“Faith vs. Fact” by Jerry Coyne: An Extended Book Analysis (Part 3)–Liberals, Accommodationists, the Negation of the “Metaphysical I” (and a whole lot of YECist tactics!)

🔊 Listen to Post We now come to Part 3 of my book analysis of Jerry Coyne’s Faith vs. Fact. In my previous post, I gave a general overview of chapter 1 and then discussed Coyne’s referencing of Galileo and the Scopes Monkey Trial as examples that “religion” (i.e. Christianity) has always been antagonistic toward science. A basic knowledge of history shows that such a claim is woefully simplistic. There were simply a number of other factors in each case to come to such a conclusion. If you want to read more about the history of Christianity and science, let me recommend Ronald Numbers’ Galileo Goes to Jail and Vincent Carroll’s Christianity on Trial.

In this post, I will touch upon a few more items mentioned in chapter 1 of the book, so let’s get right to it.

It is important to remember that Coyne’s basic thesis is that religion and science are incompatible and in conflict with each other, and that it has been this way ever since the 16^th century when science began to challenge the dogma and power of the Church. This claim can be proven false by any honest look at history. Modern science was born in the medieval university, and medieval universities were basically invented by the Catholic Church, and in those universities 1/3 of the curriculum was devoted to the natural sciences.

There is much more to it, and I would recommend the books above to learn more. In reality, the only real, concentrated “war” between “religion and science” has been within modern Christian fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. And this is really at the heart of Coyne’s problematic thesis. He broad-brushes all of Christianity for all time based on the more recent conflict between 20^th century Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism on one side and what we can call atheistic-Fundamentalism on the other side over the specific issue of evolution. Pull the camera back to show the larger history and all the natural sciences, you’re simply not going to find much conflict.

Liberalism
And that fact is what makes Coyne’s comments in the rest of chapter 1 so interesting. How do you go about proving a thesis that is so easily debunked by historical facts? The answer is you throw out specific names and labels, repeat them a number of times, and then declare victory.

The two main labels Coyne uses are liberal (as in liberal churches) and accomodationism (as in any Christian in the field of science who accepts evolution and who says that religion isn’t in conflict with science). That is very convenient. How does the fact that virtually all other branches and denominations of Christianity have stated they do not see a conflict between the Christian faith and the theory of evolution affect Coyne’s assertion that Christianity is in conflict with science? Well, it doesn’t—Coyne just calls them “liberal” and says, “…some liberal churches deal with the conflict by simply accepting the science and modifying their theology where required” (11) and “Liberal theology prides itself on modernism, and there is no better way to profess modernity than to embellish your theology with science” (16).

The problem with that is that it is so vague and historically misleading. As a matter of fact, the original Fundamentalists were largely academics who were combating theological liberalism, but many of the original Fundamentalists didn’t see evolution as part of theological liberalism, and they actually accepted it. Furthermore, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are so problematic these days—they have such political overtones that to use them in discussions regarding religion and science have the effect of opening the door to a whole mess of political assumptions that have the effect of shutting down actual discussion, where people don’t need to actually wrestle with specific issues and arguments—the label has been thrown out; that person can be dismissed.

Now, yes, there are many theologically liberal denominations that deny a whole bunch of historical and traditional tenets of the Christian faith, and they can be contrasted with churches that still hold to those traditional tenets of Christianity. But the simple fact is that, outside of the more ultra-Fundamentalist elements within modern day Evangelicalism, I simply do not know of many, if indeed any, branches or denominations in Christianity that make scientific stances part of their theology.

Accommodationism
The other label Coyne uses is accommodationism. Like “liberalism,” he tends to be a bit foggy on just what is means, but it certainly is something bad! Within Biblical Studies, scholars use accommodationism this way: God accommodates His revelatory message to the particular people He is addressing, given the limits of their language and their understanding of the world. Therefore, for example, in the ancient Near East, people thought there was a dome in the sky and that the stars were simply lights fastened into the dome. They had absolutely zero knowledge of galaxies, the vastness of space, etc. And so, when Genesis 1 is describing the creation of the universe, God isn’t trying to give them a science lesson. He is using what they knew at the time to teach them the truth about Himself.

