areas of science, scientists have not directly observed the objects (such as genes and atoms) or the phenomena (such as the Earth going around the Sun) that are now well-established facts. Instead, they have confirmed them indirectly by observational and experimental evidence. Evolution is no different. Indeed, for the reasons described in this booklet, evolutionary science provides one of the best examples of a deep understanding based on scientific reasoning.

This contention that nobody has seen evolution occurring further ignores the overwhelming evidence that evolution has taken place and is continuing to occur. The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics are both products of evolutionary forces. Another example of ongoing evolution is the appearance of mosquitoes resistant to various insecticides, which has contributed to a resurgence of malaria in Africa and elsewhere. The transitional fossils that have been found in abundance since Darwin's time reveal how species continually give rise to successor species that, over time, produce radically changed body forms and functions. It also is possible to directly observe many of the specific processes by which evolution occurs. Scientists regularly do experiments using microbes and other model systems that directly test evolutionary hypotheses.

Creationists reject such scientific facts in part because they do not accept evidence drawn from natural processes that they consider to be at odds with the Bible. But science cannot test supernatural possibilities. To young Earth creationists, no amount of empirical evidence that the Earth is billions of years old is likely to refute their claim that the world is actually young but that God simply made it appear to be old. Because such appeals to the supernatural are not testable using the rules and processes of scientific inquiry, they cannot be a part of science.

Intelligent Design

"Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.

Some members of a newer school of creationists have temporarily set aside the question of whether the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are billions or just thousands of years old. But these creationists unite in contending that the physical universe and living things show evidence of "intelligent design." They argue that certain biological structures are so complex that they could not have evolved through processes of undirected mutation and natural selection, a condition they call "irreducible complexity." Echoing theological arguments that predate the theory of evolution, they contend that biological organisms must be designed in the same way that a mousetrap or a clock is designed - that in order for the device to work properly, all of its components must be available simultaneously. If one component is missing or changed, the device will fail to operate properly. Because even such "simple" biological structures as the flagellum of a bacterium are so complex, proponents of intelligent design creationism argue that the probability of all of their components being produced and simultaneously available through random processes of mutation are infinitesimally small. The appearance of more complex biological structures (such as the vertebrate eye) or functions (such as the immune system) is impossible through natural processes, according to this view, and so must be attributed to a transcendent intelligent designer.

However, the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology. Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes. For example, in the case of the bacterial flagellum, there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria. There are many types of flagella, some simpler than others, and many species of bacteria do not have flagella to aid in their movement. Thus, other components of bacterial cell membranes are likely the precursors of the proteins found in various flagella. In addition, some bacteria inject toxins into other cells through proteins that are secreted from the bacterium and that are very similar in their molecular structure to the proteins in parts of flagella. This similarity indicates a common evolutionary origin, where small changes in the structure and organization of secretory proteins could serve as the basis for flagellar proteins. Thus, flagellar proteins are not irreducibly complex.

Evolutionary biologists also have demonstrated how complex biochemical mechanisms, such as the clotting of blood or the mammalian immune system, could have evolved from simpler precursor systems. With the clotting of blood, some of the components of the mammalian system were present in earlier organisms, as demonstrated by the organisms living today (such as fish, reptiles, and birds) that are descended from these mammalian precursors. Mammalian clotting systems have built on these earlier components.

Existing systems also can acquire new functions. For example, a particular system might have one task in a cell and then become adapted through evolutionary processes for different use. The Hox genes (described in the box on page 30) are a prime example of evolution finding new uses for existing systems. Molecular biologists have discovered that a particularly important mechanism through which biological systems acquire additional functions is gene duplication. Segments of DNA are frequently duplicated when cells divide, so that a cell has multiple copies of one or more genes. If these multiple copies are passed on to offspring, one copy of a gene can serve the original function in a cell while the other copy is able to accumulate changes that ultimately result in a new function. The biochemical mechanisms responsible for many cellular processes show clear evidence for historical duplications of DNA regions.

In addition to its scientific failings, this and other standard creationist arguments are fallacious in that they are based on a false dichotomy. Even if their negative arguments against evolution were correct, that would not establish the creationists' claims. There may be alternative explanations. For example, it would be incorrect to conclude that because there is no evidence that it is raining outside, it must be sunny. Other explanations also might be possible. Science requires testable evidence for a hypothesis, not just challenges against one's opponent. Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested.

