Abstract

The debate about the relationship between science and religion shows no sign of abatement. Are science and religion in conflict? Are they just different? Or are they even complementary ways of approaching the world? This chapter examines the major arguments for and against the conflict thesis, focusing on the role of naturalism in science. It argues that both science and religion are epistemic fields, trying to come up with true knowledge of the world. In this sense they do have partly overlapping interests, in particular concerning the place of humans in the world. It argues further that in science, naturalism is to be understood as a metaphysical presupposition, not a methodological one, and it examines the methodological consequences of this view with respect to empirical testability and scientific explanation. The naturalist metaphysics and methodology of science is contrasted with the supernaturalist ontology and methodology of religion, concluding that science and religion are both metaphysically and methodologically incompatible. If science and religion are incompatible, it follows that religious education is not in accord with science education either.