“Faith vs. Fact” by Jerry Coyne: (Part 10)–Scientism! What a Canard! And Yes, Science Really Can Disprove God! (…or so Coyne says)

🔊 Listen to Post Welcome to Part 10 of my analysis of Jerry Coyne’s book, Faith vs. Fact. In this post, I will conclude my comments on Coyne’s fourth chapter, “Faith Strikes Back.” I will specifically analyze Coyne’s comments regarding what he calls the “Scientism Canard,” as well as his comments regarding the notions that “Science Can’t Prove God Doesn’t Exist,” and that “Religion Gave Rise to Science.” Enjoy…

The Scientism Canard

Perhaps the most amazing thing about Coyne’s book is how clearly he puts on display just how obtuse and thick-headed his arguments against religion are. Part of being able to put forth a reasonable argument is to be able to accurately and reasonably show that you understand what the thing you are arguing against really is. Coyne simply fails is in most basic of steps time and time again, and yet another example of this failure is his section where he addresses the critique that atheists like him are guilty of what has been deemed Scientism. Coyne defines Scientism as follows: “Scientism is seen as an intrusion of science where it doesn’t belong, an unwarranted invasion of philosophy, the humanities, ethics, and even theology” (196).

In a most general way, Coyne’s definition is okay. One can do a Google search on Scientism and find similar definitions. Still, Coyne’s definition is rather muddled, for Scientism, properly understood, is the view that the objective methods of the natural sciences is the only source of real knowledge and truth. Basically, it is the view that says, “If it can’t be objectively proven by means of the natural sciences, then it isn’t really real or true.”

Let’s be clear, rational people know full-well that Scientism is a crock. Human beings know a whole host of things to be true and real that cannot be scientifically “proven.” Literature, art, music, and yes religion, often provide truth and insight about what it means to be human that go far beyond the scientific facts of the natural world. In fact, I would argue that the very existence of the arts, philosophy, and religion point to that part of reality that goes beyond the mere facts of science and nature. For that matter, the intricacy and beauty of the workings of nature itself can evoke a sense of awe and wonder that go far beyond any of the defined facts of nature itself.

All that being said, the argument against Scientism is that science simply is not the be-all-end-all when it comes to knowledge and truth. Coyne, though, objects to such a notion, and his comments, not only in this section of his book, but the book as a whole, definitively show that he is completely certain that science, and science alone, is the only means of ascertaining truth and reality. His fundamental criticism of religion, after all, is basically that it isn’t based on science and can’t give answers to scientific questions. Just consider this nugget: “All the revelations in all the world’s scriptures have never told us that a molecule of benzene has six carbon atoms arranged in a ring, or that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old” (195).

Translation? Religion and Scriptures are useless—they don’t tell us about atoms, molecules and the age of the earth!

Perhaps the funniest thing in Coyne’s book is that, when addressing the charge of Scientism, he feels the need to point out the obvious. He writes, “The diverse notions of scientism have only one thing in common: they’re all pejorative” (197). When I read this, I wrote in the margin of my book, “Ya think? That’s the point!” Of course the charge of Scientism is pejorative! It is saying it is wrong!

Coyne goes on: “The most damning definition of scientism is the idea that scientists are arrogant, lack humility, and are reluctant to admit that their findings might be wrong” (198). And immediately after this, he writes, “Scientism is a virtue—the virtue of holding convictions with a tenacity proportional to the evidence supporting them” (198).

So let’s be clear. According to Coyne’s own definition, the charge of “scientism” is that people like him want to force the natural sciences into the humanities, philosophy, and theology. His reply is NOT, “Oh no! That’s not what I’m saying!” No—his reply is basically, “What’s wrong with that? I’m not being arrogant! I’m right! Scientism is a virtue! Evolutionary biology could really improve the humanities and literature! One day, neuroscience will be able to explain love and beauty!”

Now, if you’re saying to yourself, “Wait a minute, where does Coyne say something like that bizarre? He can’t be that arrogant, can he?” Well, yes, he can:

“…many areas of the humanities, including politics, sociology, and literary scholarship, could be improved by insights from evolutionary biology and neuroscience. And really, who could disagree?” (199).

And again, “…nearly all scientists agree…that our hope to help our colleagues in the humanities ‘is not an imperialistic drive to occupy the humanities; the promise of science is to enrich and diversify the intellectual tools of humanistic scholarship, not to obliterate them’” (199).

And again, “I’m confident that someday studies of neurology, genetics, and cognition will help us understand why some works of art move us and others don’t, why some people are compassionate and some are not, and why we see sunsets and waterfalls as beautiful but are repelled by wastelands. It’s common to hear that love is a matter of ‘chemistry,’ but that’s not just a metaphor, for surely the intense emotions that accompany love…are amenable to scientific analysis. Someday…we may be able to gauge the intensity (or even presence) of love using neurology and biochemistry” (200).

