In the past two decades, popular apologetics has exploded online, with countless videos and blogs arguing that science provides evidence for God.
Rooted in classical and evidentialist apologetics, this approach follows a long tradition of natural theology, seeing scientific discoveries as proof of a divine designer.
But in an increasingly sceptical world, is this method still effective? And does science really work that way?
Sir Arthur Eddington, a pioneering astrophysicist and Quaker, saw things differently. He didn’t believe science could prove God’s existence. Instead, he argued that science and faith operate in distinct domains—science explores the material world, while faith is rooted in human experience and consciousness.
Rather than using science to defend belief, Eddington critiqued materialist arguments against faith, challenging the assumption that science and religion are in conflict. His insights offer a fresh perspective on modern apologetics.
Could Eddington’s approach offer a better way forward for engaging with science and faith today? Samuel McKee and Jon Reynolds reexamine Eddington’s ideas in this article for ISCAST’s academic journal, CPOSAT.
More From the Journal
