Science and Belief in Argentina:Mapping Moral and Epistemological Conflicts Through Moral Foundations Theory

Most studies on science and religion attitudes assume that science and religion are contradictory belief systems. Since Evans (2011) reframed them as institutions offering moral definitions, scholars have increasingly explored moral conflicts. Drawing on 63 interviews and 6 focus groups in Argentina, we analysed moral and epistemological conflict attitudes using grounded theory and Moral Foundations Theory. We found patterns similar to Western contexts: systemic epistemological conflict was concentrated among secular intellectual elites, while propositional conflict appeared mostly among conservative Evangelicals. However, we also uncovered novel insights. Participants from all backgrounds perceived moral conflicts, but emphasized different moral foundations: harm, fairness, and liberty were more frequent among non-religious participants, while religious individuals drew on all six foundations. We identified 11 recurring moral judgments that may inform future cross-cultural research. Our study contributes to science and religion scholarship by expanding conceptual and methodological frameworks and by highlighting the importance of moral dimensions in shaping public perceptions across cultural settings.