Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible by Jerry A. Coyne
“Faith Versus Fact" is an excellent book that presents the persuasive argument that while faith and science compete to describe reality; science is the best tool to find out what is true about our universe. Evolutionary geneticist Jerry A. Coyne follows up his masterpiece of Why Evolution Is True, with an outstanding book of its own that clearly separates science from religion. This persuasive 336-page book includes the following five chapters: 1. The Problem, 2. What’s Incompatible?, 3. Why Accommodationism Fails, 4. Faith Strikes Back, and 5. Why Does It Matter?
Positives:
1. Professor Coyne is a persuasive writer. Well-written and well-reasoned book. Engaging and accessible.
2. A great topic; why science and religion are incompatible.
3. Great use of logic, history, reason and facts to persuade the audience at an accessible level.
4. A quote fest, “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it by Neil deGrasse Tyson”.
5. Clearly states his main thesis. “…understanding reality, in the sense of being able to use what we know to predict what we don’t, is best achieved using the tools of science, and is never achieved using the methods of faith.” “My claim is this: science and religion are incompatible because they have different methods for getting knowledge about reality, have different ways of assessing the reliability of that knowledge, and, in the end, arrive at conflicting conclusions about the universe.”
6. Makes a very strong case that there are very clear differences between science and religion. “Science and religion, then, are competitors in the business of finding out what is true about our universe. In this goal religion has failed miserably, for its tools for discerning ‘truth’ are useless. These areas are incompatible in precisely the same way, and in the same sense, that rationality is incompatible with irrationality.”
7. The three reasons why the issue of science versus religion has been revived. “The conflict between religion and evolution didn’t really get going until religious fundamentalism arose in early-twentieth-century America.”
8. An expose of the Templeton foundation.
9. Clarity and lucidity of thought throughout the book. “These are empirical claims, and although some may be hard to test, they must, like all claims about reality, be defended with a combination of evidence and reason. If we find no credible evidence, no good reasons to believe, then those claims should be disregarded, just as most of us ignore claims about ESP, astrology, and alien abduction.”
10. A good explanation of what constitutes science. “What is “known” may sometimes change, so science isn’t really a fixed body of knowledge. What remains is what I really see as “science,” which is simply a method for understanding how the universe (matter, our bodies and behavior, the cosmos, and so on) actually works. Science is a set of tools, refined over hundreds of years, for getting answers about nature.” “Scientific truth is never absolute, but provisional.”
11. Provocative. “There is simply no way that any faith can prove beyond question that its claims are true while those of other faiths are false.”
12. The problems with religion. “Religion begins with beliefs based not on observation, but on revelation, authority (often that of scripture), and dogma.” “Take the Resurrection of Jesus, for which the only supporting evidence is the contradictory accounts of the Gospels.”
13. Clearly explains why accommodationism fails and does a great job of dissecting the problems with non-overlapping magisterial (NOMA) that popularized Gould. “In the end, NOMA is simply an unsatisfying quarrel about labels that, unless you profess a watery deism, cannot reconcile science and religion.”
14. Miracles in perspective. “Miracles were really the result of fraud, ignorance, or misrepresentation.”
15. Destroys myths with expertise. “But science has completely falsified the idea of a historical Adam and Eve, and on two grounds. First, our species wasn’t poofed into being by a sudden act of creation. We know beyond reasonable doubt that we evolved from a common ancestor with modern chimps, an ancestor living around six million years ago. Modern human traits—which include our brain and genetically determined behaviors—evolved gradually.”
16. Mormonism takes a direct hit. “But as with the existence of Adam and Eve, both genetics and archaeology have shown that the Middle Eastern origin of Native Americans is a fiction.” Game over.
17. Morality as it relates to evolution. “Finally, and perhaps most important, evolution means that human morality, rather than being imbued in us by God, somehow arose via natural processes: biological evolution involving natural selection on behavior, and cultural evolution involving our ability to calculate, foresee, and prefer the results of different behaviors.” “We have an enhanced morality but it is the product of culture, not biology.”
