Why Science Does Not Exclude God and the Question Is Not Absurd
How believing scientists navigate the intersection of empirical truth and existential meaning
The question of whether a scientist can believe in God serves as an intellectual litmus test for our modern society. It touches upon the deepest assumptions about reason and truth. For many, the notion of a believing natural scientist appears at first glance to be a paradox or even an absurdity. After all, science operates in the realm of the empirical, the measurable, and the falsifiable, while faith anchors itself in the realm of the metaphysical, the unprovable, and the transcendent.
This supposed incompatibility, however, is itself a product of a particular and often simplistic philosophical stance: scientism, which elevates science to the sole source of valid knowledge. Once we acknowledge that science, while powerful, is not the only mode of understanding, and that human life raises ethical and existential questions that lie beyond the reach of a particle accelerator, the apparent paradox begins to crumble.
This essay examines the ethical and epistemological intersection of faith and science. It argues that the compatibility of these two domains is not only possible but often leads to a deeper, more ethically grounded science and a more rational faith.
I. The Epistemological Divide: Separation of Domains
The heart of the conflict lies in a confusion of domains of authority, what philosophers call magisteria. The distinguished paleontologist and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould coined the term Non-Overlapping Magisteria, or NOMA, to describe this peaceful coexistence. According to this framework, science and faith operate in fundamentally different spheres of inquiry.
The magisterium of science concerns itself with the empirical universe. It asks how the world functions, what mechanisms constitute it, and which laws govern matter, energy, and life. Its tools are the hypothesis, the experiment, and mathematical modeling. Science seeks to describe the observable patterns of nature through repeatable, testable methods.
The magisterium of faith, by contrast, concerns itself with the existential and the ethical. It grapples with questions of why we are here, what meaning life holds, how we should act morally, and which values are fundamental. Its tools are interpretation, contemplation, and spiritual experience. Faith addresses the questions that emerge when we ask not just what is, but what ought to be, and why anything exists at all.
From this perspective, the question of whether faith is absurd is fundamentally misconstrued. It implies that faith must be an alternative scientific theory competing with relativity or quantum mechanics. This is only true of fundamentalism, which mistakenly interprets religious texts literally as scientific treatises. A rational, reflective faith does not challenge the scientific method. It accepts the findings of cosmology, biology, and physics as true descriptions of creation or reality. Faith begins where scientific description ends: with the question of ultimate causation, the origin of the laws themselves, or the transcendent meaning behind observable order.
Many scientists experience the unfathomable order, elegance, and mathematical structure of the universe they investigate daily not as evidence for God’s absence but as a hint toward a deep, reason-endowed foundation of existence. The discovery of the fine-tuned constants of the universe – those physical values that, if altered even slightly, would permit neither life nor complex structures – is interpreted by some as a cosmological or teleological indication of a Creator, without invalidating the calculation of these constants themselves.
II. The Ethical Imperative: Faith as Moral Compass
For an ethics-oriented publication, the moral dimension of this compatibility is particularly relevant. Science and technology are ethically neutral instruments. They can provide the means to heal the world or to destroy it.
Nuclear fission is scientifically neutral; its use as an energy source or as a weapon of mass destruction is an ethical decision. Genetic engineering is scientifically neutral; its deployment to cure diseases or to pursue eugenic goals is an ethical choice.
Science provides facts; it does not provide values. The empirical method can tell us what is, but not what ought to be. This is the famous Is-Ought Problem identified by philosopher David Hume. Here is where faith enters the picture for many scientists.
Faith provides a source of value and human dignity. Many religious traditions furnish a metaphysical basis for human dignity and the inviolability of life. The notion that humans bear the image of God, or possess inherent value in some other way, offers a stable ethical anchor in an otherwise purely materialistic worldview. This belief can serve as a protective barrier, particularly in the face of rapid scientific developments that potentially blur the boundaries of humanity, such as advanced artificial intelligence or cutting-edge bioethics. A scientist committed to faith is often sensitized to the ethical implications of their research.
Faith can also instill in a scientist an attitude of responsibility and humility toward their work. The scientific method thrives on the humility of treating one’s own hypotheses as provisional and potentially false. Faith can reinforce this humility on an existential level, reminding the scientist that they are not the ultimate authority and that the universe is ultimately larger and more mysterious than their models. This prevents intellectual arrogance or the belief that everything is solvable through technology.
Many religious texts emphasize the role of humans as stewards of creation. For believing climate scientists, biologists, or ecologists, this theological perspective offers an additional moral obligation to advocate for the protection of the Earth and the just distribution of resources. The concept of stewardship transforms scientific work from mere investigation into a sacred responsibility.
A purely reductionist scientific viewpoint tends to reduce humans to their material components or neuronal processes. Love becomes oxytocin, consciousness becomes electrochemical impulses. While these biological explanations are correct, they do not capture the entirety of human experience. The ethical depth, moral complexity, and subjective experience are often neglected in this reductionist view. Faith serves here as a corrective that focuses on the dignity, uniqueness, and wholeness of the human subject, thereby creating a more fundamental basis for ethics.
III. Historical and Contemporary Examples: Theists in the Laboratory
The idea of an irreconcilable battle between science and faith – often termed the conflict thesis – is historically an exaggeration or a late invention of the nineteenth century. In fact, many of the founding fathers of modern science were deeply religious men.
