“Faith vs. Fact” by Jerry Coyne: An Extended Book Analysis (Part 12)–Coyne’s Part in the Culture War

🔊 Listen to Post Welcome to Part 12 of my analysis of Jerry Coyne’s book, Faith vs. Fact, where I will discuss Coyne’s final chapter: “Why Does it Matter?” When it comes right down to it, this chapter is a blend of a summary of Coyne’s argument throughout the book as well as Coyne’s own take on the “culture war.”

So, Why Does It Matter Anyway?
At the very beginning of the chapter, Coyne lays out what he feels is the heart of the problem: “The harm…comes not from the existence of religion itself, but from its reliance on and glorification of faith—belief, or, if you will say, ‘trust’ or ‘confidence’—without supporting evidence. And faith, as employed in religion (and in most other areas), is a danger to both science and society. The danger to science is in how faith warps the public understanding of science” (225).

Two points need to be made here. First, as he does throughout his book, Coyne puts forth a complete misunderstanding of faith. What he seems to think is that “faith” is nothing more than mental assertion of the existence of objective things without having any scientific evidence to prove it (i.e. the earth is 6,000 years old or Adam and Eve talked to a literal snake). Sadly, though, it seems far too many people, even many Christians, view faith this way—as if God is an “objective fact” that one has to say belief exists in order to avoid hell.

Truth be told, Coyne’s objection to “religion” as a whole, and more specifically Christianity, really is an objection to the ultra-fundamentalist version of Christianity we see in YEC groups like Answers in Genesis. We see this in the last part of the above quote. It actually is true that groups like Answers in Genesis have infected far too many Evangelical churches into a warped understanding of science, specifically in relation to the theory of evolution, by telling Christians that evolution is just an atheist attempt to get God out of the culture.

Of course, Answers in Genesis isn’t the only people guilty of this—so is Jerry Coyne. His book is Exhibit A. The reason why so many Evangelical Christians are opposed to evolution is because they’ve been told, by both ultra-fundamentalists like Ken Ham and atheist-fundamentalists like Jerry Coyne, that evolution = atheism. That is a lie, pure and simple. And just like Ham paints everyone who accepts evolution (whether or not they are Christians) as secularists who are in rebellion against God, Coyne paints every Christian, regardless of whether or not they accept evolution, as if they are all ultra-fundamentalists like Ken Ham.

If all you read was Coyne, you’d naturally assume that Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, Karl Giberson, and Kenneth Miller all attended the same church as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. Needless to say, that’s kind of a problem. He says that “Religious scientists undermine their own profession by diluting the rigor of science with claims about the supernatural—claims that are, broadly construed, scientific” (226). He claims that theologians who claim that consciousness and morality cannot be explained by science are “science stoppers.” He says that theistic evolutionists claim that God is just “moving electrons in an undetectable way.” In all this, he is basically saying that Christians like Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, Karl Giberson, and Kenneth Miller are guilty of the same kind of thing as Ken Ham. Again, that is just beyond silly.

Coyne’s Culture War
After this, Coyne then articulates a number of ways that “religion” has had a negative effect on real life. First, he points to the Christian Science movement of Mary Baker Eddy and their teaching that disease and injury are illusions caused by faulty thinking. Because of this, they reject modern medicine. Coyne argues that although adults are free to refuse modern medicine, refusing treatment for children amounts to child abuse: “Such deaths are unconscionable because they involve children who have no say—or no mature say—in their own medical care, but are at the mercy of their parents’ beliefs” (234). He then goes on to note that 38 of the 50 states “have religious exemptions for child abuse and neglect in their civil codes” (234).

There is only one problem with what Coyne says here. Can you figure it out? The Christian Science movement has a total of perhaps 100,000 members. Coyne’s implication that the Christian Science movement is somehow representative of all Christianity (let alone all religion!) is just astounding. Furthermore, what does he mean by “religious exemptions for child abuse”? Does he mean the right to refuse medical treatment? If so, who, outside of a handful of small fringe movements like Christian Science, actually do?

Coyne also makes misleading claims like the following: “In America we regularly hear that earthquakes, tornadoes, and droughts are due to God’s wrath about, say, homosexual behavior or abortion” (243). Really? Regularly? Outside of a handful of more extreme nut-job pastors, how often and regular do we hear this? Coyne’s assertion that this is a common belief of all Christians is just ridiculous.

Coyne further blames “religion” for being against assisted suicide and global warming/climate change. As for assisted suicide, I think we can all agree that the objection to it is not really limited to religious people. So, right there, Coyne’s assertion isn’t valid. As for climate change, again, people who question it aren’t just Christians. For that matter, I don’t know anyone, conservative or liberal, who actually is “pro-pollution.” The reason why conservatives (and notice, I’m pointing out the divide is along political lines, not religious ones) are suspect of things like the “Green New Deal” is because they hear Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s own chief of staff admit that it wasn’t really about the climate at all, but just a way to change the economy. They see it as little more than a liberal attempt to have the government take over the economy and destroy capitalism.

That is an entirely different issue that I do not plan to go into here, but my point is simple. The debate over climate change is not a religious one. Christians who question climate change do so more because of conservative political views than actual Christian beliefs. Coyne’s attempt to paint it as such is simply false.