18. Looks at popular arguments in defense of “God” only to reject them with ease. “Rather than assuming that the world was created for humans, the more reasonable hypothesis is that humans evolved to adapt to the world they confronted.”
19. The faith in reason tactic. “My response to the ‘no justification’ claim is that the superiority of science at finding objective truth comes not from philosophy but from experience. Science gives predictions that work. Everything we know about biology, the cosmos, physics, and chemistry has come through science—not revelation, the arts, or any other ‘way of knowing.’”
20. The harm of ill-founded dogma. “The harm, as I’ve said repeatedly, comes not from the existence of religion itself, but from its reliance on and glorification of faith—belief, or, if you will, ‘trust’ or ‘confidence’—without supporting evidence.”
21. Notes and references included.
Negatives:
1. Why Evolution Is True was such a great book it’s hard to live up to those lofty expectations.
2. Philosophy and theology is not Coyne’s forte but he provides enough to make his case.
3. Lack of charts and visuals to complement the narrative.
4. I would have liked to have seen a bit more on the legal side. Examples of religion doing harm and a summary of cases where science and religion intersect besides the obligatory mention of the 1925 Scopes “Monkey Trial”.
In summary, a book worthy of five stars. Sure it’s not the masterpiece that I Why Evolution Is True but it’s a book that needed to be written and is another great contribution to society. Religion fails to accurately describe the universe as it really is and in fact has impeded progress. Coyne makes the persuasive case that science is the best method to find the truths about his world and you will not get any disagreement for yours truly. An excellent book, I highly recommend it!
Further suggestions: “Why Evolution Is True” by the same author, “Undeniable” by Bill Nye, “God and the Multiverse” by Victor J. Stenger, “Science and Religion” by Daniel C. Dennett, “Why People Believe Weird Things” by Michael Shermer, “Atheism for Dummies” by Dale McGowan, “The Soul Fallacy” by Julien Musolino, “Why Are You Atheists So Angry?: 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless” by Greta Christina, “A Manual for Creating Atheists” by Peter Boghosian, “God Is Not Great” by Christopher Hitchens, “The God Virus” by Darrel Ray, “Moral Combat” by Sikivu Hutchinson, “Infidel” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Nonbeliever Nation” by David Niose, “Freethinkers” by Susan Jacoby, “Nailed” by David Fitzgerald, and “Think” by Guy P. Harrison.
Reviews with images
Humanist creationism at its nearly best
I can already hear all the name calling. Actually, this book is not bad if you can take the time and highlight all the words that have "explain" or "describe" at their root, and then go back and highlight in a different color all the words that have "natural" at their root, and you'll see the case they have for evolution: natural explanations. How nature actually works is totally irrelevant.Coyne starts Chapter 2 with "the nature of science" (p. 26). The last thing Coyne, and all evolutionists want to cross your mind is the science of nature. Nature works the same way over and over and over again. If it didn't, your pencil wouldn't work. Nor the tumblers in your door lock. Nor those little explosions in your car's engine. Nor the little ones and zeros telling all those digits in your computer where to go. This is the only reason we can even have something called science. Making use of the fact that nature works the same way over and over again is what is called "technology."This book professes to be "about the different ways that science and religion regard faith, ways that make them incompatible for discovering what's true about our universe" (p. xi). The very next sentence is Coyne's thesis, "religion and science compete in many ways to describe reality..." (pp. xi-xii). Right there is the conflict. Coyne claims to be after what's true, yet he just wants to describe what's real. Those are not the same thing. Monkeys reproducing as monkeys, as they have in all of recorded history, is a truth that can be demonstrated and it doesn't matter how you describe it. Monkeys and you descending from a common ancestor is a description about the past, the natural creation story (evolution) and can't be demonstrated, only professed.This bait and switch rhetoric is common not only in this book, but in most (all?) evolutionary writings. The reason can be found on page 189, "Secularists like myself are often consequentialists, claiming what is 'moral' is what promotes a situation that you prefer." This is