“Faith vs. Fact” by Jerry Coyne–An Extended Book Analysis (Part 11): How Coyne Misses Basic Historical Facts (and instead appeals to…the Jesus Mythicist Richard Carrier?)

🔊 Listen to Post Welcome to Part 11 of my analysis of Jerry Coyne’s book, Faith vs. Fact. I simply was not able to finish my comments on Coyne’s fourth chapter, “Faith Strikes Back,” in Part 10, and so here in Part 11 I am going to address the final two items Coyne brings up in his fourth chapter.

Did Religion Give Rise to Science?
One of the most fascinating things I have learned over the past ten years has been about the cultural impact of Christianity on western culture over the past 2,000 years. The more I learned about Christianity’s impact on western culture, the more I realized the standard modern narrative of western history we have been fed is filled with falsehoods. Just consider the very terms we use to describe various periods: The Classical Period, The Middle Ages/Dark Ages, The Renaissance, The Enlightenment. Those terms alone reveal the standard narrative. It goes something like this:

“The Classical Period of ancient Greece and Rome was awesome! Paganism, tolerance, all those cool buildings! Democracy and philosophy! But then Christianity took over and BOOM! Welcome to the tyranny, ignorance, superstition, and anti-science hatred of the Dark Ages, when the light of the Classical Period was snuffed out by Christianity! We’ve all seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail—just a bunch of dirty peasants, playing in the mud! Thankfully, though, when Europeans somehow got their hands on the ancient works of Classical Greece and Rome, there was a rebirth of classical learning! Yeah! The Renaissance! And then it was only a matter of time until people were finally able to free themselves from the tyranny of the Catholic Church and start doing real science—and presto, we had the Enlightenment!”

That is the basic narrative most people believe. The truth is, though, actual historians know that narrative to be complete and utter nonsense. It’s not even that hard to refute. You can read about the actual history in books like Rodney Stark’s The Triumph of Christianity, Vincent Carroll’s Christianity on Trial, Ronald Numbers’ Galileo Goes to Jail, and even my own book, Christianity and the (R)evolution in Worldviews in Western Culture.

Now, one of the things that is irrefutable is the fact that modern science is a direct result of the medieval Catholic Church’s commitment to studying the natural world. It was during that time that universities were basically invented, and in most universities the study of the natural sciences comprise upwards of 1/3 of the entire curriculum. And the reason for this was ultimately theological. Christians believed the created order was good and that God was a God of order. Therefore, it was believed that one could study the natural world and expect to find orderliness. This is just reality. It is a historical fact that it was medieval Christianity’s commitment to the study of the natural world that directly led to the development of modern science.

Coyne, though, doesn’t want to accept reality. Ideologues rarely do. In fact, he goes so far out of his way to deny this basic historical reality, that his comments fall somewhere between comical and outright insane. He first states that he thinks the argument that “religion” gave rise to science is just strange, given the fact that science as practiced now “is completely free from gods,” thus implying that originally, when science was first practiced, that invoking gods, genies, spirits, what have you, was just common practice. Of course, I am unaware of any instances of this, and quite conveniently, Coyne doesn’t supply any evidence for his claim.

And while we’re at it, let me just comment on how lazily he uses the term “religion” here. It is quite clear, in the course of his comments, that he is addressing the claim that it was medieval Christianity that gave rise to modern science. We’re not talking about other religions, or “religion” in a general way. Coyne, in fact, does this all throughout his book. I believe it must be purposeful—it shields him from having to make any specific argument about the specific religion of Christianity. He just throws out the generalized term “religion,” and that allows him to just throw out generalized accusations, without having to actually address actual facts.

His entire discussion on the topic of how religion…excuse me, medieval Christianity gave rise to science bears this out. He points out that science began to arise in other places like Greece, the Islamic world, and China, and even states, “If Christianity was required for science to emerge, why was there such a burst of science in ancient Greece and Rome, as well as China and Islamic countries?” (214). Well let’s just cut to the chase: that is an entirely false claim. Yes, those places did enjoy an initial interest in the sciences, but over time interest died out. There was no “burst of science” in those places. It was only in medieval Christian Europe where science flourished.

Why was that the case? It is quite simple: unlike those cultures, Christianity taught that God was a God of order, that creation was good, and that therefore one should expect to be able to study His good creation, discover that order, and thus learn more about God in the process. And so, when Coyne says, “In the end, we don’t know why modern science arose for keeps in Europe between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries, while arising and then vanishing in China and Islamic countries” (215), I have to take him at his word: He probably doesn’t know why, and the reason he doesn’t know why is because he hasn’t bothered to learn his history. He might not know why, but people who bother to learn about history most certainly do.