Nicolaus Copernicus, who served as a canon and developed the heliocentric theory, saw in it the harmony of divine creation. Johannes Kepler, the astronomer who discovered the laws of planetary motion, described his work as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Isaac Newton, the greatest natural scientist of his time who formulated the laws of gravitation and motion, spent much of his life engaged in theological studies and viewed the universe as the direct work of a rational Creator.
Even in modern times, leading scientists grapple with this compatibility. Georges Lemaître, the Belgian priest and physicist who first proposed the Big Bang theory, originally termed the “hypothesis of the primeval atom,” saw his work as a scientist and priest as completely independent yet not contradictory. Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, is a prominent Christian and advocate of theistic evolution. He founded the BioLogos Foundation to promote harmony between scientific findings and Christian faith. Collins argues that evolution was God’s elegant tool for creation.
These examples demonstrate that a deep understanding of the rational laws of the universe does not necessarily lead to atheism. On the contrary, it can lead to a reverent acknowledgment of complexity, which for believers is often the beginning of the search for God. The more we understand about the intricate mechanisms of life, the cosmos, and consciousness, the more some scientists find themselves confronting profound questions about the source and purpose of such extraordinary order.
IV. Internal Conflict and the Role of Doubt
It would be naive to deny the internal conflict that believing scientists sometimes experience. When scientific discovery appears to contradict a traditional religious doctrine – such as the timespan of evolution compared to a literal interpretation of the creation week – an intellectual adjustment must take place.
Believing scientists often resolve this conflict through theological reformulation. They interpret religious texts not as historical or scientific reports but as existential and spiritual truths. For example, the creation narrative is understood as a theological statement about the world’s dependence on God, the order of creation, and human dignity – not as a scientific protocol of the origination process.
Others embrace the concept of God working through mechanisms. They see God not as a gap to be filled, the so-called “God of the Gaps,” but as the foundation and originator of the laws that allow the universe to function autonomously, including evolution. The discovery of a mechanistic process such as evolution does not explain God away but reveals the elegance of divine method. Evolution becomes not the absence of God but the presence of divine creativity working through natural processes over deep time.
Doubt in this context is not a sign of weakness but an engine of both science and mature faith. Science requires constant doubt about one’s own hypotheses; faith requires contemplation and wrestling with metaphysical truths. A scientist who both doubts and believes is often a more holistic thinker, capable of holding tensions that pure certainty cannot accommodate. This intellectual honesty – the willingness to live with questions – may be one of the most valuable contributions that faith-informed scientists bring to their disciplines.
V. The Absurdity in the Juxtaposition
The claim that faith is absurd for a scientist ultimately rests on a philosophical error: the aforementioned scientism. It is absurd to expect everything from science.
It would be absurd to measure love with a telescope. It would be absurd to analyze the meaning of life with a spectrometer. It would be absurd to make a moral decision using the periodic table.
Likewise, it is inappropriate to measure faith by the standards of empirical science. Faith operates in a different category of knowledge. It is an existential response to a transcendent question, not a technical answer to an empirical problem. The tools appropriate for investigating physical phenomena are simply not designed to address questions of ultimate meaning, purpose, or value.
The coexistence of faith and science is not merely a personal choice but an intellectual necessity to encompass the full spectrum of human experience. Science gives us the power to understand and change the world; faith, or a philosophical ethics, gives us the wisdom and values to use that power responsibly. Without both dimensions, we risk becoming either technologically powerful but morally adrift, or ethically committed but practically ineffective.
The true absurdity would lie in a scientist who, capable of grasping the infinite complexity of the universe, ignores its existential depth and confines themselves to the mere description of mechanisms without ever asking the question of the reason or purpose behind this magnificent machinery. To study the elegant laws of physics, the intricate dance of DNA, or the vast expanse of cosmic evolution without wondering why these things exist at all, or what our place might be within them, would be to deliberately truncate human inquiry at its most crucial juncture.
Conclusion: Faith as Enrichment
Science provides us with the book of nature; faith often provides us with the book of values. For many scientists, faith is not the end of reason but its completion – the acknowledgment that the search for truth has two wings: the wing of empirical research and the wing of spiritual insight.
The believing scientist lives and works in the ethical laboratory of life, where the what of scientific knowledge is constantly grounded by the how and why of moral responsibility. Faith does not make their science worse but lends it a deeper and more ethical perspective. It provides a framework for answering questions that science, by its very nature and methodology, cannot address: questions of meaning, purpose, moral obligation, and ultimate value.
The question of the compatibility of faith and science is thus not absurd but a profoundly human and morally important question that touches the core of our existence. It is the ongoing challenge of viewing the world with the head of a researcher and the heart of a seeker. In an age of unprecedented scientific power – from genetic manipulation to artificial intelligence to climate engineering – this dual perspective becomes not merely intellectually interesting but practically essential.
The believing scientist embodies a synthesis that our modern world desperately needs: the rigorous pursuit of empirical truth combined with humble acknowledgment of mystery, the power of technological capability tempered by ethical responsibility, and the confidence of knowledge balanced by the wisdom of not knowing everything. Far from being an absurd contradiction, this integration represents one of the most sophisticated intellectual positions available to thoughtful people navigating the complexities of the twenty-first century.
In the end, the ethical laboratory of faith-informed science produces not just better knowledge but better scientists – individuals who understand that every discovery carries with it not only the question “Can we?” but also the deeper question “Should we?” Those who can hold both questions simultaneously, who can wield the tools of empirical investigation while remaining accountable to transcendent values, may be best equipped to guide humanity through the profound challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.