“The question of truth is as central to [religion’s] concern as it is in science. Religious belief can guide one in life or strengthen one at the approach of death, but unless it is actually true it can do neither of these things and so would amount to no more than an illusory exercise in comforting fantasy” Anglican priest and scientist John Polkinghorne.
The biggest gulf between science and religion seems to be in the area of claimed miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus. A believer in miracles may not realise it - they have a fallback position. Tacitly they say that if the event could be proven to be natural, that they will read a divine plan into the coincidences that worked to bring it about. Richard Swinburne suggests that whether miracles involve supernatural intervention or natural processes guided by God, what ultimately matters is their spiritual significance. However, if significance is the only criterion, then serious problems arise. If human manipulation, misunderstanding, or even imagination contributes to the appearance of a coincidence, does that undermine its religious value? And if an event is genuinely coincidental but mistakenly interpreted, how can it function reliably as a divine message? It will do grave damage to science. Science assumes that no remarkable coincidence engineered by any supernatural being is the real reason why aspirin seems to help headaches.
Science is defined by sceptical questioning. Its guiding principle is not belief in the everyday sense, but provisional acceptance based on evidence. Scientific claims are always open to testing, revision, or rejection. This attitude is sometimes misrepresented by critics as “scientism,” the idea that only what can be scientifically tested is worth believing. In practice, this caricature rarely reflects how science actually operates. Science does not deny the existence of non-scientific questions; it simply insists that claims about the natural world be accountable to evidence.
When scientific findings conflict with religious doctrines or historical claims rooted in faith, many religious believers adopt a “wait and see” posture. They may concede that current evidence appears to undermine their beliefs while withholding acceptance in the hope that future discoveries will restore them. While caution is sometimes reasonable—especially when evidence is genuinely incomplete—this stance becomes problematic when strong, well-supported findings are dismissed simply because they are unwelcome.
There is an important distinction between cases where evidence is genuinely unsettled and cases where a claim has been thoroughly investigated and credibly refuted. Treating all challenges as if they fall into the former category introduces bias and undermines respect for scientific judgment. Science itself determines when uncertainty remains and when conclusions are warranted. Deferring indefinitely in order to preserve belief is not scientific scepticism; it is motivated doubt.
Appeals to past scientific errors, such as the Piltdown Man hoax, are often used to justify this posture. However, these examples ultimately reinforce confidence in science rather than weaken it. Science corrected those errors through further investigation. The method worked. To use such cases as grounds for blanket distrust misunderstands how scientific knowledge advances.
The problem becomes more serious when religious belief exempts itself from scientific scrutiny altogether. Many religious traditions maintain that core doctrines—such as the existence of God or miracles—cannot, even in principle, be assessed by scientific methods. Instead, they are said to be known through personal experience, moral transformation, or historical testimony. While such claims may feel compelling to believers, they also remove those beliefs from the shared standards of evidence that protect us from error. Once subjective experience is treated as a primary source of truth, there is no clear way to distinguish sincere insight from sincere delusion.
This epistemic looseness has consequences beyond theology. History, ethics, and even medicine increasingly rely on evidence-based reasoning that overlaps with scientific methods. Historians evaluate testimony, motives, and probabilities; ethicists assess harm and benefit. When religious belief encourages a general habit of “waiting and seeing” in the face of strong evidence, that habit can spill over into these other domains.
For example, most historians agree that the gospel accounts demonstrate belief in Jesus’ resurrection, not the resurrection itself. Ethical analysis similarly raises serious concerns about biblical portrayals of divine violence. These critiques do not rely on hostility to religion but on the application of consistent standards of reasoning. Shielding religious claims from such evaluation weakens intellectual accountability.
Some religious groups explicitly encourage scientific education and deference to scientific expertise. However, most major religious traditions do not place acceptance of science on the same doctrinal level as their theological commitments. In practice, scientific findings are often embraced when they align with religious teaching and resisted when they do not. This selective acceptance suggests that facts are valued instrumentally rather than intrinsically.
Science seeks to reduce uncertainty by identifying real patterns and distinguishing causation from coincidence. Introducing supernatural agents—who may intervene unpredictably or suspend natural regularities—adds explanatory uncertainty rather than reducing it. While such beliefs may serve theological purposes, they work against the core aim of science: achieving well-founded, reliable understanding of the world.
For these reasons, religion’s claim to adopt a neutral “wait and
see” stance toward science is misleading. In many cases, this
posture functions as a way to preserve doctrines that have already
been seriously undermined. Genuine respect for science requires
accepting its conclusions when they are well supported, even when
they are uncomfortable. Anything less places belief ahead of
evidence and compromises the pursuit of truth.