Who can disagree with all that? I’m guessing people who aren’t arrogantly beholden to Scientism as an ideology. If you think evolutionary biology can enrich your understanding of Shakespeare, if you think genetics show why people are moved by the music of Mozart or the art of Van Gogh, if you think biochemistry can one day define love or detect its presence between two people, I honestly don’t know what to tell you.

I can almost imagine Jerry Coyne in a movie theater watching the classic ‘80s romantic comedy Say Anything, when John Cusack is holding up his boom box outside the window of the girl he is in love with, blaring Peter Gabriel’s song, “In Your Eyes.” While watching that scene, Coyne leans over and says, “You know, someday, we’re going to have a scientific test to ascertain whether or not John Cusack is in love with that girl! Because right now, I’m at a loss as to what is happening here. Is there a biochemical explanation as to why he likes this song? Perhaps the ‘In Your Eyes’ meme is prompting him to share the meme with this girl. There are just so many questions here that just have to wait until science can develop to the point of answering them.”

I don’t know about you, but at that point I’d have to conclude he isn’t really human…and I’d then find another seat.

Science Can’t NOT Prove God
Another argument Coyne takes issue with is the argument that says that since science is limited to the natural world, if there is a God who is beyond the natural world, then science cannot even address the issue of God’s existence—it cannot prove or disprove God either way. “Not so!” says Coyne. Of course you can disprove God, as long as that supposed God is a theistic god. Coyne’s reasoning is thus: if you claim God exists, then that existence has consequences, and if there is no evidence of those consequences, then the absence of such evidence is indeed evidence of absence—i.e. God doesn’t exist.

Coyne then points to the God of Abraham (thus addressing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and says that this God supposedly gives an afterlife of either bliss or torment, answers prayers, and has a divine son who brings salvation—that’s it. That is what Coyne reduces Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to. First off, anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the three Abrahamic religions knows full well that not only do they disagree on a whole lot of things, and they don’t agree on the three caricature-points that Coyne throws out there, the most obvious one being that neither Judaism nor Islam view Jesus as God’s divine Son. And so, right off the bat, in his attempt to “scientifically disprove” the God of Abraham, Coyne erects a cartoonish and overly-simplistic caricature of that God that is not even consistent within all three Abrahamic religions.

In any case, Coyne’s “scientific proof” against this cartoonish caricature of the God of Abraham amounts to this: we don’t see miracles or wondrous signs today, “scientific tests” of prayer shows “it doesn’t work,” and those ancient scriptures don’t given any advanced scientific knowledge of the universe that went beyond what ancient people would have known at the time.

There is so much wrong with Coyne’s argument, I don’t know where to begin. It would perhaps be a fool’s errand to try to chase after Coyne’s own version of the “Gish Gallop.” But we can say this: What do Coyne’s three “proofs” have in common? They all are rooted in Coyne’s Scientism and they all ignore the historical claims in the Old and New Testaments.

Coyne’s argument basically goes like this: “If the God of Abraham really exists, then his existence should have scientifically-testable consequences.” He then simply ignores the countless unexplainable miracles that people around the world claim. He presents a false caricature of what prayer is and thus concludes that since prayer doesn’t act like a gumball machine (i.e. put that “prayer quarter” in and get a “miracle gumball” out), God doesn’t exist. And he once again puts his “scientism” on fully display by saying, “If those ancient scriptures really were inspired by God, they’d certainly have something about genetics or the age of the universe in them!” You don’t even have to be a believer to acknowledge that those are really bad, really laughable arguments.

I’d like to suggest that if the God of Abraham really exists, then you have to look at the historical claims made in the Old and New Testaments. If He exists, then there should be historical indications and evidences for His existence. Of course, putting one’s faith in that God goes far beyond mere mental assertion that certain things happened in history, but if one is going to tackle the question of the existence of the God of Abraham, one has to do so on the playing field that the Old and New Testaments lay out—namely, on the field of history, not of the natural sciences. And there are plenty of books that address those questions that go far beyond my rather brief blogposts.

But my point on this topic is simple: Coyne’s attempt to argue that science can disprove God, like so many of his other arguments in his book, fails miserably, from beginning to end.

Conclusion Thus Far
As with what happened in my analysis of chapter 2, I’m going to need three posts to get through what Coyne says in chapter 4. Here’s what is coming up:

Did religion give rise to science? Coyne says, “Not really…and even if it sort of did, we all know that the Church has always opposed science!” Newsflash: I’m going to really take issue with that claim.

Does science do bad things? Coyne says, “No, science itself doesn’t do bad things—certain bad people have used science to do bad things. We have to make that distinction if we’re going to be honest.” That is a very astute statement—it’s just too bad that Coyne refuses to us the same kind of insight and honesty when dealing with religion.