A theology student doesn't like Jerry Coyne's book Faith vs. Fact

A theology student named Derrick has written a review of Jerry Coyne's book Faith vs. Fact. He didn't like it very much. (Duh!) You can read his review at: Jerry Coyne, Faith Vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible.

Before reading that review, let's make sure we understand Jerry's position. Here's what he says on page xx of his book.

My main thesis is narrower and, I think, more defensible: 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. That is attested by the acknowledged success of science in telling us everything from the smallest bits of matter to the origin of the universe itself—compared with the abject failure of religion to tell us anything about gods, including whether they exist.

Jerry's position is that science is a way of knowing and it has been remarkably successful at discovering truths. There are no other ways of knowing that have found truths.

I'll argue that in fact science is the only way to find such truths—if you construe "science" broadly.

I agree with his broad definition of "science" and I agree that science is the only proven way of acquiring knowledge.¹ I also agree with his view that science vs religion is a subset of the real conflict; namely, rationalism vs superstition.

Believers accept the existence of their god(s) without defensible evidence to support that belief. The science way of knowing rejects the idea that you would believe in anything without supporting evidence and logic. Thus, science and religion are not compatible.

Now, read Derrick's review to see how a "sophisticated theologian" deals with the main thesis of Jerry Coyne's book. What you'll see is the typical obfuscation and avoidance that characterizes such theologians.

Keep in mind what Jerry says about so-called "sophisticated" theologians, "... while theologians may know more about the history of religion—or the works of other theologians—than do regular believers, they have no special expertise in discerning the nature of God, what he wants, or how he interacts with the world." [my emphasis LAM]

---

1. We can quibble about whether mathematics is another way of knowing that falls outside of the broad definition of science. I don't think it does but that debate has nothing to do with the science vs religion conflict.