Epistemological constructions are central considerations in vivisecting an expressed conflict between science and religion. It is argued that the conflict thesis is only meaningful when examined from a specific socio-historical perspective. The dialectical relation between science and religion should therefore be considered at both a macro and micro level. At the macro level broad changes in the meaning of science and religion occur; whereas at the micro level individuals immersed within particular expressions of these concepts socially construct, re-construct, and appropriate meaning. Specific attention is given to expressions of meaning surrounding sacred texts in this dialectical relation. Two ontological forms of meaning are examined through a qualitative content analysis of 16 interviews with individuals from various religious affiliation and academic attainment. A monistic ontology constructs textual meaning as facts that have the qualities of being both self-evident and certain. Potential tension arises with scientific discourse given empirical evidence may either confirm or conflict with scriptural interpretation. The pluralistic ontology constructs textual meaning with multiple categories, which in turn have the qualities of being mediated by human consciousness and uncertain. The science-religion dichotomy appears to be less susceptible to conflict given the uncertainty embedded in this construction of scriptural meaning. This paper implies that truth as correspondence may not necessitate the conflict thesis.