Article section
Faith, Fact, and the Human Condition: How Religious Narratives Shape Scientific Understanding and Social Behavior
Abstract
This paper explores how religious narratives shape public understanding and acceptance of scientific knowledge, influencing social behavior across diverse communities. It discusses tensions and possibilities at the intersection of faith and empiricism in public health, environmental stewardship, and technological ethics. By The study is based on a qualitative research design premised on interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) and comparative case study techniques using historical records, policy publications, and ongoing discourse. Examples of case studies, such as vaccine hesitancy, climate change solutions, and artificial intelligence ethics, reflect the interplay between religious beliefs and scientific evidence. Quantitative evidence points out that Catholic groups introducing the theological concept of stewardship and scientific evidence had as much as 85% of the population vaccinated, as opposed to 65 percent of those who focused on individual faith. Correspondingly, 57% of white evangelical Protestants believed the scientific consensus on climate change, but 32% did not, showing cultural cognition- and group-identification effects. These conclusions show that religious texts serve as spiritual doctrines and cultural constructs that might be problematizing and complementing scientific paradigms. The paper will add to a culturally sensitive approach to faith-science dialogue that focuses on cultural equality, respects dignity, and interdisciplinary education to solve the urgent global challenges.
Keywords:
Environmental Stewardship Faith-Science Dialogue Public Health Religious Narratives Scientific Understanding Social Behavior
Article information
Journal
Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Science
Volume (Issue)
2(2), (2025)
Pages
331-338
Published
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2025 Kimberly Long Holt (Author)
Open access

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Abbas, A., Ekowati, D., Suhariadi, F., & Anwar, A. (2024). Human capital creation: a collective psychological, social, organizational, and religious perspective. Journal of Religion and Health, 63(3), 2168-2200. https://repository.unair.ac.id/124653/2/1.10-DianEkowati_Artikel_Human-Capital-Creation.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-022-01665-8
Augé, A. (2020). The evolution of climate change narratives: analysis of metaphor scenarios in four genres (Doctoral dissertation, University of East Anglia). https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/84512/1/AAuge100228950Thesis%20final.pdf
Bloomfield, E. F., Van Swol, L. M., Chang, C. T., Willes, S., & Ahn, P. H. (2020). Establishing intimacy and consubstantiality affects group discussions about climate change solutions. Science Communication, 42(3), 369-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020927017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020927017
Gomes, M., Marsat, S., Peillex, J., & Pijourlet, G. (2024). Does religiosity influence corporate greenwashing behavior?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 434, 140151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140151 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140151
Ives, C. D., Kidwell, J., Anderson, C. B., Arias-Arévalo, P., Gould, R. K., Kenter, J., & Murali, R. (2024). The role of religion in shaping the values of nature. Ecology and Society, 29(2), 10. https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/files/226694567/ES-2024-15004.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15004-290210
LePere‐Schloop, M., & Nesbit, R. (2023). The nexus of public administration, public policy, and nonprofit studies: An empirical mapping of research topics and knowledge integration. Public Administration Review, 83(3), 486-502. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13587 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13587
Öhlmann, P., & Swart, I. (2022). Religion and environment: exploring the ecological turn in religious traditions, the religion and development debate, and Beyond. Religion and Theology, 29(3-4), 292-321. https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/91376/Ohlmann_Religion_2022.pdf?sequence=1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15743012-bja10044
Okamura, K. (2016). Dynamic development of public attitudes towards science policymaking. Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 465-479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515605420 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515605420
Patrick, R., Snell, T., Gunasiri, H., Garad, R., Meadows, G., & Enticott, J. (2023). Prevalence and determinants of mental health related to climate change in Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 57(5), 710-724. https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674221107872 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674221107872
Većkalov, B., van Stekelenburg, A., van Harreveld, F., & Rutjens, B. T. (2023). Who is skeptical about scientific innovation? Examining worldview predictors of artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and human gene editing attitudes. Science Communication, 45(3), 337-366. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470231184203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470231184203
Yin, Y., Dong, Y., Wang, K., Wang, D., & Jones, B. (2021). Science as a public good: Public use and funding of science (No. w28748). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28748/w28748.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w28748
Yuan, S., & Lu, H. (2020). “It’s global warming, stupid”: Aggressive communication styles and political ideology in science blog debates about climate change. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(4), 1003-1025. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020904791 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020904791