Coyne: Yes, there is a war between science and religion

I would agree. There is a war. There does not, however, have to be a war. Nothing makes war inevitable.


I too believe that there is a war—but I would say that the conflict tends to come from those who mischaracterize science or religion or both.

Also, the online venue of that war tends to fall into PRATTs which weary me.


This is not the “war” that Coyne speaks of. The war he speaks of is:

The “war” between science and religion, then, is a conflict about whether you have good reasons for believing what you do: whether you see faith as a vice or a virtue.

He seems to be opposed of the fact that religion rests on axiomatic beliefs that are unfounded. I wonder what his thoughts are about the many unfounded axiomatic beliefs that are completely secular. Some of them underlie science itself and their existence is a crucial point in Sam Harris’ Moral Landscape: i.e. atheists cannot believe in Coyne’s and Harris’ arguments simultaneously.


I wonder, have you read Stephen Barr’s ‘Science and Religion: Myth of Conflict’?

I didn’t read it myself but I intend to buy it as soon as I finish with other things.

Yes, I am aware that the Conflict Thesis in history is wrong. I am also aware that Coyne believes there is an inherent conflict.

In rebutting this, some argue that there is no conflict.

It seems to me that both are wrong. There need not be conflict, but there often is at this moment. It is not inevitable, nor is it the historical norm. There is, however, in our moment, much conflict between science and religion. Knowing that it is not inevitable should give us motivation to work for peace.

1 Like

I’m skeptical of both.


From what I’ve seen, Barr is not claiming that there is no conflict, he’s merely claiming that there is no conflict between science and religion as much as empirical materialistic philosophy and religion.

As for conflict between some religious people and science, well…


Yes I know. I did not call Barr out. I merely explained the sense in which I believe there is conflict. Ken Ham is certainly religious and he is certainly at war with secular science of origins. That is one example of religion in conflict with science, even though it need not be the case, and is not inevitable.


There is no war between science and religion. The charge of war is from one side mostly.
its the , whats the word, evolutionist/etc /etc , who chage creationists etc with being against science because of denial of their conclusions on certain issues touching on origin matters.
Its one side profiling the other as opposed to science UNLESS they agree with them. its that lame!
Organized creationism(s) or any others opposed to evolutionism etc are not acting from faith but from natual philosophy/science. there is a original hypothesis of a creator or a creator who wrote down a outline on origins but there is no rejection of the evidence of nature by anyone.
There is a rejection the claimed evidence is proving a conclusion.
COME ON! iTs dumb and dumber to say creationists are warring against science because we war against humans(tailless primates for some) ability/conclusions in science.
We are just , analagy, saying light is a wave and not a particle or its a particle and not a wave, JUST AS PHSICISTS did in the 1800’s. both were doing science.
i say , genesis hints, light is everywhere and so is not a wave/particle but only the provacation bends in the wind and gives a false impression of light as moving and having a speed.
genesis supplys the hypothesis and then we examine natures evidence.
The evolutionists are losing their war in our time. its not science that is losing.

It figures at Christmas they would have a anti0Christian/religion article in newsweek. Lame. Did they allow a rebuttal? .
If there is a war well then the war has icreased since they would never of said this 50-30 years ago.
its actually a sign of the sude losing ground.
As i said the WAR is the side who accuses the opther of being opposed to science IF you don’t agree with non god/non biblical conclusions in origin subjects and others too.
Actually there would be disagreement in heaps of historical subjects touching on the bible.
Why no war there? Maybe because more identities and more numbers to them explains this.