Creationists sometimes claim that scientists have a vested interest in the concept of biological evolution and are unwilling to consider other possibilities. But this claim, too, misrepresents science. Scientists continually test their ideas against observations and submit their work to their colleagues for critical peer review of ideas, evidence, and conclusions before a scientific paper is published in any respected scientific journal. Unexplained observations are eagerly pursued because they can be signs of important new science or problems with an existing hypothesis or theory. History is replete with scientists challenging accepted theory by offering new evidence and more comprehensive explanations to account for natural phenomena. Also, science has a competitive element as well as a cooperative one. If one scientist clings to particular ideas despite evidence to the contrary, another scientist will attempt to replicate relevant experiments and will not hesitate to publish conflicting evidence. If there were serious problems in evolutionary science, many scientists would be eager to win fame by being the first to provide a better testable alternative. That there are no viable alternatives to evolution in the scientific literature is not because of vested interests or censorship but because evolution has been and continues to be solidly supported by evidence.

The potential utility of science also demands openness to new ideas. If petroleum geologists could find more oil and gas by interpreting the record of sedimentary rocks (where deposits of oil and natural gas are found) as having resulted from a single flood, they would certainly favor the idea of such a flood, but they do not. Instead, petroleum geologists agree with other geologists that sedimentary rocks are the products of billions of years of Earth's history. Indeed, petroleum geologists have been pioneers in the recognition of fossil deposits that were formed over millions of years in such environments as meandering rivers, deltas, sandy barrier beaches, and coral reefs.

The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter - that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems - rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science.

Evolution and Creationism in Schools

The pressure to downplay evolution or emphasize nonscientific alternatives in public schools compromises science education.

Despite the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions, some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with or in place of evolution in science classes. Many teachers are under considerable pressure from policy makers, school administrators, parents, and students to downplay or eliminate the teaching of evolution. As a result, many U.S. students lack access to information and ideas that are both integral to modern science and essential for making informed, evidence-based decisions about their own lives and our collective future.

Regardless of the careers that they ultimately select, to succeed in today's scientifically and technologically sophisticated world, all students need a sound education in science. Many of today's fast-growing and high-paying jobs require a familiarity with the core concepts, applications, and implications of science. To make informed decisions about public policies, people need to know how scientific evidence supports those policies and whether that evidence was gathered using well-established scientific practice and principles. Learning about evolution is an excellent way to help students understand the nature, processes, and limits of science in addition to concepts about this fundamentally important contribution to scientific knowledge.

Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

13.7 Cosmos & Culture

15 questions about science and religion, answered.

Tania Lombrozo

Last April, I joined more than a dozen cognitive scientists at a workshop called "Breaking New Ground in the Science-Religion Dialogue." The workshop, organized by Cristine Legare at the University of Texas at Austin, aimed to encourage a sophisticated, evidence-based look at the psychology behind science and religion, as well as psychological factors that affect people's perception of believers, atheists and the relationship between science and religion.

In addition to longer presentations, participants were asked to provide brief responses to fundamental questions about science, religion, atheism and belief in God. For instance, I was asked whether scientific and religious explanations are philosophically incompatible — a question I also took up in a blog post following the workshop.

Videos of these responses were just made available on YouTube, and I'm happy to share them here with 13.7 's readers. You'll find plenty of food for thought! And if you have your own answers to these questions, please share them in the comments.

Take a look:

Watch : How can evolutionary psychology inform the science and religion dialogue? (Prof. David Buss)

Watch : Why is there so much antagonism in media dialogues between believers and atheists? (Prof. Kelly James Clark)

Watch : Why do people distrust atheists? (Prof. Will Gervais)

Watch : How is the process of acquiring religious and scientific explanations similar? (Prof. Paul Harris)

Watch : Can science ever replace religion? (Prof. Bruce Hood)

Watch : Why haven't more social scientists participated in the popular science discourse about science and religion? (Prof. Tom Lawson)

Watch : How do people reconcile religious and scientific explanations? (Prof. Cristine Legare)

Watch : Are scientific and religious explanations philosophically incompatible? (Prof. Tania Lombrozo)

Watch : How can cognitive science inform the science and religion dialogue? (Prof. Art Markman)