Coyne even goes so far to appeal to none other than Richard Carrier to argue that the paganism of ancient Greece and Rome should get the credit for science. Coyne approvingly references Carrier and argues that “if any faith should get credit for science, it would be paganism. And there’s little evidence that Greek and Roman science was anything other than a secular endeavor motivated by pure curiosity” (214).  Think about that quote for a moment. Coyne is suggesting that in pagan Greece and Rome that Greek and Roman science was a secular endeavor. That is utter nonsense. Nothing in the pagan world was considered “secular.” Everything was “religious.”

Coyne further appeals to Carrier to make another historically nonsensical point. He says that although Christianity took hold in Europe about 500 AD, science didn’t really take off until much later. So if it really was Christianity that gave rise to science, why did it take about 1,000 years before modern science really began to take off? Carrier’s answer (one that Coyne obviously believes) is that, “…the authoritarianism of the church suppressed the kind of freethinking that really did produce modern European science” (214).

Like I said before, even though that narrative has been popular since certain propagandists of the so-called Enlightenment put it out there, the actual facts of history just prove that to be nonsense and completely false. If you say, “the church suppressed scientific inquiry,” when it is a historical fact that it was in the medieval Catholic universities where scientific inquiry was encouraged and promoted, then you are not an educated or serious person. The fact that Coyne actually appeals to a Jesus mythicist tells you all you need to know.

Does Science Do Bad Things?
The final argument Coyne takes on is the one that says, when left to its own devices, science can lead to massive death and atrocities, from Hitler’s death camps to the Soviet gulag, to the atomic bomb. It is basically the argument that I alluded to in one of my first posts in this analysis, when I talked about William Jennings Bryan’ real concern at the Scopes Monkey Trial: without the moral moorings of religion, science can be used to do some truly inhumane things.

Now, generally speaking, this is true: without a moral compass, science bring untold atrocities. Thanks to advances in technology and science, the bloodiest century in history was the 20^th century. Nevertheless, Coyne actually makes a good point on this topic: science itself is morally neutral. “Science” doesn’t commit atrocities, people do, and sometimes they use scientific advances to do so. Of course, I think that is pretty much the point of the argument Coyne is addressing. No one is saying that “science” can somehow commit atrocities all on its own. The argument is that science can tell you what can be done, but it cannot tell you whether or not something should be done.

And, not to bring in the inconvenient facts of history into the equation, but it is a historical fact that the worst atrocities and highest number of murders in human history have happened in self-proclaimed atheistic communist countries in the 20^th century. If the historical facts tell us anything, they most certainly do tell us that the atheist communist regimes of the 20^th century have been the most murderous and inhumane regimes in human history. So, does “science” kill people? No. Do atheistic regimes use scientific advances to engage in the worst atrocities in human history? Yes.

Coyne, though, conveniently ignores the facts of history, and instead ends chapter four with propaganda and blather. He says science is different from religion, in that faith itself can corrupt decent people to do bad things. He says that the Abrahamic religions, with their moral codes, promise of eternal reward, and notion of absolute truth are absolutely “toxic.” He then quotes Steven Weinberg, who said, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion” (220), only adding that it really isn’t “religion” that gets good people to do evil, but rather one of the key elements of religion—faith: belief without evidence.

Although that is a rather well-known quote, I don’t see how anyone, given the utter lack of logical thinking and evidence that Coyne gives in his book, can be convinced by it. It is the equivalent of an internet meme. It tickles the ears of people who already have an axe to grind with “religion,” or more specifically Christianity. Of course, there have been horrible things done within the Christian religion over the past 2,000 years, and of course some Christians today are guilty of some horrible things.

But Coyne is making a specific argument in his book, and one must critically analyze the veracity of those arguments. And any rational person who knows anything about history will find his arguments utterly laughable and sophomoric. That is why he fills his book with so many over-generalizations, half-truths, conflations, historical fallacies, and emotional appeals that feed into one’s confirmation bias. It is like this: if you want to get liberal Democrats on your side, just start off whatever you say with, “Trump is a fascist! Concentration camps! Russia! He should be impeached!” If you want to get right-wing Republicans on your side, just start off with, “Hillary’s emails! Lock her up!” and you’ll have them eating out of your hand. In both cases, it doesn’t matter what you say after that—you could say the most incoherent nonsense imaginable—the frothing-at-the-mouth ideologues will be hanging on your every word and applauding every line you utter because you have just given them the equivalent of LSD-laced catnip.

The same holds true for Coyne’s arguments in his book, Faith vs. Fact.

We have one more chapter to go. Chapter 5: “Why Does it Matter?” where Coyne makes his own contribution in the culture war!