Trusting in Science and Religion

Parallels and Contrasts

Abstract

Science relies on trust both in its public reception and in the collaborative collection of evidence, as it is impossible for anyone to verify everything independently. Might the presence of trust in scientific practice help show that trust in religious matters is also rational? Or might scientific practices rather undermine testimony as a source of religious knowledge? Parallels and contrasts between scientific and religious knowledge are common in the literature, despite the plurality of sciences and religions that exist making such comparisons difficult. In this article, I will analyse science-based arguments for and against the reliability of religious testimony. I begin with Mary Midgley’s argument against scientism, and use it to develop a parallel between religious and scientific trust. I then consider two arguments from science against religious trust: the argument from the superiority of science, and the argument from cultural evolution. I argue that utilization of work in social epistemology is helpful for understanding the parallels between scientific and religious trust in a nuanced manner, and that relating specific scientific and religious practices might be more useful than general-level critiques of religious rationality.