Weak scientism isn’t harmless to Christianity. If science is the most reliable way to know things, claims that can’t be checked scientifically should be held with low confidence, which is exactly what skeptics say about miracles and the afterlife.

This is the right follow-up, and conceding weak scientism costs the Christian nothing in principle but raises the bar in practice. Weak scientism does raise the bar for non-scientific claims, and the Christian response is to meet it: historical claims are assessed by historical method, philosophical claims by philosophical argument, and both are legitimate ways of knowing that weak scientism does not exclude. What weak scientism cannot do is rule those methods out in advance, which is what the strong version tried to do. The rest of this site is the attempt to clear that raised bar.