{"id":25748,"date":"2025-09-15T16:41:02","date_gmt":"2025-09-15T23:41:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/?p=25748"},"modified":"2025-10-08T15:56:05","modified_gmt":"2025-10-08T22:56:05","slug":"jerry-a-coyne-faith-vs-fact-post-5-and-last","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/2025\/09\/15\/jerry-a-coyne-faith-vs-fact-post-5-and-last\/","title":{"rendered":"Jerry A. Coyne: FAITH VS. FACT, post 5 and last"},"content":{"rendered":"

Subtitled “Why Science and Religion are Incompatible”
\n(Viking, May 2015, xxii + 311pp, including 46pp of acknowledgements, notes, references,and index)<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

(Earlier: post 1<\/a>; post 2<\/a>; post 3<\/a>; post 4<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\n

Comments<\/strong> first this time:<\/p>\n

The final chapter of this book asks, why does it matter? Whether science and religion are incompatible — or whether people reject fact in favor of faith?<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

It reminds me of that bit in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories. From a quick Google search:<\/p>\n

In A Study in Scarlet, Holmes claims to be unaware that the Earth revolves around the Sun since such information is irrelevant to his work; after hearing that fact from Watson, he says he will immediately try to forget it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And I’ve already established a Provisional Conclusion<\/a> about this. Or two: numbers 12 and 13. Many people don’t know or care that science challenges their faith, because it doesn’t matter to their daily lives, which get along quite well enough by belonging to your community and being a loyal member of it. If your community believes that a green ogre in a cave on the mountain ridge above the village controls daily life and answers prayers, then you’d better too. No one wants a smarty pants who goes up and discovers that there really isn’t any cave at all, much less an ogre.<\/p>\n

\\<\/p>\n

I read this Coyne book back in 2015 shortly after it came out, and took the detailed notes that I’ve been posting here. I don’t know that I learned<\/em> that much from it, besides the details of the many examples he discusses, grounded by notes and references.<\/p>\n

That’s because the subjects he discusses are things that relatively intelligent people, who have not been raised in a community saturated by mythology and scripture, realize early on, either intuitively or by basic observation of how the world really works.<\/p>\n

Beginning with the observation that there are many different, conflicting religions around the world, whose adherents claim revelations (and the authority of scripture) that directly contract each other. They cannot all be right; therefore some must be wrong. If you believe yourself to be in possession of the one true religion, among all the others that are wrong, then you must feel yourself very lucky to have been born in a place that happened to subscribe to the one true religion.<\/p>\n

A second basic observation about the world is how stories grow, and are distorted, in the telling. Many people don’t believe anything in the morning paper, or now the “mainstream media,” but are certain the words of their holy book, translated many times over the centuries from sources that were originally oral over earlier centuries, must be literally true. They do not seem bothered by this gross implausibility. I think they’re simply defending their culture, and rejecting anything new that would contradict it. Some truly think their religion is right and all the others are wrong. Perhaps they resort to the idea their god must have inspired their holy words; but this is special pleading. Or resort to some babble about how everyone worships the same God (not true; again, see Prothero<\/a>). They are kidding themselves, and not being intellectually honest. But this is where much the population, in America and elsewhere, resides. And because those myths and religious stories serve to bind communities together into networks of mutual trust, they serve to promote survival. And in that sense they’re more important than understanding the world as it actually is.<\/p>\n

\\<\/p>\n

After reading through these last comments and summarizing them just below, a final thought. While it’s true that some cultures in northern Europe are largely secular, as well as being healthy and prosperous, they are also relatively monocultural, and so perhaps not models for the rest of the world. I doubt that America, for example, will become like them any time soon. One function of religion is to bind the tribe\/community\/nation together against perceived threats. And the more multicultural a society is, like America, the more there are perceived threats both within and without.<\/p>\n

