Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
1.3
0.6
Journals
Religions
Special Issues
No God, No Science? Reassessing the Relationship Between Theology and...
share announcement

No God, No Science? Reassessing the Relationship Between Theology and Modern Science

A special issue of Religions (ISSN 2077-1444).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 1 June 2026 | Viewed by 4653

Special Issue Editors

Prof. Dr. George M. Coghill

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
1. School of Natural and Computing Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
2. Edinburgh Theological Seminary, Edinburgh, UK
Interests: theology and science; theology and AI; philosophical theology; analytic theology
Dr. Ximian Xu

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Interests: AI and theology; AI ethics; theology of science; systematic theology; Chinese theology

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

For a theist, science is a calling to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (Kepler) as the one who has created and upholds all things, and without whom the universe would not exist. In the past, this could be taken for granted, but in latter times, post Darwin, it is seen by some as outdated since, as Dawkins proposes, it is easier to be a scientific atheist now than it has been in times past. But in fact, as Plantinga points out, that merely provides a superficial agreement (but underpinned by deep conflict) between naturalism and science; whereas, by contrast it highlights a deep harmony between religion and science (albeit with some superficial appearance of conflict).

In the modern world “science” is not a homogenous body of knowledge. Increased specialisation has been the norm for the past couple of centuries; so much so that merely being classed as a scientist is not a guarantee of a breadth of knowledge across disciplines. This is one reason why a topic such as this requires input from several perspectives across a range of subjects.

To this end we are pleased to invite you to submit a paper on the state-of-the-art in relating modern science and religion. This may address issues in well-established sciences (e.g., physics and biology) or in more recent specialities (e.g., AI and information, and synthetic biology), as well as work from a properly theological perspective. Submissions should highlight how operating in a world upheld and sustained by God necessitates this research and outlook.

In this Special Issue, original research articles and reviews are welcome and research areas may include, but are not limited to:

  • Religion and science/science-engaged theology/the theology of science;
  • Theology and apologetics;
  • The history and philosophy of science;
  • Physics and chemistry;
  • Evolutionary biology;
  • Systems and synthetic biology;
  • The cognitive and neurosciences;
  • Climate science;
  • Artificial intelligence and informational sciences.

We request that, prior to submitting a manuscript, interested authors initially submit a proposed title and an abstract of 200–300 words summarising their intended contribution. The abstract should clearly state the focus of the paper, what is novel about it, as well as its main findings and conclusions. Please send these to the Guest Editors, Professor George M. Coghill at g.coghill@abdn.ac.uk and Dr. Ximian Simeon Xu at sx279@cam.ac.uk, or to the Assistant Editor of Religions, Ms. Clare Chai, at clare.chai@mdpi.com. Abstracts will be reviewed by the Guest Editors for the purposes of ensuring proper fit within the scope of the Special Issue. Full manuscripts will undergo double-blind peer review.

We look forward to receiving your contributions.

Prof. Dr. George M. Coghill
Dr. Ximian Xu
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Religions is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • religion and science
  • apologetics
  • artificial intelligence and religion
  • history of science
  • theology

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (4 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