Watch : Why should scientists care about religion? (Prof. Robert McCauley)

Watch : What kind of biases do people have about scientists? (Prof. Bastiaan Rutjens)

Watch : How can evolutionary perspectives on religion inform the science and religion dialogue? (Prof. Azim Shariff)

Watch : What would be the best way to create a more scientifically informed public? (Prof. Andrew Shtulman)

Watch : How can philosophy inform the science and religion dialogue? (Prof. Konrad Talmont-Kaminski)

Watch : Do people become more or less religious with age? (Prof. Jacqueline Woolley)

Tania Lombrozo is a psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley. She writes about psychology, cognitive science and philosophy, with occasional forays into parenting and veganism. You can keep up with more of what she is thinking on Twitter: @TaniaLombrozo

• science and religion
• Cristine Legare
• cognitive science of religion

Time Essay: In the Beginning: God and Science

S ometime after the Enlightenment, science and religion came to a gentleman’s agreement. Science was for the real world: machines, manufactured things, medicines, guns, moon rockets. Religion was for everything else, the immeasurable: morals, sacraments, poetry, insanity, death and some residual forms of politics and statesmanship. Religion became, in both senses of the word, immaterial. Science and religion were apples and oranges. So the pact said: render unto apples the things that are Caesar’s, and unto oranges the things that are God’s. Just as the Maya kept two calendars, one profane and one priestly, so Western science and religion fell into two different conceptions of the universe, two different vocabularies.

This hostile distinction between religion and science has softened in the last third of the 20th century. Both religion and science have become self-consciously aware of their excesses, even of their capacity for evil. Now they find themselves jostled into a strange metaphysical intimacy. Perhaps the most extraordinary sign of that intimacy is what appears to be an agreement between religion and science about certain facts concerning the creation of the universe. It is the equivalent of the Montagues and Capulets collaborating on a baby shower.

According to the Book of Genesis, the universe began in a single, flashing act of creation; the divine intellect willed all into being, ex nihilo. It is not surprising that scientists have generally stayed clear of the question of ultimate authorship, of the final “uncaused cause.” In years past, in fact, they held to the Aristotelian idea of a universe that was “ungenerated and indestructible,” with an infinite past and an infinite future. This was known as the Steady State theory.

That absolute expanse might be difficult, even unbearable, to contemplate, like an infinite snow field of time, but the conception at least carried with it the serenity of the eternal. In recent decades, however, the Steady State model of the universe has yielded in the scientific mind to an even more difficult idea, full of cosmic violence. Most astronomers now accept the theory that the universe had an instant of creation, that it came to be in a vast fireball explosion 15 or 20 billion years ago. The shrapnel created by that explosion is still flying outward from the focus of the blast. One of the fragments is the galaxy we call the Milky Way — one of whose hundreds of billions of stars is the earth’s sun, with its tiny orbiting grains of planets. The so-called Big Bang theory makes some astronomers acutely uncomfortable, even while it ignites in many religious minds a small thrill of confirmation. Reason: the Big Bang theory sounds very much like the story that the Old Testament has been telling all along.

Science arrived at the Big Bang theory through its admirably painstaking and ideologically disinterested process of hypothesis and verification — and, sometimes, happy accident. In 1913, Astronomer Vesto Melvin Slipher of the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Ariz., discovered galaxies that were receding from the earth at extraordinarily high speeds, up to 2 million m.p.h. In 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble developed Slipher’s findings to formulate his law of an expanding universe, which presupposes a single primordial explosion. Meantime, Albert Einstein, without benefit of observation, concocted his general theory of relativity, which overthrew Newton and contained in its apparatus the idea of the expanding universe. The Steady State idea still held many astronomers, however, until 1965, when two scientists at Bell Telephone Laboratories, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, using sophisticated electronic equipment, picked up the noise made by background radiation coming from all parts of the sky. What they were hearing, as it turned out, were the reverberations left over from the first explosion, the hissing echoes of creation. In the past dozen years, most astronomers have come around to operating on the assumption that there was indeed a big bang.

