This paper examines faith as a basis of knowledge across religion and natural science, drawing on historical and contemporary scholarship. It surveys perspectives ranging from 19th-century theological journals to the writings of Albert Einstein and astronomer Allan Sandage. Key arguments include the tension between science's demand for demonstrable proof and religion's reliance on revelation, Descartes' appeal to consciousness, Murphy's claim that science and religion are mutually reinforcing rather than antagonistic, McGrath's defense of the rationality of Christian faith, and Sandage's view that cosmological evidence for the Big Bang points toward a supernatural creative event. The paper identifies both strengths and weaknesses of faith as an epistemic foundation, ultimately suggesting that science and faith may be more compatible than commonly assumed.
The paper demonstrates effective comparative synthesis: rather than treating each source in isolation, the author explicitly contrasts thinkers (e.g., Aquinas's view that faith is rational versus Einstein's rejection of rational foundations for faith) to build a nuanced, multi-perspective argument. This technique shows that academic writing is not simply reporting what sources say, but using them in dialogue with one another.
The paper opens with a framing question, then moves chronologically and thematically through its sources — from 19th-century journals, to Murphy and McGrath on complementarity, to Einstein's skepticism, and finally to Sandage's cosmological view of creation. Each section connects back to the central question of faith as an epistemic basis. The conclusion synthesizes the tension rather than resolving it definitively, which suits the complexity of the topic.
The relationship between faith, religion, and science has throughout history stirred a debate that has taken on philosophical, scientific, and theological dimensions. Are the two compatible? Are they at totally opposite ends of the spectrum of inquiry into life and the universe? This paper analyses the strengths and weaknesses of faith as a basis of knowledge in religion and natural science.
A university publication, The Friend (c. 1871), posed some pertinent issues for readers regarding faith and science — issues that remain just as relevant today. Author William Evans, a minister with the Society of Friends (Quakers), explains that in the 1870s scientists were questioning the value of religious belief and "aiming to modify the theology and character" of the Christian church (Evans, 1870, p. 95). These questions "awakened a tone of doubt and disbelief" that produced "wide-spread unsettlement and uneasiness respecting religious belief," Evans writes. This resulted in a "feverish spasm running through" Christian denominations, causing church members to "break loose" from their faith (Evans, 95).
Evans distinguishes two kinds of faith. One is based on "the reception of a truth demonstrated by the correct reasoning of another" — that is, science. The second is "exercised in relation to spiritual and divine things which are beyond the sphere of the elements which the powers of reason are able to investigate" (Evans, 95). This second faith must therefore be based on the "accepted infallibility of the source producing it," which in Christianity is the Word of God. This dependence on supernatural authority could be considered a weakness of faith, since knowledge is grounded in truths that cannot be empirically verified.
In the Methodist Quarterly Review (MQR) of 1875, the author explained that science and faith are "arrayed against each other and are feeling for each other's throats." Science "demands that belief shall accept nothing but positive knowledge as a foundation upon which reason may build its structure." Religion, "on the contrary, is based neither upon self-evident truth nor demonstration," the MQR states. Indeed, religion does not claim "absolute knowledge as its basis" but rather operates on a "preponderance of probability," while science claims to be fashioned "upon absolute certainty" (28).
Taking the argument a step further, Descartes believed that all a scientist — and a faith-based person — can know is "the testimony of his consciousness." Consciousness "never deceives," and if one assumes God exists, then God would want him to "trust his consciousness" because God would not "allow him to be thus deceived in the holy of holies of his being" — that is, his consciousness (MQR, 29). The concept of consciousness therefore strengthens the argument for faith as a legitimate basis of knowledge.
Joseph John Murphy, writing in 1873, provided a concise rationale for bringing together faith and natural science. His book The Scientific Bases of Faith offers insights and questions that retain their relevance today. Murphy hoped that science would "finally accept religion as not indeed the basis, but the summit and crown" of science (Murphy, 1873, p. 4). "Science is the basis of religion," Murphy explains (p. 6), because "supernatural truths imply natural ones, and cannot be stated without presupposing them."
Man discovers the facts and truths of science "for himself," Murphy explains, but "those of religion are revealed" to him (p. 6). This contrast, however, should not imply antagonism between the two disciplines. Since the physical sciences are to a great degree "based on the mathematical," the mutual relation of science and religion "ought to be just the same" (p. 6). In fact, Murphy asserts, the "antagonism between science and religion is purely imaginary," although the antagonism between those who teach science and those who teach religion "is, unfortunately, sometimes real" — though he concludes that this, too, will disappear in time. Attitudes like Murphy's strengthen the case that faith in religion and natural science need not be in conflict.
Alister McGrath argues that all truth originates in "human thought" and that humans are capable of developing "a series of truths which are universal and necessary" — a concept called "rationalism" (McGrath, 1999, p. 58). Traditional religious writers — including the iconic Thomas Aquinas — believed that Christian faith is "fundamentally rational" (McGrath, 58). It is rational because, although Christian truths could only have been acquired through "divine revelation," once these truths have been revealed they can be seen as rational. Hence, Christian faith is "fundamentally rational," and this faith can be supported and investigated by reason, McGrath continues (58). Aquinas believed that faith goes "beyond reason," and that reason builds upon what is known through revelation — a position that strengthens the argument that faith can serve as a legitimate basis of knowledge in religion (McGrath, 58).
Those who clearly oppose any link between science and faith are not likely to change their viewpoint simply because a book or scholarly article advocates such a link, or because a speech is given. But in time, given the perceptiveness of thinkers like Sandage — who see that the creation of the universe carries strong spiritual implications — science and faith may together prove to be the key to solving some of the great mysteries of the cosmos and of Planet Earth.
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.