The question of the relationship between “science” and “religion” is often posed on universalist premises, as though there were two relatively stable institutions or domains whose relationship could be described in terms of conflict, compatibility, separation, or dialogue. This article seeks to provide a methodological reappraisal of the relationship between science and religion in the light of global studies by introducing, examining, and critically assessing Science and Religion Around the World (edited by John Hedley Brooke and Ronald L. Numbers, 2011). It argues that this very premise is itself a historical and cultural construct. The central argument is that global studies in this field have, in practice, moved from a “history of the relationship between science and religion” toward “histories of contextually situated knowledge production,” thereby rendering linear models of conflict or compatibility inadequate. To substantiate this argument, the article identifies and reconstructs four methodological principles derived from the book: the plurality of categories, geo-historical contextualization, cultural linkage and translation, and cultural politics. Each of these principles is substantiated through evidence drawn from Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Chinese, Indian, Buddhist, African, and nonreligious traditions. Finally, the article examines the limitations of the book’s approach, as well as the risks of relativism, essentialism, and neglecting the political economy of knowledge. Its principal conclusion is that the question “What is the relationship between science and religion?” should give way to the question “In this particular context, who draws the boundaries between science and religion, for what purposes, and within what relations of power?”