# Coyne on the war between science and faith

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Society\
**Created:** [December 14, 2020, 3:10am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756 "2020-12-14T03:10:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 6:05am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/41 "2020-12-16T06:05:37Z")

</div>

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> I can see that you _ **can** _ interpret specific passages of Scripture so that it agrees with evolutionary science. IMO, you can’t really have a higher regard for Scripture than @swamidass does in his [GAE](http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-adam-eve) hypothesis and still affirm current evolutionary science. I appreciate it in that way.

I appreciate that sentiment. Thank you.

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> _But_ from my perspective, interpreting Bible passages in light of certain aspects of current scientific theories may be _ **possible** _ , but you’re breaking many _ **themes** _ of the Bible when you do so.

However, I am not interpreting the Bible in light of evolution…most everything I proposed was considered by other long before evolution was proposed. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Witchdoc](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/witchdoc/32/10610_2.png) [@Witchdoc](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Witchdoc)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 6:07am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/42 "2020-12-16T06:07:03Z")

</div>

When people say they love science, do they mean they like the idea of liking science, or the actual science itself?

How much science study have you done?

How much biology have you studied?

It’s kinda like Christianity - lots of people say they love Christianity, but when push comes to shove on doing what Christianity says, it’s a different story.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 6:09am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/43 "2020-12-16T06:09:41Z")

</div>

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> By necessity, a YEC view is defined by rejecting **interpretations** of findings in multiple fields of science that we do think are demanded by the biblical text.

That is objectively false. The YEC view routinely requires _ **rejecting most of the findings themselves** _, which are not subject to interpretation.

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> I don’t see a difference in saying you believe something and believing in it in a poll.

I see big differences between saying you believe something and truly believing, yes. Truly believing entails acting on those beliefs.

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> John, I doubt many of them have any idea what that means.

Those who write the pseudoscientific propaganda, however, do.

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> What do you think the average non-scientist / person on the street should do?

Learn to distinguish between real science and pseudoscience. There are some pretty blatant markers for the latter that you are trying very hard to ignore.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roels\_Major](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roels_major/32/9083_2.png) [@Roels\_Major](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roels_Major)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 11:08am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/45 "2020-12-16T11:08:15Z")

</div>

> [@chris\_doesdna2018](#):
>
> How does one differentiate between a miracle-driven phenomenon and a nature-driven phenomenon?

Natural phenomena can be observed by humans on a day-to-day basis to a certain extent whether using tools or not.

A miracle is something that is difficult for human observation to understand due to limited knowledge or technology at any given moment, so the only possible explanation is to label the event with a trick of hallucinations, illusions, or magic.

Will the ability to understand this be acquired in the future? (After studying it), it may or may not be possible, because there are many things that human knowledge cannot yet reach

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roels\_Major](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roels_major/32/9083_2.png) [@Roels\_Major](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roels_Major)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 11:48am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/46 "2020-12-16T11:48:54Z")

</div>

… that **relies on reason** rather than faith as a fount of morality.

Here, he said:

> **[Are religious people more moral?](https://theconversation.com/are-religious-people-more-moral-84560)**
>
> All the world's major religions are concerned with moral behavior. But research shows little evidence that religious people are more ethical than atheists.

The science of psychiatrists, even though I am not brilliant in thinking, is still could be believed. Contrary to the science of psychologists (in this case special for the psychologist who wrote the above article, and similar ones), how can they be trusted, they can only label people from the surface, give pathological characteristics and can only offer alternative solutions that are never clear just like a shaman.

I don’t know what war is meant, but followers of religion from ancient times also practiced science, not just atheists, apart from the disputes of the two parties.

Bonus:

> **[An Expert Called Lindy](https://medium.com/incerto/an-expert-called-lindy-fdb30f146eaf)**
>
> Don’t eat their cheesecake– Meta-experts judged by meta-meta-experts– Prostitutes, nonprostitutes, and amateurs — Popper compatibility

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jeffb](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jeffb/32/22795_2.png) [@jeffb](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/jeffb)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 3:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/47 "2020-12-16T15:36:00Z")

</div>

> [@Witchdoc](#):
>
> When people say they love science, do they mean they like the idea of liking science, or the actual science itself?

Good question.

So “loving science”. Perhaps this will help: My father was a science teacher when I was young. It was my favorite subject in school. It’s great to see what we can discover through science. For example I recall reading about us knowing which stars are made up of which molecules. I thought “How can we know that?” It turns out by examining the frequency of light. Pretty cool. So…basically stuff like that.

> [@Witchdoc](#):
>
> How much science study have you done?
> 
> How much biology have you studied?

Formal education in biology: One college course; back when I was young and didn’t pay attention much.  
Information education: Lots of self-study since then (and still do).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 5:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/48 "2020-12-16T17:26:22Z")

</div>

> [@jeffb](#):
>
> Information education: Lots of self-study since then (and still do).

How much of this self-study was in creationist literature?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 5:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/49 "2020-12-16T17:57:16Z")

</div>

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> By necessity, a YEC view is defined by rejecting **interpretations** of findings in multiple fields of science that we do think are demanded by the biblical text. There is no reason to have such a stance unless we believed it to be so.
> 
> I think a line is necessary because as I’ve said in this forum, I believe Jesus requires it of me. This is how I think: God could not have created this world with death as a created norm when death is a punishment for sin. Why else would Jesus have to die? Why could he not have suffered a spiritual death for all of us only? Why else does the resurrection need to be the miracle than proved him as the victor? And then we have the doctrine of the first Adam and last Adam, the image of God in both man and woman but also their separate roles, which means Genesis 1 and 2 must be read as one story to understand marriage correctly

It seems that YEC forces people in one of two directions: deny facts or leave Christianity. In effect, YEC is telling us that if the consensus of scientists is right then the Bible is false. Making people choose between reason and Christianity seems like a losing strategy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 6:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/50 "2020-12-16T18:20:19Z")

</div>

> [@Michelle](#):
>
> However, if God exists, then miracles are possible. God can break His own laws, but He does not do that all the time. God uses miracles as one means of revealing Himself to us. We understand miracles to be miracles because they do not constantly happen. Usually things happen according to the natural laws that God set up.

