CLAIM: Science does not reject religion by default; it seeks evidence and understanding through testing and observation.
CLAIM: Scientism is science that forgets this and rejects religion by default.
SHORT ANSWER: We don't need an explicit rejection. Tacit is enough.
If God alone matters, if Jesus is the only way to truth, then science pays them no attention and is thus implicitly rejecting them.
If religion is a very big, complex, and prevalent thing, then science that goes about its business as if it did not exist is indeed rejecting it. We seem to say it is rejecting only if science explicitly says, "We reject religion." Saying it is not as important as showing it. Seen in that light, science—and nearly all scientists—in fact reject religion.
How silence can speak louder and more finally/firmly than an explicit statement like "science rejects religion":
Implied Dismissal: When science systematically ignores religion instead of engaging with it, that silence suggests that religion is irrelevant or unworthy of consideration. Ignoring something important can communicate dismissal more strongly than words.
Everyday Practice: Science, through its methods and priorities, deals only with what can be tested and observed. By never addressing or incorporating religious claims, it effectively excludes them from the conversation. This consistent exclusion says, “Religion is outside the scope of what matters here,” which functions as a rejection in practice.
Cumulative Effect: Over time, this ongoing silence builds a strong message. Rather than a one-time declaration, it’s a persistent stance that signals religion’s lack of importance within scientific discourse.
Implicit Assumption: If science explicitly said “we reject religion,” it might open up debate or require justification. Silence, on the other hand, simply assumes religion’s irrelevance without argument, which can be a more powerful and unchallenged form of rejection.
In short, silence often communicates a stance more powerfully because it shapes the context and boundaries within which science operates, effectively excluding religion by default rather than by declaration.
APPENDIX:
Science is a major concern in the search for proof or things that are beyond reasonable doubt. By scientific truth, we mean what is beyond reasonable doubt, and that can include things that are 100% certain - in principle.
Science is not looking for proof for God. Science means you cannot assume there is no proof. You keep looking.
This contradicts the religious claim that God does not need proving.
And it shows what science thinks of God.
You listen to a religious claim and tell the speaker they owe you scientific evidence for why you should hear and listen to what they have said. They owe it to you to explain why it is the truth. These days, you will be accused of scientism for that.
Science definitely says that the truths that matter are linked in some way to testing. But it does not say that you can dismiss anything just because science cannot test it. The tree that nobody sees is still there.
Religion sets up a straw man. It says the dogma of scientism is allegedly, "Accept nothing except what the scientific method proves." It is said to be contradicting itself, for no test is done to show we should believe nothing else. Religion would be right about that.
But imagine scientism really was the only option. Some would say, "It is not a contradiction, for it is unavoidable. What else are we to do? Thus it is a paradox. A paradox is that which is true but which looks absurd."
We hold that scientism as they understand it is non-existent. Science says, “Prefer that which is shown true by scientific investigation.” It does not say science alone has truth. Accusations of scientism only surface when science undermines God and religion.
Scientism is thought to be refuted by Einstein. It is accused of saying that the only thing that matters is what science shows to be true. But Einstein said that not everything that can be detected and measured matters, and that things that cannot be examined and tested matter too—perhaps more. The fact remains that science is more than just machines and tests. We all do science. We are scientific instruments. Einstein was saying love matters more than mere science. He is wrong—it is science that tells you the other person is there, and you need that before you can love them.
We are told, "Scientism assumes that you must work to find out what is real but no test can tell you that you must." What? Now we simply know we need to test. Life is the test that tells you to check what is around you. If you want to condemn science, you mess around with words and call it scientism. That is what religion is doing.
Another complaint is that we cannot test love and it matters more than any scientific discovery. But you cannot love without science. You cannot care for your baby if tests have not shown that babies need milk. Religion puts love in a bubble. Love and science hold hands.
Love is not a scientific truth in the way the amount of iron in a rock is, but it is broadly a scientific truth. Our eyes and ears and senses and hearts detect it. We are scientific instruments ourselves.
Somebody might say, "Love is not a scientific truth and evolution is. It is leaning too much toward scientism when you say that evolution matters 100% and love matters 99.5%. Nobody says there has to be a stark, huge gap. A huge gap might be if evolution matters totally and love matters 1%." Ask them then what they think if the world has to choose to put belief in evolution first or belief in love first and it can only be one or the other. They will choose love, which shows that this is about virtue-signaling. Love without scientific truth is only a word and is impractical and impossible.
Those who oppose so-called scientism say that psychology is not a science, though it thinks it is, so science is not as reliable as we imagine. Is psychology science if it depends too much on what people claim and say? It depends on observation of others that may be subject to bias. It is loose science. It is criminal to try and taint psychology and ruin mental health by calling it an ideology or scientism.
When you claim science refutes something religion says, religion will rightly tell you that you carry the burden of proof. And of course, you will see that the scientific method alone is the best way to deliver.
It will claim that science is wrong and does nothing to meet the burden of proof it expects of you.
It is impossible for religion to meet the burden of proof that testing and science are unreliable. It is an impossible burden for religion to meet, for religion is not science and does not claim to be.
Science at its best is experimentation. Don't let people stain it by calling it scientism when they don't like what it finds or does not find -or what it looks for and does not look for.