his chapter explores some of the underlying epistemological assumptions and points of departure underpinning much of the recent science-faith dialogue, which ranges from coherent, enriching, concordant views on the relation between faith and science to disharmonious debate and conflict. Discordant dialogue and unscientific conjecture, often misrepresented as scholarly in the media, sustain false dichotomies between science and faith and inevitably influence worldview and public opinion.The science-faith dialogue is characterised by varying underlying philosophical frameworks and traditions, assumptions regarding what constitutes reliable sources of knowledge and truth, rationality and justification for claims such as falsifiability, tacit extrapolation of scientific findings beyond their proven validity range, logical fallacies (such as incorrect use of infinite regress arguments) and (for Christian scholars) different views of scripture and hermeneutic tradition.The success and standing of naturalism are largely attributable to the successes of methodological natural science – the scientific method and empirical verification – which originated during the Scientific Revolution, with significant contributions by many prominent Christian scholars. Naturalism claims to preclude sources of knowledge and truth other than the natural world and hence precludes time-honoured ontological arguments for the conclusion that God exists. Yet, attempts are made in ontological naturalism to incorporate arguments for questions previously not asked by methodological naturalism. Two examples are used to illustrate overreach and lack of rigour in ontological naturalistic reasoning: biological evolutionism and atheistic arguments involving the origin and unfolding of the universe. The pseudo-religious add-ons of ontological naturalism are highlighted. When the distinction between rigorous logic and overreaching conjecture is lost, the integrity of science is compromised.