But Coyne doesn’t seem to be using it that way. Rather, he says this: “Accommodationism is not meant to defend science, which can stand on its own, but to show that in some way religion can still make credible claims about the world” (7). If that is Coyne’s definition, it is imprecise to say the least, and rather misleading as well. Is Coyne saying that accomodationism is just a way for “religious” scientists to keep religion relevant in the pursuit of…science?

If so, who are these “accommodationists”? Well, Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project and the current director of the National Institutes of Health, for one—Coyne really doesn’t like him. With a grant from the Templeton Foundation, Collins helped found BioLogos. Coyne doesn’t like the Templeton Foundation either. And then there is the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Center for Science Education. The catechism of the Catholic Church is also accommodationist. All of them draw the ire of Coyne. Why? Because all of them say that religion is not in conflict with science. All of them accept modern science and evolutionary theory, in fact. They just also acknowledge that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is not primarily concerned with the study of the natural world. One can be an atheist and study the natural world; one can be a Christian and study the natural world. One’s ability to do science is not dependent on whether or not one believes in God.

But this obviously flies in the face of Coyne’s thesis. In fact, in scientific terms, it is evidence that disproves Coyne’s thesis. So what does Coyne do? Ironically, he does the very thing young earth creationists like Ken Ham do: dismiss that evidence by calling people who don’t see a conflict between religion and science as either “liberal” or “accommodationist.” Problem solved.

And what about all those really good scientists (like Francis Collins) who apply for grants from the Templeton Foundation? Well, Coyne has an explanation for that as well: “Given the eagerness of many cash-strapped scientists to join the Templeton stable, the influence of its money on the syncretic program of science and faith should not be underestimated” (20). Translation? “Scientists need money for their research, so they’re willing to prostitute themselves to ‘accommodationist’ organizations like the Templeton Foundation, and mouth the platitude, ‘Oh religion doesn’t conflict with science!’ in order to get some cash!” And there you have it: a conspiracy theory as well.

Incidentally, BioLogos and the Templeton Foundation are also frequent targets of YECist groups like Answers in Genesis for the exact same reason: they show that there isn’t a conflict between religion and science. Obviously, modern YECist organizations and the modern New Atheist movement are dependent on keeping this false narrative alive—in that sense, they are each other’s dopplegangers who need to keep this supposed “conflict” going for their own survival.

Coyne seems to realize that such a tactic isn’t really convincing, so he then decides to throw out some of his own stats to bolster his case. He writes, “If religion and science get along so well, why are so many scientists nonbelievers? The difference in religiosity between the American public and American scientists is profound, persistent, and well-documented” (12). And what are these stats that show this? Well, as Coyne states, according to Pew Research, 33% of scientists admit belief in God, while 41% claimed to be atheists, and 26% didn’t answer the question. Well, I’m sorry, but those stats don’t really bolster Coyne’s thesis. If anything, they just show that scientists can be believe in God or not believe in God and still be scientists.

Philosophical Determinism and No Free Will
Another interesting thing Coyne touches upon is philosophical determinism. In short, he claims that science proves there is no “metaphysical I” and that the notion of free will “looks increasingly dubious.” He then says, “Most scientists and philosophers are now physical ‘determinists’ who see our genetic makeup and environmental history as the only factors that, acting through the laws of physics, determine which decisions we make. That, of course, kicks the props out from under much theology” (16).

Well, I have a hard time believing that “most scientists and philosophers” are determinists. Coyne doesn’t provide any stats or evidence to support his assertion. In addition, I just had a simple question for Coyne when I read that assertion. If that is true and if people do not, in fact, have free will or the ability to make choices—if everything is just genetic makeup and environmental factors—then why write a book trying to convince anyone of your view? After all, the purpose of Coyne’s book is to argue that religion and science are at war. That would imply he is trying to convince his readers that what he is saying is true. But if there is no free will, then how could one hope to convince anyone of anything? It seems that Coyne’s very act of writing his book undercuts his assertion that free will does not exist.