Just Imagine a World Without Faith
The last five pages or so of Coyne’s book are devoted to Coyne’s dream of what the world would be like without religion. Channeling his inner John Lennon, he writes: “We’d lose a lot of the divisiveness that threatens to tear our world apart. Muslim against Christian and Jew, Hindu against Muslim, Buddhist against Hindu, Catholic against Protestant, Sunni against Shiite—all hatred based solely on faith would disappear. Of course, there would still be strife and xenophobia, which probably rest largely on evolution, but can you really claim that hatred based on religion would inevitably be replaced by hatred based on something else, as if the world had to fulfill a given quota of enmity?” (252)

He also claims that what we would lose in a world without faith wouldn’t be good things, but only the bad things and “the dysfunctional aspects of society.” Numerous times he points to Europe as an example of a nonreligious society with no social dysfunction, and then opines at how great America would be if we were all godless, like Europe…which apparently is an atheist paradise! I’m sorry, but that just can’t be taken seriously. In fact, I am reminded by an episode of South Park entitled “Go God Go!” Without telling the whole story, it takes place in the future when society has completely eradicated religion and everyone is an atheist (yes, even otters!). And guess what is going on? That’s right—different atheist groups are at war with each other!

The point is clear: this notion that we could usher in a utopian age of peace and harmony if only we got rid of religion is just naïve and silly. So to answer Coyne’s question at the end of the above quote as to whether or not hatred and violence would still exist if we got rid of religion, “Yes, it would.”

Yet Coyne isn’t done with nonsensical musings. He also writes, “I am not a Marxist, but Marx got at least one thing right: for many, religion weakens the incentive to fix both personal and societal problems” (256). Let me suggest that you sit back and think of all the Christian charities, hospitals, and homeless shelters we have. Think of all the missionary trips churches go on to feed the poor and build houses. Even if you are not religious in any way, can anyone in their right mind say that Christianity lessens people’s incentive to fix personal and societal problems? Coyne’s claim simply is not rooted in reality.

Can There Be a Dialogue Between Science and Faith?
You can probably guess what Coyne’s answer is going to be, but here it is in his own words: “Nevertheless, is it possible to have constructive dialogue? My response is that anything useful will come from a monologue—one in which science does all the talking and religion the listening” (257). His answer really isn’t surprising. Given his complete misunderstanding of both the Christian faith and history in general, what other answer would you expect? According to Coyne, there is no difference between Christianity and belief in fairies. According to Coyne, all religions are pretty much the same anyway. According to Coyne, modern science wasn’t rooted in the medieval Catholic universities, but rather the “secular” science of pagan Greece!

Coyne finishes his book by arguing that the incompatibility between religion and science rests on two pillars: (1) that religion is like science, in that it makes claims about what exists in the universe and claims to give evidence for it; and (2) that when the scientific pretenses of religion are challenged, religious people resort to “the same pseudoscientific defenses used by Holocaust deniers, UFO devotees, and advocates of extrasensory perception” (260). He calls religion a “roadblock to science” and then quickly pivots to the issue of morality and, once again, makes yet another appeal to Europe: “But wouldn’t the end of faith also mean the end of morality and of the social benefits that come with religion? No, for the experience of Europe tells us this need not happen. Secular morality and nonreligious forms of communal experience are perfectly able to fill in the gaps when religion wanes” (261).

Sadly, as we come to the end of Coyne’s book, we look back and see that it has largely been a waste of time. For fear of sounding like a broken record, Coyne’s flaws at the end of his book are the same as those at the beginning: (1) he mistakes “religion” as nothing more than an attempt to “do science” without using the scientific method, (2) he conflates all “religion” into one thing, assuming that all religions and fringe cults are all pretty much the same, (3) he denies basic history and appeals to discredited mythicists like Richard Carrier, and (4) he caricatures Christianity as if it is all really just the YECism of Ken Ham. And then to top it off, he gives puts forth a utopian version of a godless society that looks like an idealized mirage of a modern Europe—conveniently ignoring the facts that (a) Europe isn’t devoid of serious problems, and (b) the only self-described godless/atheistic societies that have existed have been the most brutal and murderous regimes in history.

Now, I’m not going to put forth the same kind of canard Coyne regularly does and claim that all atheists are secret communists who long for genocide—that is just ridiculous…much like Coyne’s book. In short, it simply isn’t a rational and well-argued book. It is an illogical screed that is filled with lazy arguments and a poor understanding of religion in general, Christianity in particular. In this book analysis, I’ve looked at Coyne’s basis claim that religion and science are incompatible, have analyzed his arguments, and have gone away thoroughly unimpressed. Even if I was an atheist, I would be embarrassed by this book. In fact, I could probably make a more convincing argument against religion/Christianity than either he, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or Christopher Hitchens ever could.

My next post will conclude my analysis of Coyne’s book. In it, I want to offer some concluding thoughts about, not just about Coyne’s book, but about the New Atheist movement as a whole and how it really is the doppleganger of modern American ultra-fundamentalism. In the process, I will offer what I would be saying about religion if I were an atheist.