Faith Vs. Fact: Why Science And Religion Are Incompatible By Coyne

1717 Words4 Pages

In the book, Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible by Coyne, he explains how religion and science do not go hand in hand at all. He explains that there are many differences between the two fields but holds science as the upper hand between the two. In chapter two of the book, he explains how religion mostly believes all of their doctrines and faith-driven information to be true and all other types of information false. He claims that science is much more focused on the “truth about the universe.” As a scientist himself, he has experienced first hand as to how science is nowhere compatible with religion and that science and religion have different goals, which can never intertwine. Coyne exemplifies that with science, …show more content…

Coyne describes that religion has three qualities: theism, moral system, and supernatural agent. With the claim of theism, he explains that God is always in contact with the world. With this notion, he understands that religion has one God in which watches everything that his followers perform in and proceeds to reward or punish their behavior. The second characteristic is the institution of a moral system. Considering this, Coyne depicts that based on the reward and punishment system based on behavior, religion is to believe that there are certain actions in which God considers to be right or wrong. This is a major component of most religious practices. The third feature is the interpersonal relationship with God. By making wrong decisions, we are spared from our wrongdoing by having an association with God. With these three components, Coyne defines religion. Now with this information, he dissects religion and tries to determine if religion looks for truth, similar to the field of science. In his findings he has concluded that theologians believe that the existence of God is indeed considered factual information. When pressed on this issue for evidence, many theologians claim that God cannot be described and is …show more content…

I believe that religion should not be considered the basis of reality since it is highly faith-based. People have different beliefs and that provides multiple versions of how they interpret their reality. I also feel that the “truth” that religion tends to glorify is not the truth because of its lack of empirical claims. In accordance to science, on the other hand, it is heavily evidence based. With science, we understand that it is solely based on observation. The theories and phenomenon that we know of today are solely from observation. Without this characteristic, we wouldn’t have an understanding on the universe and reality. Another characteristic that is quite important in science is that science is open to falsification. Scientists understand that they want to find the truth with different phenomenon. They also understand that they cannot find the absolute truth. Scientists always change their findings as new findings are being collected. Thirdly, it rejects faith as a method of evidence. Faith is based on ones’ belief on a specific subject matter. Science is not based on belief but on finding the truth. Scientists occasionally doubt their findings or evidence in order to find more concrete evidence. On the side of religion, it is primarily faith based. Most of the characteristics that science accept, religion denies. First off,

Open Document