The Big Bang theory has subversive possibilities. At any rate, in a century of Einstein’s relativity, of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (the very act of observing nature disturbs and alters it), of the enigmatic black holes (“Of the God who was painted as a glittering eye, there is nothing now left but a black socket,” wrote the German Romantic Jean Paul), science is not the cool Palladian temple of rationality that it was in the Enlightenment. It begins to seem more like Prospero’s island as experienced by Caliban. Some astronomers even talk of leftover starlight from a future universe, its time flowing in the opposite direction from ours. A silicon-chip agnosticism can be shaken by many puzzles besides the creation. Almost as mysterious are the circumstances that led, billions of years ago, to the creation of the first molecule that could reproduce itself. That step made possible the development of all the forms of life that spread over the earth. Why did it occur just then?

A religious enthusiasm for the apparent convergence of science and theology in the Big Bang cosmology is understandable. Since the Enlightenment, the scriptural versions of creation or of other “events,” like the fall of man or the miracles of Jesus Christ, have suffered the condescension of science; they were regarded as mere myth, superstition. Now the faithful are tempted to believe that science has performed a laborious validation of at least one biblical “myth”: that of creation.

But has any such confirmation occurred? Robert Jastrow, director of NASA’S Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has published a small and curious book called God and the Astronomers, in which he suggests that the Bible was right after all, and that people of his own kind, scientists and agnostics, by his description, now find themselves confounded. Jastrow blows phantom kisses like neutrinos across the chasm between science and religion, seeming almost wistful to make a connection. Biblical fundamentalists may be happier with Jastrow’s books than are his fellow scientists. He writes operatically: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Isaac Asimov, the prodigious popularizer of science, reacts hotly to the Jastrow book. “Science and religion proceed by different methods,” he says. “Science works by persuasive reason. Outside of science, the method is intuitional, which is not very persuasive. In science, it is possible to say we were wrong, based on data.” Science is provisional; it progresses from one hypothesis to another, always testing, rejecting the ideas that do not work, that are contradicted by new evidence. “Faith,” said St. Augustine, “is to believe, on the word of God, what we do not see.” Faith defies proof; science demands it. If new information should require modification of the Big Bang theory, that modification could be accomplished without the entire temple of knowledge collapsing. Observes Harvard University Historian-Astronomer Owen Gingerich: “Genesis is not a book of science. It is accidental if some things agree in detail. I believe the heavens declare the glory of God only to people who’ve made a religious commitment.”

A number of theologians concur that the apparent convergence of religious and scientific versions of the creation is a coincidence from which no profound meaning can be extracted. “If the last evidence for God occurred 20 billion years ago,” asks Methodist W. Paul Jones of Missouri’s St. Paul School of Theology, “do we not at best have the palest of deisms?” Jesuit Philosopher Bernard Lonergan goes further: “Science has nothing to say about creation, because that’s going outside the empirical. The whole idea of empirical science is that you have data. Theologians have no data on God.” There comes a point, somewhere short of God, at which all computers have no data either. With the Big Bang theory, says Jastrow, “science has proved that the world came into being as a result of forces that seem forever beyond the power of scientific description. This bothers science because it clashes with scientific religion—the religion of cause and effect, the belief that every effect has a cause. Now we find that the biggest effect of all, the birth of the universe, violates this article of faith.”

Some scientists matter-of-factly dismiss the problem of creation. Says Harvey Tananbaum, an X-ray astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Laboratory: “That first instant of creation is not relevant as long as we do not have the laws to begin to understand it. It is a question for philosophers and religionists, not for scientists.” Adds Geoffrey Burbidge, director of Kitt Peak National Observatory: “Principles and concepts cannot be measured. A question like ‘Who imposed the order?’ is metaphysical.” Still, virtually everyone —both scientists and laymen—is taken by the sheer unthinkable opacity of the creation and what preceded it. Says Jastrow: “The question of what came before the Big Bang is the most interesting question of all.”

One immense problem is that the primordial fireball destroyed all the evidence; the temperature of the universe in the first seconds of its existence was many trillion degrees. The blast obliterated all that went before. The universe was shrouded in a dense fog of radiation, which only cleared after 1 million years, leaving the transparent spangled space we see in the night sky now. The first million years are as concealed from us as God’s face. There are many forms of knowing: science, experience, intuition, faith. Science proceeds on the theory that there is method in all mysteries, and that it is discoverable. It obeys, reasonably, what is called the “first law of wingwalking”: “Never leave hold of what you’ve got until you’ve got hold of something else.” Faith, by definition, is a leap. It must await its verification in another world.

