will science replace a religious interpretation of the world

STRENGTH: provides empirically verifiable explanations

A major strength of science as a potential replacement for religion is that it offers empirically grounded, testable explanations for natural phenomena, often correcting or displacing religious cosmologies.

• The Big Bang theory, evolution by natural selection, and quantum mechanics explain the origins and development of the universe and life in increasingly precise terms, often superseding mythological or scriptural accounts.

• Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion (2006), argues that religion is a “God of the gaps,” increasingly irrelevant as scientific knowledge advances. He maintains that evolution explains complexity and apparent design without invoking a designer, eliminating the need for theistic explanations.

COUNTER to evidence

however theists argue that this evidence points towards god (e.g.temporal order) point to design argument

STRENGTH: evolution

contradicts literal readings of genesis + undermines loving god

WEAKNESS: mcgrath

A major critique of the idea that science can replace religion is that science cannot answer questions of ultimate meaning, purpose, or value, which lie at the heart of religious thought.

• While science can describe how things happen, it cannot explain why they matter in any existential or moral sense. Religion offers narratives of hope, redemption, and transcendence, addressing the human need for meaning beyond empirical data.

• Alister McGrath, in The Big Question (2011), argues that science and religion answer different kinds of questions. Science explains the mechanism; religion addresses purpose and significance. He calls for a “complementary” model, not a replacement.

WEAKNESS: consciousness

can’t fully explain human consciousness + frewill

COUNTER to consciousness

dawkins: god of the gaps