This is not just another book about religion, but is actually the first, certainly of any significance, to address the issue of accommodationism. This is the term that Dr Coyne uses to describe scientists, and science generally, who profess to say theatscience and religion are compatible. He argues, very successfully, that the fundamental principles which underly science are the polar opposite of those underlying religion, and that to suggest they are in any way compatible is just plain foolish.
He deals with each and every argument that can be made as to why they are compatible, the most obvious being that many scientists have a religious belief, though only a very small proportion of the total (as many as 93% 0f scientists are atheists). His case is simply that religious belief is possible in scientists because they are able to compartmentalise those beliefs. He puts it that they ‘leave their scientific credentials at the church door each Sunday’. In other words, clever people can act in ways that, in other circumstances, they would themselves consider illogical.
Every single argument that the religious can bring to the fore is dealt with, and in the highly scholarly way that one would expect from Dr Coyne, whilst at the same time being incredibly understandable to ordinary readers. It’s easy to buy into his argument that science looks for answers, based on observation, then seeks evidence. Religion, on the other hand, starts with the answers it’s already decided on, then seeks either to avoid the evidence, or to make up its own, or to contrive it to give it the appearance of support.
The problem for those who don’t like Dr Coyne’s message is that he’s stolen all of their ammunition. Every single argument that they can possibly make to refute him is dealt with in his book, and then some. I note the only one star comment that has, so far been made. It appears to me to be very suspect in its origin. It’s an American based comment, and there’s nothing unusual about that, but its tone suggests an attempt by the American religious lobby to try and do some book hi-jacking. The comment refers to other books that supposedly run contrary to Dr Coyne’s. Well maybe they do, but I doubt any are as scholarly or well argued and, in any event, accommodationism is a fairly recently developed concept. Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA held sway for sometime, but that is now pretty well debunked by this book. If others want to take him on then, quite frankly, they are going to find it very difficult, as without new arguments they are bound to fall into the trap of saying something that is refuted in the book.
Staying with the one star comment for a moment longer, I have to say I’m not convinced when the writer says he/she is not a Christian. That’s a pretty normal claim when trying to get taken seriously, so I do have my doubts. At one point the comment suggests Dr Coyne might be a creationist! Obviously not entirely serious, I assume, given that he is author of Why Evolution is True, but I wonder if it suggests that the comment writer is a creationist? The point is, however, that creationism is perhaps the most potent example of how science and religion really aren’t compatible, and to refer to Dr Coyne in this way is, of course, ridiculous.
The commenter also refers to Dr Coyne and his qualifuications. Well here he really does look foolish. Perhaps if Dr Coyne had ‘bought’ one of the theological doctorates so loved by American pastors, then he’d be better qualified? What rubbish. Theology training is great for learning the history of religion, and it is indeed a very comprehensive course when done properly, but does not necessarily help in religious philosophical debate. The problem the religious have in getting into these types of debate is that they can’t win when it comes to trying to bring qualifications into the discussion. It’s impossible for the run of the mill religious people (indeed, anyone at all) to get into debate with scientists on matters of science, yet on matters of philosophy and religion it is relatively easy for anybody, with a little rational thinking and knowledge of the concepts, to be able to argue with the best. One has only to see how easily Willam Lane Craig has been debunked (outside of debate) by non-religiously qualified people, to realise how far the argument has been taken.
At the end of the day Dr Coyne’s book is probably best summed up by asking what religion and science has given us in terms of truth, or in terms simply of human convenience. The list relating to science is almost infinite. That resulting from religion; nil.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet or computer – no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start againPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Reviews with images
Book cover
Book arrived stained and slightly ripped. Not the end of the world but disappointing.
Top reviews from other countries
José Huerta Ibarra
La necesidad de apoyarse en las evidencias.
Reviewed in Mexico on 3 June 2021
DevaAmazon
Good book. But.....
Reviewed in India on 18 October 2020
DevaAmazon
Reviewed in India on 18 October 2020
·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·
[1] Although I'm sure that the content of the book must be good, the quality of the one which I recieved, in India, was below average.
[2] The printing and the inner pages are good but the paper used for the cover pages were of a poor quality.
[3] The one thing which irritated me (unbearably) was that, both the cover and back page were smaller in width than the inner pages by a millimetre or two. Doesn't seems much, but it sure is.
[4] Costs more than what's printed on the book.
__________________________________________________________________________________
For now I've requested for a replacement and will surely update this review within a week.
Images in this review