Rather, I think what will happen is what has already been happening: educated people will become increasingly secular, less educated people will remain religious. This has likely always been true to some extent. The religious will remain in their communities where they feel safe, and read their scriptures; the educated will go out and explore the world and create new things.\u00a0 Including our global civilization. Without which the religious could not trade their stories.<\/p>\n

\n

As Coyne finishes his book, there are actually dangers of believing things that are not true. And that’s when they threaten survival: either one’s own, or others’, or the entire population’s.<\/p>\n

Summary: Ch5, Why Does It Matter?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The issue here is about the public perception of science. The practice of science isn’t much affected.<\/p>\n

Coyne identifies four particular areas where reliance on faith can lead to harm to believers and\/or to others.<\/p>\n

Child abuse<\/em>. Faith as a substitute for medicine. Typically when parents pray rather than see a doctor. (There was an example in the news just a week or so ago, because the child died.) And when certain religions eschew medical treatments (transfusions, vaccines) altogether. Many states actually allow for religious exemptions to such treatments, and punish lightly even when parents let their children die. “Alternative medicines” are merely another kind of faith. The US government sponsored an Office of Alternative Medicine for 20 years without finding any evidence that any of it works.<\/p>\n

Suppression of research and vaccination<\/em>. The damage here extends beyond oneself onto the entire population. Examples of embryonic stem cell research (on the religious grounds that a fertilized egg is equivalent to a person, which biologically is nonsense), the HPV vaccine (because it would supposedly encourage promiscuity), or treatment of epidemics (because they are signs of God’s wrath for homosexual behavior, or whatever).<\/p>\n

Opposition to assisted dying<\/em>. Because humans are special creatures endowed with souls and who belong to God. (Therefore *no one* should do this, even the nonreligious.)<\/p>\n

Global-warming denialism<\/em>. Along with evolution, the big bang, and the earth’s age, acceptance of this is far lower among the religious — because these ideas conflict with the stories of their faith, about the history of the world, or belief in God’s stewardship of the planet. Or that natural disasters are evidence of the End Times. Some politicians read Genesis into the Congressional record: \u201cIt\u2019s unbelievable that an elected official can try to affect government policy by twisting a quotation form a Bronze Age deity.\u201d<\/p>\n

Does faith have any value?<\/em> A world without faith would be more peaceful. Many largely nonreligious cultures in Europe thrive. Still, some claim it’s beneficial for society to believe in god; Daniel Dennett’s “belief in belief”; faith doesn’t have to be true to be useful. [[ I suspect this is largely true because we can’t escape our basic human nature — even though this argument seems condescending. Then again, see northern Europe. ]] And perhaps faith gives solace to the marginalized and destitute.<\/p>\n

Can there be dialogue between science and faith?<\/em> Only a monologue, where science speaks and religion listens; religion has nothing to tell science about improving its trade. Science has told us a lot about the basis for religious beliefs, especially as new ones — Christian Science, Scientology — keep popping up. And much as been learned about the origin of scripture, how Biblical stories adjacent in scripture were written centuries apart. And science can point out that some religious beliefs are simply *wrong*. Still, it’s useful to understand religion, as a driving force of humanity. But religion is to science as superstition is to reason. Quotes from Thomas Pain, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris: theology is the study of nothing. Put away childish things.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Raw Notes: Ch5, Why Does It Matter?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

What\u2019s the harm if science and religion are incompatible? The harm comes from the reliance on faith without supporting evidence. Faith warps the public understanding of science; religious claims undermine scientists who cling to them. Natural theology makes scientific *claims*, esp the \u2018god of the gaps\u2019 arguments. Claims that things cannot be explained by science imply that science shouldn\u2019t bother looking. There is no limit to science beyond which lies God p227.3.<\/p>\n

Some scientific problems may never be solved because evidence eludes us or \u201cbecause our brains aren\u2019t\u2019 configured to puzzle out the answers\u201d p227.7 Consider how many questions religions claimed couldn\u2019t be answered, but which were. How arrogant to claim our failures of understanding are somehow evidence for a god. Of *your *religion!<\/p>\n

