It would appear that Hawking has finally done it – with the revelation of his M-Theory last month, religious believers who query the origins of the Big Bang are surely silenced. Atheists across the world punch the air. But they should not get too excited, because the reply of the UK’s religious leaders has shifted the grounds of the debate.

In a response to Hawking printed in The Times, the Chief Rabbi of Britain, Lord Jonathan Sacks, argued that religion does not seek to provide a rival explanation to science, but an additional interpretation. Religious texts guide us on how we should live, rather than documenting how we have come to be living. According to Rabbi Sacks, science and religion are "different intellectual enterprises". The Church of England issued a similar response, arguing that they do not claim the Bible to be "a compendium of all knowledge". Science and religion serve different purposes and, as a result, science can be accepted without faith being forfeited.

This is a dramatic movement away from young earth creationist thinking, which actively competes with science to explain the creation of the world. In a recent UK survey, 10% of a 2000 strong sample identified with biblical creationism and up to half were not convinced by the theory of evolution. With this in mind, the decision by religious leaders to embrace science seems both a brave and unnecessary move. If sections of our population cannot be persuaded by Darwin, it is doubtful that they will be by Hawking – the leaders did not need to start waving the flag for science to prevent the religious from losing their faith. However, the religious response to Hawking’s theory is far more potent than a simple act of damage limitation. By accepting science rather than dismissing it, they have changed the whole tone of the debate.

If it is not young earth creationism with which they are in conflict, then atheists cannot rely on the science of creation or the science of evolution to provide them with ammunition. Spouting Darwin does nothing to rebuke the Chief Rabbi’s kind of faith, where questions about how life has evolved hold little relevance. Whilst Hawking’s theory may be remarkable, the use of it to attack religion now seems misdirected. Scientists can keep explaining the Universe (or even the Multiverse) as much as they like, but that will not stop the religious from finding meaning in their explanations.

But do scientists have any reason to take issue with this? Surely everyone should be content; scientists can go on explaining, religious believers can go on interpreting, and no one steps on anyone else’s toes. If only the reality was this peachy. The "I’ll stay on my side of the bed if you stay on yours" kind of arrangement is not going to satisfy the militant atheism of those who spend their lives trying to denounce religion using science. I imagine the name "Richard Dawkins" springs to mind.

But it is precisely people like this who should be taking note of the religious response the most. While atheists are encouraging people to reject religion in favour of science, the religious are arguing that people can and should have both. The Chief Rabbi has presented religion in a way which does leave room for science. If the proponents of scientific atheism continue to talk as though the debate is a case of either/or, they risk appearing as though they are paying no attention to the dialogue. A seeming unwillingness to engage is what makes views appear dogmatic rather than reasoned. In an ironic twist, it is the non-believers who are at risk of looking the more rigid and uncompromising, whilst the religious present themselves as the more open minded. This cannot be good for atheist PR.

This, of course, is not to say that the atheist argument from science is now ineffective. But it does mean that to have impact, atheists should now turn to address interpretive religion rather than continuing to fight the creation narrative. If we are to be convinced that science and religion are in fact mutually exclusive, we need to be shown why and the Chief Rabbi’s claims of compatibility must be addressed directly. A dismissal of the religious response will not suffice as a rebuttal. Rather, this would only serve to make it all the more compelling.