If it has done nothing else, however, the new coincidence of scientific and theological versions of creation seems to have opened up a conversation that has been neglected for centuries. Roman Catholic Theologian Hans Küng detects the beginning of a new period, which he calls “pro-existence,” of mutual assistance between theologians and natural scientists. People capable of genetic engineering and nuclear fission obviously require all the spiritual and ethical guidance they can get. As for theologians, the interchange between physics and metaphysics will inevitably enlarge their ideas and give them a more complex grounding in the physically observed universe. The theory of the Big Bang is surely not the last idea of creation that will be conceived; it does suggest that there remain immense territories of mystery that both the theologian and the scientist should approach with becoming awe.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• The 100 Most Influential People in AI 2024
• Inside the Rise of Bitcoin-Powered Pools and Bathhouses
• How Nayib Bukele’s ‘Iron Fist’ Has Transformed El Salvador
• What Makes a Friendship Last Forever?
• Long COVID Looks Different in Kids
• Your Questions About Early Voting , Answered
• Column: Your Cynicism Isn’t Helping Anybody
• The 32 Most Anticipated Books of Fall 2024

Contact us at [email protected]

Home — Essay Samples — Business — Conflict — Religion vs Science: An Argument

Religion Vs Science: an Argument

• Categories: Conflict Evolution

About this sample

Words: 569 |

Published: Mar 25, 2024

Words: 569 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Business Science

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1558 words

1 pages / 673 words

3 pages / 1215 words

1 pages / 527 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Conflict

In Edgar Allan Poe's short story, "The Tell-Tale Heart," the conflict between the narrator and his own sanity serves as a central theme that drives the plot forward. The narrator's descent into madness and his inability to [...]

August Wilson's play, Fences, is a profound exploration of African-American life in the 1950s, delving into themes of race, family, and personal aspirations. At the heart of this narrative is the complex relationship between [...]

Markus Zusak's The Book Thief provides a poignant narrative set against the backdrop of Nazi Germany, exploring the complex dimensions of human conflict. The novel, narrated by Death, delves deeply into the life of Liesel [...]

Amy Tan’s novel, The Joy Luck Club, published in 1989, offers a poignant exploration of the lives of Chinese-American women and their immigrant mothers. The narrative is structured around sixteen interlocking stories about [...]

The Thirty Years” War (1618-1648) first began with when the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II of Bohemia tried to reduce the religious activities of his subjects, provoked rebellion among Protestants. The war involved the [...]

Organisational politics give an understanding about informal conflict processes and collaboration in an organisation. It can be classified into two sites which are the positive and the negative sides. Both of these give rise to [...]

Related Topics

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

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

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

• canva icon Canvas
• Panther Mail (students)
• Arts & Film
• Business & Economy
• Campus & Students
• College Knowledge
• Health & Behavior
• Humanities & Society
• Science & Engineering
• University News
• Chapman Magazine
• Chapman Forward
• Maps & Directions
• Visit Chapman
• Discover Chapman
• Facts & Rankings
• Campus Services
• Degrees & Programs
• Schools & Colleges
• Academic Calendar
• Faculty Directory
• Course Catalogs
• International Study
• Undergraduate Admission
• Undergraduate Application
• Graduate Admission
• Graduate Application
• Affordability
• Financial Aid Calculator
• Campus Tours
• Get Involved
• Career Support
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Fish Interfaith Center
• Health & Safety
• Residence Life
• Student Life
• Pre-Award Administration
• Post-Award Administration
• Research Integrity
• Institutes & Centers
• Center for Undergraduate Excellence
• Graduate Research Support
• Contact Development
• Areas to Support
• Alumni Involvement
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Parents & Families
• All Directories

The God vs. Science Smackdown: Two Top Experts Debate at Chapman on March 7

Noted British author, theologian and philosopher Keith Ward of Oxford University will take on scientist and skeptic Michael Shermer in a debate at Chapman University on the nature of reality, science and religion, and God’s existence.  The debate will address such questions as: Can science really explain the origin of the universe, life, consciousness and morality without recourse to God? Or does science in fact provide enough evidence to make belief in God rational?

This epic event, in which one of the world’s leading theists will debate one of the world’s leading atheists, takes place Monday, March 7 at 7:30 p.m. in Chapman University’s Memorial Hall . Chapman chancellor and president-designate Daniele Struppa will moderate the proceedings.

