<p>Argumentation is a core pedagogical strategy in education, often supported by established frameworks such as Toulmin’s model. Although it is most frequently used in science education research, Toulmin articulated his model as a general framework for representing justificatory reasoning across multiple interpretive fields. However, structured approaches remain less developed in religious education (RE), which can leave students with the misconception that religious claims are merely subjective and lack intellectual rigour. This paper argues that the direct application of argumentation models used in science education to RE is inappropriate because of fundamental epistemological differences between the subjects. Applying these models without careful adaptation risks epistemic reductionism. To address this gap, the present theoretical paper develops a philosophically grounded normative framework, drawing on a conceptual and non-systematic synthesis of literature from the philosophy of science, the philosophy of religion, and educational theory. The primary contribution is a critical religious education (CRE)-informed pedagogical framework for classroom argumentation in RE, built by adapting Toulmin’s argumentation model to reflect RE’s epistemic characteristics. By moving beyond simple knowledge transmission toward the explicit articulation and evaluation of reasons for competing claims, this framework strengthens RE and offers a distinct strategy to transform informal, emotive, and intuitive reasoning into well-structured arguments.</p>