BOOKS CONSULTED
A Summary of Christian Doctrine, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth
Trust, London, 1971
A Test of Time, David Rohl, Century, London, 1995
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley, Whitaker House,
Pennsylvania, Undated
An Act of God, Graham Philips, Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1998
Answers to Tough Questions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Scripture
Press Bucks, 1988
Attack on the Bible, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro,
1965
Belief and Make-Believe, GA Wells, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois,
1991
Biblical Dictionary and Concordance, New American Bible, Living Word
Edition, CD Stanley Enterprises, North Carolina, 1971
Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, Raymond E Brown, Paulist
Press, New York, 1985
But the Bible Does Not Say So, Rev Roberto Nisbet, Church Book Room
Press, London, 1966
Catholicism and Christianity, Cecil John Cadoux, George Allen &
Unwin Ltd, 1928
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San
Francisco, 1988
Creation and Evolution, Dr Alan Hayward, Triangle, London, 1994
Does the Bible Contradict Itself? Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1986
Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982
Essentials, David L Edwards and John Stott, Hodder & Stoughton,
London, 1990
Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol 1, Josh McDowell, Alpha,
Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995
Free Inquiry, Fall 1998, Vol 18, No 4, Council for Secular Humanism,
Amherst, New York
God and the Human Condition, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London, 1967
God Cannot Lie, David Alsobrook, Diasozo Trust, Kent, 1989
God, Science and Evolution, Prof E H Andrews, Evangelical Press,
Herts, 1985
God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not
Exist, Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, New York, 2008
God’s Word, Final Infallible and Forever, Floyd C McElveen, Gospel
Truth Ministries, Grand Rapids, 1985
Hard Sayings, Derek Kidner, InterVarsity Press, London, 1972
How and Why Catholic and Protestant Bibles Differ, Carolyn Osiek,
RSCJ and Donald Senior, CP, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville,
Minnesota, 1983
How to Interpret the Bible, Fergus Cleary SJ, Ligouri Publications,
Missouri, 1981
In Defence of the Faith, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene Oregon,
1996
Inspiration in the Bible, Fr Karl Rahner, Herder and Herder, New
York, 1966
It Ain’t Necessarily So, Investigating the Truth of the Biblical
Past, Matthew Sturgis, Headline Books, London, 2001
Jehovah of the Watch-tower, Walter Martin and Norman Klann, Bethany
House Publishers, Minnesota, 1974
Let’s Weigh the Evidence, Which Bible is the Real Word of God? Barry
Burton, Chick Publications, Chino, California, 1983
Know What You Believe, Paul E Little, Scripture Union, London, 1973
Know Why You Believe, Paul E Little, Scripture Union, London, 1971
New Age Bible Versions, GA Riplinger, Bible & Literature Foundation,
Tennessee, 1993
New Evangelicalism An Enemy of Fundamentalism, Curtis Hutson, Sword
of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1984
None of These Diseases, SI McMillen MD, Lakeland, London 1966
On Being, Peter Atkins, Oxford, New York, 2011
Our Perfect Book the Bible, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Murfreesboro, 1958
Proof the Bible is True, Rev JMA Willans BD, Dip.Theol. Vermont
Press, Larne, 1982
Radio Replies Vol 3, Radio Replies Press, Minnesota, 1942
Reason and Belief, Bland Blanschard, London, George Allen and Unwin
Ltd, 1974
Remarks on the New King James Version and Revised Authorised
Version, DK Madden, 35 Regent Street, Sandy Bay, Tasmania, 7005,
1991
Return to Sodom and Gomorrah, Charles Pellegrino, The Softback
Preview, New York, 1995
Science and the Bible, Henry Morris, Moody Press, Bucks, 1988
Science Held Hostage What’s Wrong With Creation Science and
Evolutionism, Howard J Van Till/Davis A.Young/Clarence Menninga, IVP,
Downer’s Grove, Illinois, 1988
Science Speaks, Peter W Stoner and Robert C Newman, Moody Press,
Chicago, 1976
Set My Exiles Free, John Power, Logos Books, MH Gill & Son Ltd,
Dublin, 1967
Testament, The Bible and History, John Romer, Henry Holt and
Company, New York, 1988
The Authority of the Bible, Ambassador College, Pasadena,
California, 1980
The Bible Fact or Fantasy, John Drane, Lion, Oxford, 1989
The Bible is the Word of God, Jimmy Thomas, Guardian of Truth,
Kentucky
The Bible or Evolution? William Jennings Bryan, Sword of the Lord,
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
The Bible, Questions People Ask, A Redemptorist Pastoral
Publication, Liguori Publications, Missouri, 1980
The Bible, The Biography, Karen Armstrong, Atlantic Books, London,
2007
The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman,
Touchstone Books, New York, 2002
The Canon of Scripture, FF Bruce, Chapter House, Glasgow, 1988
The Church of Rome and the Word of God, Rev Eric C Last, Protestant
Truth Society, London, Undated
The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
The History of Christianity, Lion, Herts, 1982
The King James Version Defended, Edward F Hills, The Christian
Research Press, Iowa, 1973
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Edited by Raymond E Brown,
Joseph A Fitzmyer, Roland E Murphy, Geoffrey Chapman, New York 1990
The Theology of Inspiration, John Scullion SJ, Mercier, Cork, 1970
The Unauthorised Version, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
Verbal Inspiration of the Bible, John R Rice Sword of the Lord,
Murfreesboro, 1943
What is the Bible? Henri Daniel-Rops, Angelus Books, Guild Press,
New York, 1958
When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books,
Illinois ,1992
Which Version Now? Bob Sheehan, Carey Publications, 5 Fairford
Close, Haywards Heath, Sussex RH16 3EF
Who is a Fundamentalist? Dr Curtis Hutson, Sword of the Lord,
Murfreesboro, 1982
Why Does God..? Domenico Grasso SJ, St Pauls , Bucks, 1970
Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer, Freeman, New York,
1997