This document discusses the perceived conflict between faith and science. It argues that faith and science make truth claims about reality and should not be seen as incompatible. While some view higher education as leading to less faith, studies show this is an oversimplification. The document outlines different types of conflicts between faith and science from a sociological perspective and proposes models for reconciling them, including recognizing they have different goals. It concludes that both faith and science point to our need for salvation in Christ.

2. INTRODUCTION
 Today’s culture says Faith and Science are
incompatible and the conflict is irreconcilable.
 We are often left to choose either Faith or
Science and never both.
 Both rest on “truth statements” about the
reality of the universe.
 “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.” – John Polkinghorne

3. Definitions
 Faith –
 Latin – fidei (to
trust)
- To trust in God or
teachings of
religion / belief in or
confident attitude
toward God.
- (belief+action+confi
dence)
 Science - the
intellectual and
practical activity
encompassing the
systematic study of
the structure and
behavior of the
physical and
natural world
through
observation and
experiment.

4. Is it true that higher education
means less faith?
 1. The more education a person receives,
the more likely they are to become atheists.
2. Non belief also increases
with intelligence and income. Residents of
more educated countries see religion as
less important in their daily lives . – Nigel
Barber
 Is faith really affected by education in
Science?
 A study shows that majority that leave
religion are not necessarily those that have
higher education.

5.  In America a good number of adults that have left faith
did not take further studies in Universities. – John Evans
(professor of Sociology)
Beliefs of
National
Academmy of
Science senior
members -
Larsaon and
Witham
Atheist
Agnostic
Beliefs of
professors
various
institutes Gross
and Simons
2009
Theist
Agnostic
Sympathetic
Higher Power

6. Wake Up Call to Christians?
 Survey shows that 39.1% evangelical Christians or
those of other faiths were likely not to be hired in
Scientific occupations (Yancey 2012).
 Theists internalize prevalent negative societal
stereotypes, which leads them to underperform in
scientific tasks and lose interest in pursuing a
scientific career. and were less competent compared
to non-religious counterparts., Christian participants
performed worse in logical reasoning tasks (which
were misleadingly presented as “scientific reasoning
tests”). Kimberly Rios et al. (2015)
 It is unclear whether religious and scientific thinking
are cognitively incompatible. Some studies suggest
that religion draws more upon an intuitive style of
thinking, distinct from the analytic reasoning style that
characterizes science (Gervais and Norenzayan
2012).

7. Types of Conflict from a
Sociological Perspective
 It is a matter of “Truth”
 With the Advent of Scientism the
conflict has become ever evident.
 The conflict has been identified in 3
stages –
 A. Systemic Knowledge or
Epistemology Conflict
 B. Propositional Knowledge Conflict
 C. Moral Conflict

8. Systemic Knowledge Conflict-
Happens among Elites (PhD in Theology Vs Science)
 CHRISTIAN
- Sola Scriptura
- Supernatural &
Miracles
- Creation ex-nihilo
- God created man
in His image
 SCIENCE
- Only Scientific
method
- Only Nature and no
miracles
- Big Bang from
redefined ‘Nothing’
- Man through
evolution

9. PROPOSITIONAL CONFLICT
- among majority of the masses, less extreme –
general public
 CHRISTIAN
- Accepts some
science but not all
science. (eg.
Rejects evolution
but accepts big
bang)
- Presupposes God’s
divine action.
 SCIENCE
- Accepts some
religious belief but
not all of them. (A
supernatural being
maybe involved in
causing the big
bang.
- Presupposes
Natural
explanations

10. Moral Conflict –
a major conflict
 CHRISTIAN
- If God then eternal
consequences
- Man made in
Image of God thus
valuable
- Bio-ethics –
abortion, gene
editing, cloning
with religious
presuppositions
 SCIENCE
- No God no eternal
consequences
- Value in terms of
human progress
- Abortion, gene
editing, cloning etc.
all relative.

11. Models For Reconciliation
 Scientific concordance – attempt to
explain Biblical accounts scientifically.
 Accomodationism – Science and
Religion have different goals. Eg. Non-
overlapping Magisteria (NOMA)
Stephen J Gould etc.
 Is it Science Vs Faith or “Atheistic
Worldview” vs “Theistic Worldview”

12. How do we approach the
Conflict?
 The most important question is – does
modern science disprove the Bible? – William
Lane Craig
 As thinking, rational beings we should follow
the evidence where it leads. But,
 See to it that no one takes you captive by
philosophy and empty deceit, according to
human tradition, according to the elemental
spirits of the world, and not according to
Christ. Col 2:8
 Address both Theology and Science
responsibly.
 Criticise Science with good Science

13. The Universe is Intelligible and
so is life (why science is possible)
 1. The Universe is Intelligible – created
by a rational mind
 2. Creation of life seems to be highly
intelligible – not random highly selected
molecules arranged in a very
sophisticated manner (Homo-chirality of
biomolecules, specifities of molecular
interactions – DNA replication,
irreducible complexities)
 Only Rational beings can do science –
humans made in the image of a Rational
Superbeing.

14. Biomolecules show homochirality
evidence for intelligence in biological systems

15. D-ribose of DNA/RNA only in
living cells
 Only D-DNA (RNA) [homochiral] produce L-
amino acids , Homochiral fidelity required to
produce functional proteins in living
organisms.

16.  Such stereospecific molecules are not selected
randomly but requires careful filtration using
techniques like chromotography. – not chance but an
intelligent mind is the best explanation.

17. BOTH POINT TO SALVATION
 The purpose of Faith and Science is to look
for answers to life’s biggest questions –
happiness, abundant life, health,
immortality and so on.
 Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
(remember this is not a def. but a statement to
show what faith does)
 Science and technology hopes to give
humanity –happiness, health (medicine,
gene editing) and immortality (gerontology).
But this shows that we are Broken and this
is what the Bible has been telling us all
along.
 Christian faith - hope rests on the

18. Conclusion
 Nature’s truth is also God’s truth –
Francis Schaeffer
 We ought to learn and communicate
the language of Science in today’s
culture when people are looking for
Salvation.
 The conflict maybe a stumbling block
to some but provides opportunities to
share the hope we have in Christ.