Admission is free and open to the public. Visitor parking information may be found at www.chapman.edu/about/maps-directions . For more information, the public can call 714-997-6636.

This debate is co-sponsored by the Griset Lectureship in Christian Ethics; the Department of Religious Studies in Wilkinson College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences; the Fish Interfaith Center and the Office of the Chancellor at Chapman University.

About the Debaters:

Keith Ward, D.D. is Emeritus Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford and a fellow of the British Academy. A philosopher, theologian and priest in the Church of England, he is the author of numerous bestselling books, including Christ and the Cosmos ; The Evidence for God ; God, Chance and Necessity ; Christianity: A Guide for the Perplexed ; Pascal’s Fire: Scientific Faith and Religious Understanding ; and Why There Almost Certainly Is a God—Doubting Dawkins . Dr. Ward is visiting Chapman University as the 2016 Griset Lecturer in Christian Ethics. Michael Shermer, Ph.D. is Presidential Fellow at Chapman University, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and the author of several bestselling books including: The Moral Arc, The Believing Brain, The Science of Good and Evil, Why Darwin Matters, and Why People Believe Weird Things. His two TED talks were voted in the top 100 of the more than 2000 TED talks.

About the Moderator:

Daniele Struppa, Ph.D. is chancellor of Chapman University, and will become its 13th president on September 1, 2016. He received his doctorate degree in mathematics from the University of Maryland, College Park. He was a professor of mathematics at the University of Milano, at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa, and at George Mason University in Virginia, where he served as director of the Center for the Applications of Mathematics, as chair of the Department of Mathematical Sciences, and finally as Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. He is the author of more than 200 papers and has edited or co-authored more than ten books.

Mary Platt is director of the Hilbert Museum of California Art at Chapman University

Cancel reply

I’m excited for this, always watched debates like these on YouTube, this’ll be my first in person.

Media Contacts

Newsroom site, chapman site, services & policies.

© 2023 Chapman University

• Arts & Film
• Business & Economy
• Campus & Students
• Health & Behavior
• Humanities & Society
• Science & Engineering

Your Header Sidebar area is currently empty. Hurry up and add some widgets .

• Featured Essay The Love of God An essay by Sam Storms Read Now
• Faithfulness of God
• Saving Grace
• Adoption by God

Most Popular

• Gender Identity
• Trusting God
• The Holiness of God
• See All Essays

• Best Commentaries
• Featured Essay Resurrection of Jesus An essay by Benjamin Shaw Read Now
• Death of Christ
• Resurrection of Jesus
• Church and State
• Sovereignty of God
• Faith and Works
• The Carson Center
• The Keller Center
• New City Catechism
• Publications
• Read the Bible
• TGC Pastors

U.S. Edition

• Arts & Culture
• Bible & Theology
• Christian Living
• Current Events
• Faith & Work
• As In Heaven
• Gospelbound
• Post-Christianity?
• The Carson Center Podcast
• TGC Podcast
• You're Not Crazy
• Churches Planting Churches
• Help Me Teach The Bible
• Word Of The Week
• Upcoming Events
• Past Conference Media
• Foundation Documents
• Regional Chapters
• Church Directory
• Global Resourcing
• Donate to TGC

To All The World

The world is a confusing place right now. We believe that faithful proclamation of the gospel is what our hostile and disoriented world needs. Do you believe that too? Help TGC bring biblical wisdom to the confusing issues across the world by making a gift to our international work.

The Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence of God

Other essays.

The three “omni” attributes of God characterize him as all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present. Each of these involves the other two, and each provides a perspective on the all-embracing lordship of the true God.

Omnipotence means that God is in total control of himself and his creation. Omniscience means that he is the ultimate criterion of truth and falsity, so that his ideas are always true. Omnipresence means that since God’s power and knowledge extend to all parts of his creation, he himself is present everywhere. Together they define God’s lordship, and they yield a rich understanding of creation, providence, and salvation.

Introduction

The prefix omni means “all,” so the three divine attributes in our title can be paraphrased by saying that God is “all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present.” Let us look at these individually.