13 pages, 192 KB  
Article
‘None Will Work Without a God’: The Faith-Based Physics of James Clerk Maxwell
by Bruce Ritchie
Religions 2026, 17(5), 539; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel17050539 - 30 Apr 2026
Viewed by 421
Abstract
This article outlines the life of James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) and presents some aspects of his philosophy of science. It describes the influence of the philosopher Sir William Hamilton on Maxwell’s general thinking. It considers Maxwell’s view that the boundary conditions of science [...] Read more.
This article outlines the life of James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) and presents some aspects of his philosophy of science. It describes the influence of the philosopher Sir William Hamilton on Maxwell’s general thinking. It considers Maxwell’s view that the boundary conditions of science (the ultimate origin of matter, the ultimate origin of the logic of the universe, and the initial characteristics of fundamental entities) appear to point to a Creator. It sets these issues within their historical context. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue No God, No Science? Reassessing the Relationship Between Theology and Modern Science)
12 pages, 285 KB  
Article
Probability, Compressibility and AI: A Novel Response to Intelligent Design
by Wojciech P. Grygiel
Religions 2026, 17(3), 364; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel17030364 - 15 Mar 2026
Viewed by 483
Abstract
This article offers a reassessment of the Intelligent Design doctrine by engaging probability theory, complexity theory and contemporary artificial intelligence. Andrey Kolmogorov’s work shows that chance belongs to an intelligible mathematical order and that complex structures can arise from patterns that admit concise [...] Read more.
This article offers a reassessment of the Intelligent Design doctrine by engaging probability theory, complexity theory and contemporary artificial intelligence. Andrey Kolmogorov’s work shows that chance belongs to an intelligible mathematical order and that complex structures can arise from patterns that admit concise description. This challenges the assumption that improbability signals an external designer and instead points to a creation whose inner rationality is stable and fruitful. Insights from self-organizing systems strengthen this view by showing how new forms of order emerge from the interaction of fluctuation and natural constraint. Recent advances in artificial intelligence including AlphaFold, de novo protein design and the Brain-Derived Hebbian architecture make aspects of this intelligibility visible by modeling and predicting biological form and basic patterns of reasoning without recourse to explicit foresight. Their capacity to generate coherent structures under learned constraints reflects the rational order of creation, which Christian theology identifies with the Divine Logos. This order provides a deeper account of divine action than interpretations of Intelligent Design grounded solely in structural improbability. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue No God, No Science? Reassessing the Relationship Between Theology and Modern Science)
18 pages, 332 KB  
Article
Neuroscience and the Non-Elimination of Theology
by Paul C. Knox
Religions 2026, 17(2), 236; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel17020236 - 15 Feb 2026
Viewed by 1221
Abstract
The scientific activity and outputs of the neurosciences are fascinating and, for the most part, uncontroversial. However, there have been sustained claims that neuroscientific findings represent a powerful challenge to historic, orthodox Christian teaching concerning human ontology. While philosophers had long debated the [...] Read more.
The scientific activity and outputs of the neurosciences are fascinating and, for the most part, uncontroversial. However, there have been sustained claims that neuroscientific findings represent a powerful challenge to historic, orthodox Christian teaching concerning human ontology. While philosophers had long debated the “mind/brain” problem, the rise of “eliminative materialism” (in the specific form of “neurophilosophy”) in the last quarter of the 20th century evoked various responses to the proposition that a mature neuroscience would forever banish familiar “folk science” entities like beliefs and desires as well as immaterial souls or minds. These would all be shown to play no role in a thoroughly materialistic, mature, neuroscientific understanding of ourselves. One aspect of the response to such claims within Christian scholarship was a turn to non-reductive physicalism and theological monism prompting a reassessment of biblical teaching concerning human ontology, seeking a position that would be consistent both with neuroscience (or its alleged implications) and Christian teaching. The aim of this paper is to review neuroscientific, philosophical and theological developments in order to establish where theological anthropology currently stands. In part this requires an assessment of contemporary neuroscience (including the subfield of “consciousness studies”) because while the science continues to generate intriguing hypotheses and data, it has fallen some way short of the eliminative materialists’ hopes of forty years ago. Additionally, important methodological criticisms of the science have emerged concerning such issues as reproducibility and participant selection. This may have contributed to the twenty-first century resurgence of interest in the sort of dualism long a key component of theological orthodoxy, as well as highlighting the need for a reassertion of theological values, methods and perspectives. The apparent non-elimination of theology indicates a need to rebalance theological and neuroscientific perspectives in developing our understanding of the person. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue No God, No Science? Reassessing the Relationship Between Theology and Modern Science)
18 pages, 305 KB  
Article
Evolution, Animal Suffering, Eschatology, and Ethics: Attending and Responding to Creaturely Struggle
by Neil Messer
Religions 2026, 17(2), 136; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel17020136 - 26 Jan 2026
Viewed by 785
Abstract
This paper explores the ethical implications of an ongoing debate about evolution, animal suffering, and the goodness of God. Christopher Southgate describes a “fault-line” between those who believe the struggle, suffering, and destruction of the evolutionary process are aligned with God’s good purposes [...] Read more.
This paper explores the ethical implications of an ongoing debate about evolution, animal suffering, and the goodness of God. Christopher Southgate describes a “fault-line” between those who believe the struggle, suffering, and destruction of the evolutionary process are aligned with God’s good purposes in creation and those who regard these evolutionary “disvalues” as contrary to God’s good purposes. Recent efforts at dialogue across the fault line have not resolved this basic disagreement, but have achieved notable consensus on eschatology: both sides share the hope of eschatological fulfilment for other-than-human creatures and an end to the suffering, struggle, and destruction of the present age. One under-explored aspect of this dialogue is its ethical significance; since evolutionary theodicies are theological evaluations of the natural world, they should inform our understanding of what we must do in response to its struggle and suffering. Having outlined the present state of the dialogue, I consider its implications for three particular ethical issues: (1) Eating meat. Southgate and Bethany Sollereder consider meat-eating in itself ethically unproblematic, for reasons not unconnected with their evolutionary theodicies. By contrast, I argue that the eschatological hope they, like me, affirm mandates Christians to refrain from avoidable violence toward our fellow-creatures. For many westerners, “avoidable violence” includes the killing of animals for food. (2) Ending extinction. Southgate has called for humans to be “co-redeemers,” sharing with God in the healing of the evolutionary process, including efforts to combat both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic species extinction. Skeptical that humans are called to be co-redeemers, I agree that reducing anthropogenic species extinction is a proper act of repentance for the sin of ecological destruction, but am more wary of human attempts to prevent non-anthropogenic extinction. (3) Responding to pain. While I agree with Southgate and Sollereder that pain is usually biologically adaptive in this world, I refer to good scientific evidence for the existence of pain that is non-adaptive and detrimental to the flourishing of both humans and other animals. There is a prima facie ethical obligation to do what is in our power to relieve such pain. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue No God, No Science? Reassessing the Relationship Between Theology and Modern Science)
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-4
Back to TopTop