Can theology be a science? An epistemological reflection


Many dubious disciplines have been removed from academic institutions, but theology is not one of them, as it is still taught in respectable universities. This article argues that theology does not deserve that special treatment. Theology has long pretended to be a science, but it can never be, because ultimately, theology is grounded on faith and authority, two tenets that run counter to the scientific method. Natural theology appeals to evidence and reason, but it also fails in its endeavor. More recent theologians admit that their discipline is not science per se, but still consider it legitimate in its quest for meaning. There are also reasons to doubt this claim, as there is no need to appeal to the supernatural to find meaning.


theology; science; faith; reason; evidence

Full Text:



Adams, M. M. (1992). Fides quaerens intellectum: St. Anselm’s method in philosophical theology. Faith and Philosophy, 9(4), 409–435.

Adams, R. M. (1979). Moral arguments for theistic belief. In C. F. Delaney (Ed.), Rationality and religious belief (pp. 116–140). University of Notre Dame Press.

Bebbington, D. (2011). The Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Think, 10(27), 71–72.

Betty, L. S., & Cordell, B. (1987). God and modern science: New life for the teleological argument. International Philosophical Quarterly, 27(4), 409–435.

Craig, W. L. (2003). Design and the anthropic fine-tuning of the Universe. In N. A. Manson (Ed.), God and design: The teleological argument and modern science (pp. 170–192). Routledge.

Craig, W. L., & Moreland, J. P. (Eds.). (2012). The Blackwell companion to natural theology (Vol. 49). John Wiley & Sons.

Dawkins, R. (1996). The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. W. W. Norton & Company.

Dawkins, R. (2016). The god delusion. Random House.

Edwards, D., Ashmore, M., & Potter, J. (1995). Death and furniture: The rhetoric, politics and theology of bottom line arguments against relativism. History of the Human Sciences, 8(2), 25–49.

Flew, A. (2000). Theology and falsification. Philosophy Now, 29.

Gould, S. J. (1999). Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. Ballantine.

Henderson, D. E. (2008). Implementing methodological secularism: The teaching and practice of science in contentious times. In A. Keysar & B. A. Kosmin (Eds.), Secularism & science in the 21st century (pp. 105–116). Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture.

Hintikka, J. (1981). Kant on existence, predication, and the ontological argument. Dialectica, 35(1), 127–146.

Huttinga, W. (2014). ‘Marie Antoinette’or Mystical Depth? Herman Bavinck on Theology as Queen of the Sciences. In J. Eglinton & G. Harinck (Eds.), Neo-Calvinism and the French revolution (pp. 143–154). Bloomsbury T&T Clark.

Koons, R. C. (1997). A new look at the cosmological argument. American Philosophical Quarterly, 34(2), 193–211.

Mackie, J. L. (1955). Evil and omnipotence. Mind, 64(254), 200–212.

Malcolm, N. (1960). Anselm’s ontological arguments. The Philosophical Review, 69(1), 41–62.

McGrath, A. E. (2011). Surprised by meaning: Science, faith, and how we make sense of things. Westminster John Knox Press.

Nielsen, K. (1967). Wittgensteinian fideism. Philosophy, 42(161), 191–209.

Oppy, G. (2010). Uncaused beginnings. Faith and Philosophy, 27(1), 61–71.

Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. Penguin.

Pruss, A. R. (1998). The Hume-Edwards principle and the cosmological argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 43(3), 149–165.

Rowe, W. L. (1979). The problem of evil and some varieties of atheism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16(4), 335–341.

Solon, T. P. M., & Wertz, S. K. (1969). Hume’s argument from evil. The Personalist, 50(3), 383–392.

Thagard, P. (2010). The brain and the meaning of life. Princeton University Press.

Torrance, T. F. (1972). Newton, Einstein and scientific theology. Religious Studies, 8(3), 233–250.

Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
Texts in the journal are –unless otherwise indicated– published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License


Creative Commons License
Texts in the journal are –unless otherwise indicated– published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License