Omnipotence

Scripture affirms God’s omnipotence by saying that God does whatever he is pleased to do (Psa 115:3; cf. Isa 55:11 and Jer 32:17). Nothing is too hard for him (Gen 18:14). His word is never void of power, so when he speaks, everything in creation obeys him (Isa 55:11). Of course, creatures do disobey him in one sense; that is the essence of sin. But God has control even over sinful actions (Psa 105:24-25, Gen 45:5-8, Exod 4:21, Psa 105:24-25, Rom 9:18, Acts 2:23, 4:28). He ordains sinful, disobedient actions for his good purposes. So his word always prevails, and we can trust that His prophecies always come to pass (Deut 18:21-22).

Often we infer from these passages that God “can do anything.” But that doesn’t quite reflect the full biblical teaching. There are things that God cannot do. He cannot lie (Titus 1:2, cf. Num 23:19), nor, similarly, can he perform any immoral action. Since God is perfectly holy and good, he cannot do anything evil. And, since he is perfect truth, he cannot do things that are logically contradictory, like making round squares. His truth is a perfect consistency of thought and action. Nor can God do things inappropriate to his nature as God, like buying shoes or celebrating his birthday.

So how should we define God’s omnipotence more precisely? I think the most helpful definition of God’s omnipotence is this: that he has complete and total control over everything. This includes the smallest details of the natural world, like the falling of a sparrow or the number of hairs that grow on your head (Matt 6:26-30, 10:29-30). Even the events we call random, that we ascribe to chance, are really God at work (Prov 16:33). That includes not only the small things, but also the big things (which, after all, are accumulations of small things). He determines what nations will dwell in which territory (Acts 17:26). He decides what king is to rule, and when, and where (Isa 44:28). He decides whether the purposes of a ruler will stand or fall (Psa 33:10-11). And he decided, once, that wicked people would take the life of his dear Son, so that we sinners might live (Acts 2:23-24).

God rules not only the important events of human history but also the lives of individual people. He knits us together in our mothers’ wombs (Psa 139:13-16). He decides whether we will travel or stay home (Jas 4:13-17). He controls even the decisions of wicked people, as we saw above. But he also exerts his power to save sinners, to bring forgiveness and new life (Eph 2:8-10). Our salvation is entirely the work of God’s power, not at all our own work. We believe in Christ because he has appointed us to eternal life (Acts 13:48) and because he has opened our hearts to believe (Acts 16:14-15; cf. John 6:44, 65, Phil 1:29).

So his power is universal: it controls everything in the universe (Lam 3:37-38, Rom 8:28, Eph 1:11, Rom 11:33-36).

Omniscience

Now let us look at God’s omniscience. God’s power is not a blind power. Everything God does has an intelligent purpose, a definite goal. And since, as we’ve seen, God’s power is universal, so also is his knowledge. In knowing his own intentions, God knows everything in himself, in his creation, and throughout history. Scripture often refers to the universality of God’s knowledge (Psa 147:5, John 21:17, Heb 4:12-13, 1Jn 3:20). It often mentions that God knows detailed happenings on earth, even in the future (1Sam 10:2, 1Kgs 13:1-4, 2Kgs 8:12, Psa 139:4, Acts 2:23, 4:27-28).

Some theologians 1 have referred to passages like Gen 18:20-21 as teaching God’s ignorance. But Scripture assumes God’s omniscience pervasively, and it is far more likely that such passages should be interpreted consistently with that assumption. In Gen 18:20-21, for example, God does not admit ignorance, but declares that he is gathering facts for an indictment, preparing the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for judgment.

Indeed, God’s omniscience is based on his authority, for he is the supreme judge of all things, and he is the ultimate standard of what is true and false. Not only does God know what is true, but he is the very nature of truth. Truth is what he is (as John 14:6). So it is inconceivable that he could be wrong about anything.

God’s knowledge is a precious blessing to God’s people. Psa 139 emphasizes how deeply God knows us , wherever we are. “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it” (v. 6). God’s knowledge of us pursues us wherever we may go: to heaven, to the grave, to great distances, to dark places (vv. 7-12). He knew us when he was forming us in our mother’s womb (vv. 13-16), and he knew, even back then, every day of our lifetime on earth (v. 16). Wicked people should well be terrorized by this doctrine; but to the Psalmist God’s knowledge of us is wonderful and good (vv. 17-18), and he prays that God will draw on this knowledge to lead him to repentance and forgiveness of sin (vv. 23-24).

