Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible Paperback – May 17, 2016

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.

Like many baby boomers, I was raised in an environment in which religion, God, Jesus, and church were paramount, often typical in southern families like mine. As the author cites in his book, as a child I was urged, directed, inundated and 'brainwashed' with a basic set of beliefs and life view which made religion a fundamental element in my life. As I grew older and moved away from home, pursued (and completed) a college education, began a career in engineering, and got married and had children, more by rote routine than innate beliefs I continued as a 'churchgoer'. However, my acquisition of knowledge and critical thinking and my observations of the world with its multitude of differing religions, all claiming their own beliefs as superior to the exclusion of other beliefs, and the terrible history of wars, torture, suffering, and hate engendered by these religions made me pause and begin to think logically. If God had created the world and all that was in it, and man in his own image, and had positive plans for humankind, and that achievement of those beneficial outcomes (i.e. heaven) was heavily dependent on our belief in Him, then why had he never, in any tangible, broadly believable way ever given us a shred of evidence upon which to base our belief? I experienced an epiphany; having never seen, experienced, or heard of a well-documented, well-corroborated event that provided evidence of a God, then there was none. As the author states, all "evidence" for the existence of God is based on isolated, uncorroborated, long ago writings, unsubstantiated claims of revelations, visions, and/or attributions of (scientifically verified and explainable) acts of nature or validated physical laws. All religious believers (and that's a vivid descriptive word) is based only on "Faith", meaning they may "know it to be true," but there is no empirical evidence to affirm that truth. While it is fundamentally difficult, given human nature, fear of death, and a consequent hope for an afterlife, to not believe in a theistic universe, the case (as well articulated by the author), makes it clear that, unlike science, our existence is purely the result of naturalistic and scientifically provable laws (or 'regularities') of the universe we live in. As he notes, this does nothing to diminish morality and goodness in the world, and in fact makes a strong argument for the beneficial outcomes through the ending of arbitrary religious dogma promoting hate, murder, withholding use of life-saving methods, and many other harmful doctrines. The book served to reinforce the conclusions that I had already reached through my own logical world view, and should serve as stimulating, enlightening, and perhaps required reading for many who question religion.

Coyne's other book, Why Evolution is True, is an exceptionally clear and concise explanation of evolution. This time, Coyne spreads himself wider to discuss how faith (not merely religious, but also in pseudoscience), conflicts with the rigorous and combatative methods of scientific research. Not simply evolution vs creationism, this book encompasses a wider range of subjects and views.Highly recommended reading in this era of social media opinions.

Es sumamente ventajoso apoyarse en las evidencias en vez de en la fe. A través de la fe uno llega a creer en las mas absurdas ideas, supersticiones, magias y demás estupideces. Si nos interesa pasar por personas creyentes hemos de disimular nuestras dudas. Si en cambio deseamos pasar por personas íntegras hemos de combatir la estupidez de creer en lo que no existe pese a que seamos conscientes de que es una tontería.

This book is one of the best I have ever read. It should be spread as widely as possible to wake up people and help them find ways out of their wrong beliefs.

Why 3 stars:·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·[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.

Few words for an admirable book, stupendously linear, logical, clear and coherent. Once again, after the wonderful "Why Evolution is True", Coyne presents and discusses point by point with extreme precision the case of science vs. religion. I will advice this book to my friends, to those who still linger in the limbo of indecision, reluctant to abandon their faith for fear and for the need to believe in something. This book is a very good candidate to help them flee superstition.I will not stop here of course, I will continue to read from Dawkins, Harris, Dennet and the others, but every section of this book satisfied me, giving answers through undeniable truths. This is why I will soon start a re-reading.New aspects about the "battle" or "war" between fact and faith were unveiled to me and fully explained thanks to a great writing. I sincerely cannot find a weak spot, I loved this book in an extreme way.We all need book such as this one, especially nowadays, with the rising fundamentalism and its horrors and with the social and political threaths linked to faiths of different nature.Good Coyne!