Jerry Coyne's new book: Faith Versus Fact

[Mudhammam]

I just completed this book today after having spent the last 2 days ramming through it. I was pleasantly surprised by the clarity and focus of his thesis, which is that science and religion are not compatible in the same manner that reason and superstition are not, and I think he did a superb job of making that case. The strengths of this book include its abundance of stats and quotes, used either to affirm a point or to set up the opposing view which he then sets out to refute, inoculating himself from the charge of not really dealing with the beliefs of "true" or "sophisticated" believers. Still, there were times when, like most New Atheist writers, I felt he only gave a superficial treatment of subjects that have acquired literally volumes of thoughtful analysis. Some, for example, are the resurrection of Jesus, the meaning of morality, and other metaphysical issues in general, most of which is, in all fairness, beyond the scope or intentions of this book. Other problems which I think he failed to enumerate properly are his position that human actions are wholly determined by physical regularities, his belief that morality is subjective, and his aim to demonstrate that religion is harmful or counterproductive to progress --- all of which together seem to mish-mash into an incoherent view that a) we ought to ascribe to a conduct of life that maximizes benefits for all (including strict adherence to scientific principles, namely those of reason, observation, and experiment), b) though the correctness of this "ought" judgment is no more or less equivalent to individual preference, c) and is itself a preference determined for us by extenuating circumstances (evolution and education) that lie beyond our control. Of course, this didn't really detract from his main argument, though I feel he should have pressed deeper seeing as how they came up and are inextricably related to the need some feel in invoking the supernatural. On the other hand, Coyne's praise and frequent usage of philosophers was an unexpected welcome, unexpected because certain popular scientists of the present generation seem to have a misguided knack for denigrating philosophy as a useless or worn-out tool for discovery and making sense of phenomena. Overall, I'd give it 4/5 stars.