Omnipresence

Now, God’s omnipresence—his presence in every place and time. To say that God is “present” is to say that he is here with us, really here, not absent. Sometimes we connect a person’s presence with his body, as when a teacher takes attendance and says that Jimmy is “present” because his body is in his seat. But God does not have a body; he is immaterial. So how can we tell when God is present or absent?

Scripture’s answer is that God is present everywhere, because, as we have seen, his power and knowledge are everywhere. If every event, everywhere, takes place by God’s power, and if he has exhaustive knowledge of everything his power has brought to pass, then certainly he is not absent, but present in each event, though his presence is not quite the same as the presence of physical beings. So God’s omnipotence and omniscience imply his omnipresence.

His omnipresence is a presence both in place and in time. Psalm 139 indicates that God is present in every place. He is the creator of the heavens and the earth, and so he is in every location. He is also the creator of time, 2 the one without beginning or end. So he has been present in the world since its creation, and there will never be a time from which he is absent. In Scripture, he freely enters history and interacts with creatures. Supremely, he entered human history in Jesus Christ, where he died and rose again to save us from our sins.

So God’s omnipresence is not just a theoretical conclusion. It is a precious truth of redemption. Although we have sinned and deserve God’s judgment, God comes to his faithful people and declares to them “I will be with you .” This means that God is here, wherever we are, but also that God is on our side. He is with us, not to destroy us, but to forgive and to save us from sin. So this “with you,” this redeeming divine presence, is found often in Scripture as his gracious promise. To Isaac, God said, “I will be with you and will bless you” (Gen 26:3) and that language often forms the basis of God’s redemptive covenant. The heart of the covenant, God’s redemptive promise, is that “I will be your God, and you will be my people,” a precious togetherness of God with his people (Exod 6:7, 2Cor 6:16; cf. Gen 17:7, Exod 6:7, 29:45, Lev 26:12, Jer 7:23, 11:4, 24:7, 30:22, Ezek 11:20, 14:11, 36:28, 37:27, Heb 11:16, Rev 21:3). It should not surprise us that a biblical name for Jesus is Immanuel , God with us (Isa 7:14, Matt 1:23). As the Old Testament tabernacle was a place for God to dwell with his people, so Jesus, the Son of God, “tabernacled among us” (John 1:14).

Of course, God also can be said to be present to the wicked, and that is a fearsome and awful thing (Rev 1:7). But whether for good or for ill, God is present throughout heaven and earth, to carry out his own purposes.

Unity of the Omni-Attributes

We have seen that the three omni-attributes of God are quite inseparable. Since God’s power is purposeful and universal, it implies his omniscience. And since God’s omnipotence and omniscience are universal, we must conclude that he is omnipresent. We could note further that since God is omnipresent, all his attributes are omnipresent as well—his power and knowledge, as well as his truth, love, grace, eternity, infinity, and so on.

So the omni-attributes are like the other attributes of God, inseparable from each other and from him. As theologians say, God is “simple.” His attributes are not separable parts of him. Rather they are ways of characterizing God as a whole, ways of describing his nature.

Therefore, the omni-attributes are ways of speaking of God’s Lordship . “Lord” is the word that Scripture uses over 7,000 times to name him. The theological term “sovereignty” is equivalent to lordship. I have argued elsewhere 3 that Scripture typically defines God’s lordship as his “control, authority, and presence.” As we have seen, this triad is equivalent to the three omni-attributes. God’s omnipotence is his control over all things. His omniscience is his authority to declare what is true. And his omnipresence is his real existence in every time and place. So when we talk about God’s omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, we are talking about his lordship.

Further Reading

• Bavinck, Herman, Reformed Dogmatics : 2. God and Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004).
• Frame, John, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishers, 2002).
• Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).
• Pearce, Kenneth, “ Divine Attributes ”
• Theopedia, “ Attributes of God
• Tozer, A. W., The Knowledge of the Holy: the Attributes of God: Their Meaning in the Christian Life (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2009).
• Van Til, Cornelius, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishers, 2007).

This essay is part of the Concise Theology series. All views expressed in this essay are those of the author. This essay is freely available under Creative Commons License with Attribution-ShareAlike, allowing users to share it in other mediums/formats and adapt/translate the content as long as an attribution link, indication of changes, and the same Creative Commons License applies to that material.