A Parting Shot
Coyne ends chapter 1 by reasserting his agreement with the New Atheist movement’s claim that religious claims are empirical, scientific hypotheses. Now, it is true that some religions, like Christianity, make historical claims, and those claims are thus open for examination and investigation. But Coyne conflates historical claims with scientific hypotheses and theories. The fact is, historical research is different than the research that happens in the natural sciences. There are different rules and criteria. And thus far in the book, Coyne has been claiming that “religion” is in competition with the natural sciences in order to explain natural phenomena in the universe (i.e. it makes scientific claims).

But then at the end of chapter 1, Coyne changes course entirely and goes out of his way to flat out ridicule Christianity in the way he “describes” it. He writes, “Here are some examples from just one faith, Trinitarian Christianity: There is one God who intercedes in the affairs of humans, God created humans in his image, but then two of them sinned, infecting all of their descendants—the entire species of Homo sapiens—with a taint that did not exist before. The deity also fathered a son by a virgin female, a son whose execution and Resurrection gave us the opportunity to expiate our inherited sins. Further, there is an afterlife in which those who were virtuous in their earthly lives will dwell in paradise, while miscreants suffer eternity in hell. Only those who accept Jesus as savior will enjoy the delights of heaven. Finally, Jesus will return someday, ushering in the final reckoning of the End Times. And prayer can work: God listens to our supplications and sometimes grants them” (22).

Take that, you blathering, Bible-believing idiots! Your religion is stupid!

Now, if you are by chance an atheist who found yourself grinning at Coyne’s description of Christianity and thinking, “Yeah, what kind of moron believes that sort of stuff?” let me submit that this is the exact same tactic that the YECist organization Answers in Genesis uses when it tries to discredit the theory of evolution. If you’ve heard YECists say things to the effect of “Oh yeah, evilutionists believe in the fairy tale that life just ‘poofed’ out of non-life, and then infected some prehistoric goo, and presto, over millions of year, fish turned into alligators that eventually turned into ducks! No one has ever observed this! Where are the fossils of the crocaduck? Those ‘scientists’ who believe in evolution are just believing in fairy tales and just-so stories!” –and have gotten irritated at such a childish mischaracterization of evolution, then congratulations, Coyne is doing the exact same kind of thing.

The tactic is pretty basic: touch upon some basic claims, but then express them in clear mischaracterizations for the sole purpose of ridicule and not for the purpose of actually understanding what the claims are and honestly interacting with them. It’s the opposite of engaging in honest debate. It’s mockery and ridicule for the sole purpose of justifying not having to really study and learn what is actually being claimed. And that tactic is weak and pathetic across the board, whether the likes of Ken Ham or Jerry Coyne uses it. Sure, it very well gets applauds from the ideologues in their particular camp and it increases the level of confirmation bias, but it is a cheap and worthless tactic to clear-thinking and honest people.

Conclusion
In chapter 1, Jerry Coyne stated his thesis: religion has always conflicted with science, and religion claims to tell us truths about nature, but fails. To bolster his thesis, he appealed to Galileo’s trial and the Scopes Monkey Trial—yet as I showed in Part 2, there was a lot of different factors in both events; therefore, to reduce them to the simplistic, “Religion always persecutes science!” woefully fails at every level. In this post, I covered Coyne’s other problems:

(1) He wrongly takes the “anti-science” views of modern Fundamentalism and tries to broad-brush Christianity throughout time, as well as Christianity around the world with that brush;

(2) When faced with Christian denominations, branches and organizations (even secular ones) that maintain there isn’t a conflict between Christianity and science, he resorts to name-calling: “liberal” and “accommodationist”—the very way YECists attack those same Christian groups;

(3) He asserts that “most scientists and philosophers” are determinists and deny that the “metaphysical I” and free will really exist—and he, the individual Jerry Coyne, has written a book trying to convince people of that; and

(4) He engages in yet another YECist tactic of “describing” what he is attacking in a purposeful mocking way, so as to justify casual dismissal without having to bother to really interact with it.

Thus far, Jerry Coyne really has said nothing of substance…but he has proven himself strangely similar to Ken Ham in his tactics.