A Brief Critique of Arthur Eddington’s Approach to Science and Religion in Light of Evidentialism

Since the emergence of New Atheism under figures such as Richard Dawkins, there has been a revolution in popular Christian interest in science and religion. However, many approaches to science and religion among Christian laypeople follow an evidentialist model. In sharp contrast, Sir Arthur Eddington’s different voice, as a prominent scientist and devout Quaker, remains unfamiliar to the majority in these discussions. Heralded by some commentators as ahead of his time, his unusual yet bold ideas, which at times were misunderstood, deserve renewed consideration. His influence throughout the twentieth century ran deeper than he has been given credit for. It is time to reassess his value to science and religion as a discipline and to acknowledge that his contributions have a great deal of merit for the ongoing dialogue. In this article, we question whether evidentialist approaches are as valuable as Eddington’s contributions. We examine his works and life to see what can be learned from his perspective on the science-religion question. In doing so, we are also asking whether his attitude to science and religion would be more fruitful than the alternatives.