situational ethics, what is right and/or wrong is determined solely by the situation. So whatever Coyne writes is done solely to promote the secular humanist account of history, which is their very own creation story.If you believe Coyne, actual knowledge can never be found. "But scientific knowledge is often transitory:...Any 'knowledge' incapable of being revised with advances in data and human thinking does not deserve the name of knowledge" (p. 28). So "knowledge" is what scientists think until they learn better. Scientists know they don't know what they think they know. Coyne thinks this kind of science is rational (p. xii). This is how, and why, evolutionists focus on descriptions and explanations, they have to change either one or both of those things every time they discover they're wrong.Back before 1900, "science" was defined as "knowledge" in the dictionaries. Evolution's, and Coyne's greatest advantage is that everybody knows what science is. When the evolutionists talk about "science" everyone thinks "knowledge," but what they actually mean is a naturalistic explanation, or sometimes knowledge, whichever benefits the situation. And they have no intention whatsoever of making clear the distinction because it's their ethics. In fact, this book's intention is to keep the two confusing. If the majority of us chattel ever recognized this distinction, those evolutionists are going to lose all their authority. (Supernatural explanations are illegal.)And this why Coyne and "scientists and philosophers now agree that there is no single scientific method" (p. 32). (The National Research Council's "A Framework for K-12 Science Education" calls the scientific method "a myth" (p. 78).) This is how evolutionists can take their science way back into the past to claim that "our species wasn't poofed into being by a sudden act of creation" (p. 126). And yet, using their consequential ethics, they take their science further back to claim "we are starting to see how the universe could [poof into being] from 'nothing'..." (p. 16, note the past tense). Of course, Coyne didn't use "poof into being" in the latter sentence. He used "arise" with "could," past tense. Not the same as how nature operates, present sense.Thus Coyne claims, "Historical facts are, of course, scientific facts" (p. 226). Of course they are, a fact is a fact, period. But a story you make up to EXPLAIN history, even if naturalistic, is nothing more than a STORY! Coyne admits, "We may reach the limits of explanation for several reasons: because the evidence eludes us (many ancient species, for example, simply weren't fossilized) or because our brains aren't configured to puzzle out the answers" (p. 227).That "because the evidence eludes us" is the fallacy of Coyne's, evolutionists', humanists', and Bible-phobes' argument. The "evidence" IS NOT THERE! They haven't found it. Yet, the believe it's there only because they need it for naturalistic creationism. This is a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning. It happens when you insert your conclusion (evolution) into your premise (there must be evidence out there for evolution) just so you can conclude your conclusion.Instead of approaching "Faith vs. Fact," and evolution itself, as science vs. religion and then take it to naturalism vs. supernaturalism, let's go back to what science was before being redefined to naturalism, knowledge. Coyne claims to be after "what's true about our universe," and he quotes Jesus as saying, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (p. 22). That is a brilliant idea! Let's not take science vs. religion to naturalism vs. supernaturalism, let's take it to knowledge vs. truth. There should be no conflict between those two.
Top reviews from other countries
José Huerta Ibarra
La necesidad de apoyarse en las evidencias.
Reviewed in Mexico on June 3, 2021
DevaAmazon
Good book. But.....
Reviewed in India on October 18, 2020
DevaAmazon
Reviewed in India on October 18, 2020
·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·
[1] Although I'm sure that the content of the book must be good, the quality of the one which I recieved, in India, was below average.
[2] The printing and the inner pages are good but the paper used for the cover pages were of a poor quality.
[3] The one thing which irritated me (unbearably) was that, both the cover and back page were smaller in width than the inner pages by a millimetre or two. Doesn't seems much, but it sure is.
[4] Costs more than what's printed on the book.
__________________________________________________________________________________
For now I've requested for a replacement and will surely update this review within a week.
Images in this review