How do you know all this? Personal experience or did somebody tell you this?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![glipsnort](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/glipsnort/32/1541_2.png) [@glipsnort](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/glipsnort)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 6:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/51 "2020-12-16T18:23:30Z")

</div>

> [@Michelle](#):
>
> However, if God exists, then miracles are possible.

Miracles are possible even if God doesn’t exist, in the sense that we can’t rule them out. No one – not scientists, not Christians, not blowhard bloggers – know why the universe is the way it is or why things behave the way they do, which means we can’t know that they’ll always behave that way.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 6:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/52 "2020-12-16T18:34:59Z")

</div>

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> God could not have created this world with death as a created norm when death is a punishment for sin.

That is very much an interpretation. Yet you say that you reject interpretations.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 6:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/53 "2020-12-16T18:39:59Z")

</div>

If a miracle happened, then this event isn’t a miracle at all. It is just an event that we don’t understand how it happened. (the universe, life on Earth). With the central miracles of Christianity, we don’t really know if they actually happened. So these so-called miracles are outside the pursuit of science to investigate scientifically.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/puck_mendelssohn/32/11849_2.png) [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Puck_Mendelssohn)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 6:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/54 "2020-12-16T18:48:12Z")

</div>

> [@AllenWitmerMiller](#):
>
> Do some religious people face (and even force) a personal conflict in their own thinking? Certainly. Yet that shouldn’t be generalized into an inherent conflict between science and religion.

Sometimes all that these arguments are about is what we mean when we ask the question. Does religion conflict with science? If we mean “always and everywhere,” the answer is obviously no; if we mean “in some particular cases,” the answer is obviously yes. I do meet a lot of people for whose religious views the answer is “obviously yes,” but I also know a lot of people for whom the answer is “obviously no.”

But “religion” is an awfully big category of ideas. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a definition of that category that I thought was wholly satisfactory.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![glipsnort](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/glipsnort/32/1541_2.png) [@glipsnort](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/glipsnort)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 7:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/55 "2020-12-16T19:17:26Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> If a miracle happened, then this event isn’t a miracle at all. It is just an event that we don’t understand how it happened.

Depends on how you choose to define ‘miracle’, which doesn’t strike me as an interesting question.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 7:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/56 "2020-12-16T19:30:31Z")

</div>

> [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](#):
>
> Sometimes all that these arguments are about is what we mean when we ask the question. Does religion conflict with science? If we mean “always and everywhere,” the answer is obviously no; if we mean “in some particular cases,” the answer is obviously yes. I do meet a lot of people for whose religious views the answer is “obviously yes,” but I also know a lot of people for whom the answer is “obviously no.”

It could be described as the age-old conflict between those who defend dogma and those who dare to question it. In many ways, this spills over the borders of science and religion.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jeffb](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jeffb/32/22795_2.png) [@jeffb](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/jeffb)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 7:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/57 "2020-12-16T19:52:53Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> How much of this self-study was in creationist literature?

100% directly from Kent Hovind and Ken Ham.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 7:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/58 "2020-12-16T19:56:18Z")

</div>

> [@jeffb](#):
>
> 100% directly from Kent Hovind and Ken Ham.

Sadly in these discussions it is entirely conceivable that you are being serious. [Poe’s Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 8:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/59 "2020-12-16T20:07:18Z")

</div>

> [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](#):
>
> Sometimes all that these arguments are about is what we mean when we ask the question. Does religion conflict with science? If we mean “always and everywhere,” the answer is obviously no; if we mean “in some particular cases,” the answer is obviously yes. I do meet a lot of people for whose religious views the answer is “obviously yes,” but I also know a lot of people for whom the answer is “obviously no.”
> 
> But “religion” is an awfully big category of ideas. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a definition of that category that I thought was wholly satisfactory.

If science and religion isn’t in conflict because _there are people who manage to be both religious and scientists_, or who are able to somehow resolve apparent conflicts by picking among numerous possible interpretations of religious texts, then I have to say it’s difficult to see how _anything_ could be thought of as really being in conflict.

I can scarcely think of a subject that include works of writing, or methods, or conclusions to different forms of investigation, that could not be put into some sort of allegorical rendering that would resolve apparent conflicts between them.  
Sam Harris famously gave an allegorical religious interpretation _to a cooking recipe_. His take on the word salt itself was hilarious. If you are in a sufficiently bendy and accommodating mindset you can square anything, including circles.

[![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/3/3d963190cab52a8d2ec2521b7b020ff3c3f51d60.jpeg "Sam Harris Roasts Jordan Peterson's God with a Cookbook Analogy") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYfz0LqTMvQ)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 8:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/60 "2020-12-16T20:11:24Z")

</div>

If that was a joke, it was non-responsive. If it wasn’t a joke, it was scary. And it’s impossible to tell which, because many real creationists do get all their science that way.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2020, 8:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756/61 "2020-12-16T20:18:21Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> And it’s impossible to tell which, because many real creationists do get all their science that way.

Let’s not scare him away. If he sticks around he may learn some science that’s not from creationists. I have a morbid curiosity as to what they are teaching in those groups nowadays, or if it’s just a rehash of the stuff from decades ago.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-on-the-war-between-science-and-faith/12756.md?page=4)