That\u2019s about public perception of science. The practice of science isn\u2019t much affected\u2026 except when organizations like Templeton steers the kind of research that is done, with its teleological bent p228.<\/p>\n

Child Abuse: Faith as Substitute for Medicine<\/em><\/p>\n

Worse is when your faith claims some absolute truth about the universe and that other faiths are simply wrong. This leads to missionizing, forcing beliefs on others. Most toxic are those sects that reject medical care in favor of prayer and faith healing, forcing this belief on children. Christian Science believes that disease and injury are illusions caused by faulty thinking. Case of Ashley Elizabeth King. Phoenix, 1987, a lump on her leg that was a tumor. Parents refused treatment and she died. And the parents showed an odd lack of remorse, convinced they\u2019d done the right thing.<\/p>\n

Dozens of other cases. Passages from James. Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses refuse blood transfusion. More examples.<\/p>\n

Not just parents; most states have religious exemptions written into law. As a result most parents aren\u2019t charged, or aren\u2019t convicted, or receive only small punishments. Other exemptions exist for various tests, and for vaccinations. And other religions oppose medical treatments as well.<\/p>\n

There are other cases where parents rely on alternative medicines\u2014another kind of faith.<\/p>\n

Religions themselves are never held responsible. Many pray anyway. The Catholic church maintains an exorcist.<\/p>\n

A whole Office of Alternative Medicine (in the US government) in 20 years failed to produce any evidence that any of it works. Both alternative medicine and religion work not to find the truth but to support pre-existing beliefs. \u2026<\/p>\n

Suppression of Research and Vaccination<\/em><\/p>\n

Embryonic stem cell research. Frozen embryos not allowed to be used because some religious hold a fertilized egg to be equivalent to a person. Some states ban it entirely.<\/p>\n

The HPV vaccine. Right-wing and religious groups oppose making the vaccine mandatory. Because it supposedly would encourage promiscuity. Focus on Family. Catholic church. They focus instead on abstinence, despite evidence such vows and education don\u2019t work.<\/p>\n

And religions often impugn epidemics to God for immoral behavior; or earthquakes to god\u2019s wrath about, e.g. homosexuals.<\/p>\n

Opposition to Assisted Dying<\/em><\/p>\n

Religions oppose allowing terminally ill patients painless ways to die (like putting down animals) because humans are special creations of God endowed with souls. Catholic Church has an official statement against it. The church even sees suffering as a good thing. And anyone who helps will go to hell. Other churches too, including Islam. Only five US states permit it.<\/p>\n

Global-Warming Denialism<\/em><\/p>\n

People who ignore inconvenient truths that conflict with their faith\u2026 Poll results. Acceptance of evolution, the big bang, the earth\u2019s age, and global warming is far lower among the religious. These beliefs become harmful when coupled with political and social action. Global warming? Denialism is linked to belief in god\u2019s stewardship of the planet and his promise to preserve it until his return. Opposition comes from manufactured claims supporting political positions, and religious belief. \u201cBoth rely\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

Denialists are often just as familiar with the relevant science as anyone; they just dismiss evidence that conflicts with their pre-existing beliefs.<\/p>\n

Rick Santorum proclaiming climate change a \u201choax\u201d, playing the religion card. Some think natural disasters are evidence of the End Times, part of God\u2019s plan. Other examples. \u201cIt\u2019s unbelievable that an elected official can try to affect government policy by twisting a quotation form a Bronze Age deity.\u201d P248.3 Another example from a conservative think tank, that denies carbon dioxide as a pollutant.<\/p>\n

All of this is about believing what you\u2019d like to be true rather than what science tells us. There\u2019s even a Vatican astronomer.<\/p>\n

Does Faith Have Any Value?<\/em><\/p>\n

What would a world be like without faith? We\u2019d still have art and literature, moral impulses. But not alternative medicine, or opposition to global warming. We\u2019d lose all the extreme beliefs based on scripture of the catholic church, of Islam\u2014sharia law, embraced by some countries completely, other to Muslim residents. Details p251b. (including death for homosexuality).<\/p>\n

