Skip to main content

Truth in Science and ‘Truth’ in Religion: An Enquiry into Student Views on Different Types of Truth-Claim

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Science and Religion in Education

Part of the book series: Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education ((CTISE,volume 48))


Using focus groups, this small-scale, qualitative study investigated the way that students tend to think about religious truth-claims as compared to other types of truth-claim. All the student participants conceived of religious truth-claims as ‘opinions’, to be contrasted with the certain, indisputable ‘facts’ of science. For many students, it was the lack of empirical verification, as well as the existence of disagreement, which meant religious beliefs were relegated to this position. If these findings are generalisable, then there are implications for the ongoing theoretical dispute over the extent to which truth should be a focus in religious education. The tendency for students to see religious claims as subjective lends support for a critical pedagogy that places evaluation of truth centre-stage. The findings also suggest a need for religious education and science teachers to include more reflection on the nature of the scientific method in their schemes of work in order to dispel the myths of unanimity and certainty in science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. 1.

    See Grimmitt (2000) for a survey of RE pedagogies.

  2. 2.

    For a simple explanation of the conceptual framework underlying this pedagogy, as well as lesson resources and schemes of work exemplifying critical RE pedagogy, see Easton et al. (2019).

  3. 3.

    See Easton et al. (2019) for this scheme of work and accompanying lesson plans and resources.

  4. 4.

    In Easton (forthcoming), I discuss a number of other important themes, including the complex position taken by students over the truth-status of moral statements.

  5. 5.

    There were two ‘sides’, each made up of a different set of statements. Side A contained statements which are commonly viewed as ‘opinion’, such as ‘chocolate is the best flavour of ice cream’. Side B contained statements that are usually viewed as ‘fact’ such as ‘copper conducts electricity’. Students had to make a decision over which side to place new statements on.

  6. 6.

    The two sides were labelled only as ‘Side A’ and ‘Side B’ on the student handout. However, since all students spoke of side A as ‘opinion’ and side B as ‘fact’, I will now adopt these labels.

  7. 7. (accessed 23/03/17)

  8. 8. (accessed 23/03/17)

  9. 9.

    Bagdonas and Silva (2015) give a detailed exploration of teaching this debate.

  10. 10.

    For more on the nature of science in Science Education, see the journal ‘Science & Education’, which has numerous articles on this topic. It is the official journal of the International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Group, which also sponsors national and international conferences addressing the teaching of the nature of science. As part of their ‘Project 2061’, the American Association for the Advancement of Science provided a guide to their various educational resources that aim at ‘understanding the nature of science and developing the habits of mind needed to use that understanding for personal and social purposes’ (AAAS 2010).


  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2010). Exploring the nature of science. Accessed 4 Jan 2019.

  • Atkins, P. (1995). Science as truth. History of the Human Sciences, 8(2), 97–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayer, A. J. (1990). Language, truth and logic. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagdonas, A., & Silva, C. C. (2015). Enhancing teachers’ awareness about relations between science and religion the debate between steady state and big bang theories. Science and Education, 24, 1173–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billingsley, B., Brock, R., Taber, K. S., & Riga, F. (2016). How students view the boundaries between their science and religious education concerning the origins of life and the universe. Science Education, 100(3), 459–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooling, T. (2012). Faith, religious education and whole school issues. In L. Philip Barnes (Ed.), Debates in religious education (pp. 88–97). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A. (2010). Defending religious pluralism for religious education. Ethics and Education, 5(3), 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easton, C. (forthcoming). Looking for answers? A qualitative study examining relativism about religious and moral truth amongst secondary school students [Working Paper].

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, C., Goodman, A., Wright, A., & Wright, A. (2019). Critical religious education in practice: A teacher’s guide for the secondary classroom. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Erricker, C., & Erricker, J. (2000). Reconstructing religious, spiritual and moral education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallup. (2002). Who is Jesus? Accessed 27 Mar 2017.

  • Gallup. (2013). Most Americans believe in Jesus’ virgin birth. Accessed 27 Mar 2017.

  • Gauch, H. G. (2009). Science, worldviews, and education. Science and Education, 18, 667–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimmitt, M. (2000). Pedagogies of religious education. Essex: McCrimmons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, P., Bennett, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2014). The inter-relationship of science and religion: A typology of engagement. International Journal of Science Education, 36(7), 1210–1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, J. M. (1992). The transmission of religious prejudice. British Journal of Religious Education, 14(2), 69–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, J. M. (2000). Religionism and religious education. In: M. Leicester and S. Modgil (Eds.), Spiritual and religious education (pp. 75–85). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1992). Treatise of human nature. New York: Prometheus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1999). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, S. (2006). The war for children’s minds. Oxford: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23(2), 285–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. Y., Kesebir, S., & Pillutla, M. M. (2016). Gender differences in response to competition with same-gender coworkers: A relational perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(6), 869–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2009). Science, worldviews and education: An introduction. Science and Education, 18(6-7), 641–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L. (1998). Planning focus groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wright A. (2007). Critical religious education, multiculturalism, and the pursuit of truth. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, A. (2013). Christianity and critical realism. Oxon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina Easton .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix: Selected Parts of the Interview Schedule

Appendix: Selected Parts of the Interview Schedule

Discussion Question 2

Here are four statements. How are the first two statements different from the second two statements?

  1. 1.

    3 + 3 = 6.

  2. 2.

    Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen.

  3. 3.

    There is no God.

  4. 4.

    God wants everyone to pray five times a day.

Discussion Question 4

Angela believes that the earth is flat. Scientists think it is round. What would you say to Angela if she told you that the earth is flat?

Discussion Question 5

Side A

Side B

Chocolate is the best flavour of ice cream.

2 + 2 = 4

Cats are the nicest animals.

Copper conducts electricity.

Blue is the best colour for decorating bedrooms.

Vitamin C is good for you.

Would you put these statements on side A or side B?

  • Hitler is an evil man.

  • God loves everyone.

  • Cheetahs can run faster than lions.

  • White and black people are of equal value.

  • The world was created by God.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Easton, C. (2019). Truth in Science and ‘Truth’ in Religion: An Enquiry into Student Views on Different Types of Truth-Claim. In: Billingsley, B., Chappell, K., Reiss, M.J. (eds) Science and Religion in Education. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 48. Springer, Cham.

Download citation

  • DOI:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17233-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17234-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics