Faith vs Fact

                                                                                                                                           Science/Faith

Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible

Jerry A. Coyne

For long I harboured a view that science is good at answering ‘what and how’ questions on life and universe, while the most vital ‘why’ questions belong to the realm of religion. In last decade I read some books on the nature and origin of universe. Many of these were written by thinkers and scientists who have been in the forefront of this quest. This reading informs me, with as conclusive evidence as human mind is at the present moment capable of propounding, that though some ‘why’ questions still remain unanswered, scientists all over the world are doggedly working at the frontiers of knowledge and claiming inch by inch, the land of ignorance. To attribute all that science cannot explain to a nebulous concept of God: whose nature is unknowable, whose methods are inscrutable and whose mind is beyond human comprehension; is nothing short of intellectual indolence. I now understand that rigorous application of scientific tools to these queries has opened a world of knowledge that, merely two-three centuries back was inaccessible to human beings. Organised religion has been in this world for more than two millennia, yet other than some ludicrous stories about creation of universe, laughable accounts of God first creating and then meddling ham-handedly with life every moment of the day and such infantile fantasies, religion could not come up with a single explanation that was consistent with the observed facts. In the absence of modern scientific methods, religion had a heyday spinning these yarns about universe and life. Beginning with Galileo in mid-sixteenth century, church saw science gradually but steadily providing logical, testable and falsifiable explanations for natural phenomena, a role over which religion had enjoyed unchallenged monopoly for almost two millennia.

Thus, religion witnessed, waxed and petulant, its authority dwindling to the extent that it was evoked only to explain those facts which science had yet not explained. A pale shadow of its glorious past, it effectively became ‘the religion of gaps’ i.e. its authority was invoked only to explain gaps in scientific knowledge. Science’s universal acceptance, its consistent principles, its ease of accessibility and its openness in accepting, rather encouraging dissent with the accepted viewpoints, gave it a respectability that religion has always coveted. Consequently, many religious pundits and religiously minded science apologists now look for reconciliation between science and religion. They propound many theories to aver why science and religion must co-exist. This book of Jerry A. Coyne, who is an evolutionary biologist of repute, is a superb effort to explain why the ways of science and religion can never meet. There are many books on this theme and many of them are very convincing. But most of them are in way of being polemics against Religion. Religion has been inhumanly harsh and cruel on people of science, to safeguard its fiefdom. A scathing critique of religion by scientists does not require an apology but is essential for the unhindered blooming of human mind. But Coyne does not criticize every facet of religion in this book. He confines his arguments only to the subject of incompatibility between science and religion. And this he does with an enviable width of arguments. He first defines this incompatibility in unambiguous language. He explains what Religion is and what is Science. He contrasts their diametrically opposite ways of acquiring knowledge. Science’s foundation is laid on the doubting mind of its apostles, on their relentless search for recurring pattern in natural phenomena, formulation of hypothesis, devising experiments to test this theory and predicting more facts about nature through this theory. Science thus encourages critical enquiry, an inquisitive mind that is forever restless for newer truths. There is no self-righteousness in science. All theories are open for most rigorous appraisal and are unceremoniously abandoned if found lacking in proof in the light of newly acquired knowledge. Religion thrives on dogma. Its knowledge is revealed and hence beyond pale of doubt by human mind. It demands unstinting faith in its teachings from its followers and ruthlessly quells spirit of enquiry and doubt. These reasons alone should be enough to convince even a child as to the completely incongruous ways of science and religion. Coyne cites and explains many more. At length he takes up the arguments offered by accommodationists -science apologists and liberal believers- and clearly enunciates the reason why such arguments fail. He cautions rationally thinking people of the ways in which religion is trying to acquire a patina of rationality. The foremost of these is ‘Natural Theology’ an attempt to answer questions for which science has no clear answer at present, allegedly by observing nature, rather than relying on revealed theology. The second such ruse being played by religion is propping up religion as another way of acquiring knowledge about essential truths of nature. And the third method for revival of religion is accusing scientists of spreading ‘scientism’, a term only of derogatory connotations that accuses science of overstepping its boundaries and trying to usurp the domain of all other forms of knowledge like philosophy, humanities, ethics and theology. Coyne systematically, convincingly and resoundingly debunks all these claims. He ends the book by citing various reasons why it is important to understand the stark and unbridgeable incompatibility between science and religion. Faith as substitute for medicine, suppression of scientific research and tools of proven efficacy like vaccination, opposition to assisted dying and denial of global warming are some of the ramifications of religious thinking that he discusses.

Coyne has written a highly engrossing and finely argued account on why science and religion must part ways permanently. His arguments can be easily understood by a layman. His prose is elegant and has the beauty that engages mind, focussing it acutely on the subject being discussed. This is a book a rationalist will miss on his own peril.