And we\u2019d lose the divisiveness of faith against faith, p252. (there would still be strife and xenophobia, resting on evolution).<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no reason to think that a society without faith would be a programmed hive of bees; because many cultures in Europe are largely nonreligious, and thriving.<\/p>\n

Can it ever to be good to have faith? \u2026 sometimes, but not very often. Dying grandmother scenario. Rather, it\u2019s theists who to try to convert people on their deathbeds, with the threat of hell.<\/p>\n

Isn\u2019t it still beneficial for society to believe in god? P253b. Such ideas are what Dennett called \u201cbelief in belief\u201d: faith doesn\u2019t have to be true to be useful. [[ I\u2019m not sure where I come down on this. I have a hard time believing the entire race can be raised up from faith to deal rationally with the real world. OTOH there\u2019s the argument that allowing other people the crutch of faith is\u2026 condescending. \u2013Coyne makes this very point ]]<\/p>\n

Counter-argument: Northern Europe. Atheists run between 25 to 40 percent of the population. With total of non-theists running from 50 to 70 percent. And these countries are not socially dysfunctional; by many criteria they rank higher in well-being than the US. Clearly religion is not essential for a harmonious society.<\/p>\n

Well, does faith give solace to the marginalized and destitute? Likely true. Yet, the countries with the strongest social safety nets are the least religious. This is keyed to income inequality. Napoleon quote. And the full Marx quote, about religion being the opium of the people, p256.<\/p>\n

Can There Be Dialogue Between Science and Faith?<\/em><\/p>\n

Should such dialogues take place? Einstein quote, torn from its context. Einstein meant an awe before the puzzles of the universe, \u201cand saw Abrahamic faiths as fallacious and man-made institutions.\u201d<\/p>\n

Author says what\u2019s useful is a monologue, in which science does all the talking and religion the listening. P257.4 Religion has nothing to tell science about improving its trade.<\/p>\n

Science can tell us about the basis for religious belief. Theories of religion. Newly built religions in recent years \u2013 Christian Science, Scientology \u2013 can give us some clues.<\/p>\n

Biblical scholarship can shed light on the origin of scripture, e.g. the two creation stories of Genesis, \u201cconcocted several centuries apart\u201d.<\/p>\n

And science might advise religion that some beliefs are simply *wrong*. Examples p258.3 Religions can turn such \u2018facts\u2019 into metaphors\u2026<\/p>\n

It\u2019s useful for all to understand religion, since it\u2019s a driving force of humanity, and a context for great works of literature and art.<\/p>\n

Religion is to science as superstition is to reason.<\/p>\n

Religions make truth claims. Nice para p259t.<\/p>\n

Religious faith is irrationality; theology is useless at understanding reality; Thomas Paine quote p259b: theology is the study of nothing.<\/p>\n

Religious claims are pseudoscientific, not different that Holocaust deniers or UFO devotees. \u201cIn the end\u2026 or accepting stories concocted centuries ago?\u201d p260.2 Put away childish things.<\/p>\n

Bertrand Russell quote. Sam Harris.<\/p>\n

The world author wants is one in which the strength of one\u2019s beliefs about matters of fact is proportional to the evidence. And you can reserve judgment if you don\u2019t know the answer.<\/p>\n

Ending with two stories about faith and science. Robert L. Park, crushed by an oak tree. Rescued by science, not by two priests.<\/p>\n

And Russ Briggs, who let his two sons die because his church rejected medical care. He later accepted medical care and produced two daughters.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Subtitled “Why Science and Religion are Incompatible” (Viking, May 2015, xxii + 311pp, including 46pp of acknowledgements, notes, references,and index) (Earlier: post 1; post 2; post 3; post 4) Comments first this time: The final chapter of this book asks, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,12,2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-book-notes","category-religion","category-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25748","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25748"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25748\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25923,"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25748\/revisions\/25923"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}