Scan barcode
kvothesduet's review against another edition
5.0
This is the most cogent synthesis I have read so far about the failings of faith—NOT religion per se, but any kind of belief without evidence—as an alternative "way of knowing." Contrary to critiques from people who have probably not read the book, neither particularly strident nor judgmental. The book is particularly notable for its survey of a wide range of theological arguments and for its strong case that respect for "being a person of faith"—again, not religion per se—does measurable damage to our world, beginning but not ending with the many children who have died after being denied medical care by their devout parents. These parents are generally not prosecuted, because withholding care on religious grounds is legal in most American states; if we awarded less respect to faith as a society, Coyne argues, we would eliminate these exceptions. Lives hang in the balance.
maxpatiiuk's review against another edition
5.0
I had faith in this book being good
In reality, it was amazing
The author expressed everything I wanted to and I can not disagree with him on anything
In reality, it was amazing
The author expressed everything I wanted to and I can not disagree with him on anything
arensb's review against another edition
5.0
With a title like "Faith Versus Fact", it's easy to guess which side Coyne comes down on. And he does come down rather heavily on the side of fact, and in favor of abandoning faith.
Some, no doubt, will call him shrill or militant, but that's because we're used to seeing religion as a good thing, something worthy of respect. Coyne is forthright, and when an idea doesn't stand up under scrutiny, be it homeopathy or the trinity, he says so.
On one hand, there's not a whole lot that's new in this book. Indeed, one of its assets is that it tackles arguments that keep coming up over and over ("but science has given us eugenics and nuclear weapons!", "you can't prove that God doesn't exist!", "only the Christian worldview supports the sort of orderly universe that makes science possible") and answers them clearly and thoroughly. On a personal note, I particularly liked Vaal's answer to the question, "can you prove love?"
You don't have to agree with Coyne to read this book. But if you've ever wondered why anyone might say that faith is a bad thing, you won't find a clearer explanation.
Some, no doubt, will call him shrill or militant, but that's because we're used to seeing religion as a good thing, something worthy of respect. Coyne is forthright, and when an idea doesn't stand up under scrutiny, be it homeopathy or the trinity, he says so.
On one hand, there's not a whole lot that's new in this book. Indeed, one of its assets is that it tackles arguments that keep coming up over and over ("but science has given us eugenics and nuclear weapons!", "you can't prove that God doesn't exist!", "only the Christian worldview supports the sort of orderly universe that makes science possible") and answers them clearly and thoroughly. On a personal note, I particularly liked Vaal's answer to the question, "can you prove love?"
You don't have to agree with Coyne to read this book. But if you've ever wondered why anyone might say that faith is a bad thing, you won't find a clearer explanation.
dinosaursatwork's review against another edition
5.0
Very interesting and got me thinking. Also quite quotable
barrysweezey's review against another edition
"It is time for us to stop seeing faith as a virtue, and to stop using the term 'person of faith' as a compliment."
barry_sweezey's review against another edition
"It is time for us to stop seeing faith as a virtue, and to stop using the term 'person of faith' as a compliment."
rick_sam's review against another edition
1.0
I am afraid, Author has not done his homework in this area.
Most of the content is popular journalism. Eg: Global Warming Denial i.e this relates to Political discourse.
Eg: Most Historians of Science reject, Draper's conflict thesis. Why would a Harvard Professor do sloppy work? In addition to this, it's inaccurate
Natural Philosophy i.e contemporary name, "Science", has become specialized. I'd say, the author misses, Big Picture.
If this is the first book you read on this topic, I'm sure you might not have any other content, writings to compare.
I'd not recommend this work, as it is inaccurate.
Please, Check my review on another work: Science and Religion, by Alister E. McGrath
The following would be written by researchers who are interested in the field, and have taken herculean effort.
Finally, I'd suggest more accurate work. This is accurate writing from Special Divine Action Project.
Please Check, Religion and Science, Special Divine Action Project by Oxford University
Deus Vult,
Gottfried
Most of the content is popular journalism. Eg: Global Warming Denial i.e this relates to Political discourse.
Eg: Most Historians of Science reject, Draper's conflict thesis. Why would a Harvard Professor do sloppy work? In addition to this, it's inaccurate
Natural Philosophy i.e contemporary name, "Science", has become specialized. I'd say, the author misses, Big Picture.
If this is the first book you read on this topic, I'm sure you might not have any other content, writings to compare.
I'd not recommend this work, as it is inaccurate.
Please, Check my review on another work: Science and Religion, by Alister E. McGrath
The following would be written by researchers who are interested in the field, and have taken herculean effort.
Finally, I'd suggest more accurate work. This is accurate writing from Special Divine Action Project.
Please Check, Religion and Science, Special Divine Action Project by Oxford University
Deus Vult,
Gottfried
tobyisacorgi's review against another edition
3.0
I'm glad I read Coyne's evolution book first. It allowed me to get to know him a little as a scientist and appreciate his thoughtful and careful approach to communicating scientific research before getting into the topic of this book that, as my friend who told me to read this warned, would be provocative. While I don't agree with him on a fundamental level, I think he made a lot of good points, several of which I agreed with or was challenged by. I wouldn't say that I felt challenged to abandon faith, but I did feel challenged to more thoughtfulness in some respects.
A difficult read, but I'm glad I worked through it.
A difficult read, but I'm glad I worked through it.
elzecatreads's review against another edition
5.0
A really interesting and thought-provoking read. Highly recommended.