Bias in the Science and Religion Dialogue? A Critique of “Nature of Evidence in Religion and Natural Science”

E V Rope Kojonen

doi:10.1080/14746700.2021.1944497

Abstract

ABSTRACT In their article “Nature of Evidence in Religion and Natural Science” (Theology & Science 2020), Petteri Nieminen and colleagues compare the use of evidence in religion and science. Their claim is that religious use of evidence is characterized by “experiential” thinking and confirmation bias, which makes integration with science difficult. I argue, however, that their methodology is unreliable and their theory of religious cognition is too simplistic. Further research should take the complexity of “science,” “religion” and “rationality” more sufficiently into account.

Highlights

Are religious and scientific ways of knowing so different that this makes integration between them unfeasible? Yes, answer Petteri Nieminen, Juuso Loikkanen, Esko Ryökäs and Anne-Mari Mustonen in their recent Theology & Science article.[1]
(Theology & Science 2020), Petteri Nieminen and colleagues compare the use of evidence in religion and science
They argue that “whereas religious claims are based on experiential evidence, scientific claims are based on experimental evidence.”[2]. They characterize experimental thinking as intuitive, based on personal experience and testimonials, resistant to change, and characterized by confirmation bias, “i.e. concentrating on data that support one’s preconceptions and dismissing contradictory evidence.”[3]. In contrast, they see scientific thinking as reflective and objective, falsifiable and testable, and based on more reliable types of evidence.[4]

Summary

Introduction

Are religious and scientific ways of knowing so different that this makes integration between them unfeasible? Yes, answer Petteri Nieminen, Juuso Loikkanen, Esko Ryökäs and Anne-Mari Mustonen in their recent Theology & Science article.[1].

Results

Conclusion