Religion and science

Shared Appreciation for Science

Both Alister McGrath and Richard Dawkins value the scientific method and agree that evidence is central to belief. They recognize the importance of observation, experimentation, and rational reasoning as tools for understanding the natural world.

However, their conclusions about the compatibility of religion and science are vastly different.

McGrath: Religion and Science as Complementary

Alister McGrath argues that science and religion are mutually beneficial, forming a symbiotic relationship rather than one of conflict. He claims that:

• Religion and science can interpenetrate each other, allowing both to become more informed.

• The need to engage with religion in modern times—evidenced by the popularity of books like The God Delusion—shows that faith continues to be significant in a scientific age.

• Science is not meant to fill gaps in understanding (“God of the gaps”), but rather to help humans make sense of the universe.

• Religion provides meaning, moral insight, and philosophical context, which science alone cannot supply.

McGrath also draws on Stephen Jay Gould’s principle of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), noting that science can coexist with both atheism and conventional religious belief.

In his critique of Dawkins (The Dawkins Delusion, 2007), McGrath argues that Dawkins’ work is polemic rather than scientific, describing it as:

• A withering criticism of religion without empirical foundation

• An artificial separation of science and faith

• Comparable to hellfire preaching in reverse, promoting atheism in a dogmatic manner

Dawkins: Science in Opposition to Religion

Richard Dawkins takes the view that religion and science are often incompatible, particularly when religious claims contradict empirical evidence. Key aspects of Dawkins’ stance include:

• Criticism of religious doctrines as unsubstantiated and unscientific

• The argument that belief in God is not evidence-based, unlike scientific conclusions

• The idea that religious faith can obstruct rational inquiry

McGrath contests these claims, highlighting that Dawkins’ attacks often ignore historical, cultural, and philosophical nuances of religious belief.

Points of Agreement

Interestingly, both McGrath and Dawkins reject the “God of the gaps” argument. This approach, common in the 18th and 19th centuries, suggested that God explains phenomena science has not yet explained. Both thinkers see this as:

• Limited and reductionist

• Misrepresentative of true Christian thought

• Historically outdated

McGrath emphasizes that faith in God is not merely a placeholder for ignorance, but a framework through which humans seek understanding, meaning, and moral guidance.

Summary

• McGrath: Religion and science are complementary, with faith providing meaning and context, while science explains the natural world. Critiques of religion by Dawkins are often unscientific and polemical.

• Dawkins: Religion often conflicts with scientific evidence and should be challenged on rational grounds.

The debate highlights that the relationship between religion and science depends on philosophical starting points—whether one sees supernatural events as possible or focuses solely on empirical evidence.