Página inicialGruposDiscussãoMaisZeitgeist
Pesquise No Site
Este site usa cookies para fornecer nossos serviços, melhorar o desempenho, para análises e (se não estiver conectado) para publicidade. Ao usar o LibraryThing, você reconhece que leu e entendeu nossos Termos de Serviço e Política de Privacidade . Seu uso do site e dos serviços está sujeito a essas políticas e termos.

Resultados do Google Livros

Clique em uma foto para ir ao Google Livros

Carregando...

Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible

de Jerry A. Coyne

Outros autores: Veja a seção outros autores.

MembrosResenhasPopularidadeAvaliação médiaMenções
2337114,078 (4.26)5
The best-selling author of Why Evolution Is True discusses the negative role of religion in education, politics, medicine and social policy, explaining how religion cannot provide verifiable or responsible answers to world problems.
Adicionado recentemente porrubyman, vbak, zangasta, korus, lenmacpei, CindyJi53
Carregando...

Registre-se no LibraryThing tpara descobrir se gostará deste livro.

Ainda não há conversas na Discussão sobre este livro.

» Veja também 5 menções

Mostrando 1-5 de 7 (seguinte | mostrar todas)
The author, a prominent biologist and atheist, explains why faith and science are incompatible. He discusses why accomodationism doesn't work and bluntly discusses the case against faith. He believes religion is actually bad for science, and that religious scientists suffer much cognitive dissonance. He writes with lucid prose, without a lot of jargon that could leave a non-biologist or non-atheist behind. He makes his case against acccomodationism, but overall, he could have been stronger in the case. Recommended. ( )
  Devil_llama | Sep 12, 2023 |
Easy to understand, well thought through reasoning why science and religions are incompatible and why the religions in whole are harmful for the humanity. ( )
  TheCrow2 | Jan 17, 2023 |
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 ( )
  gottfried_leibniz | Jun 25, 2021 |
Jerry A. Coyne is an emeritus professor of biology at the University of Chicago. He is also a fairly militant atheist. His latest book, Faith vs. Fact, argues that religion and science are completely incompatible. In so doing, he attempts to refute Stephen Jay Gould’s theory that religion and science were “non-overlapping magisteria.” ( )
  JeffcoHumanists | Apr 7, 2019 |
In the beginning of his book, I wasn't sure if Coyne would make his case, but he did, and in spades. I doubt he'll change many minds (he examines the incredulous ability for people to cling to faith when presented with incontrovertible evidence disproving one thing or another), but he collects in this book a nice set of tools for the next discussion. Overall, excellent point and counter point, addressing most of the common, and many of the more creative, accommodationist objections to incompatibility.

One particular part resonated...Coyne's deconstruction of Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria. I used to think Gould was on to something, but I came to the conclusion that he really missed the point. While religion's domain of teaching authority certainly should never presume to intrude on science, science can, and will, be able to determine all things eventually - for a nontestable claim is nothing more than imagination.

I like James Morrow's quote in his novel Only Begotten Daughter:
“Science does have all the answers...The problem is that we don’t have all the science.”

Someday, we'll have more science. Not all, but more. And we'll be able to explain more of religion than religion can ever hope to explain about science.

Recommended, and worth a second read.
( )
  Razinha | May 23, 2017 |
Mostrando 1-5 de 7 (seguinte | mostrar todas)
Coyne has examined every talking point in the New Atheism debate but one: the allegedly shrill, militant, extremist, fundamentalist tone of the anti-God squad. Here he leads by example. Faith Versus Fact is unquestionably partisan, but its tone is matter-of-fact, and the offense that its targets will surely take will come from the force of his arguments rather than any ridicule or cheap shots. Indeed, my only real criticism of the book is that it has been stripped of the sass and wit that enliven his blog whyevolutionistrue. Nonetheless, Faith Versus Fact is clear and gripping, and should be read by anyone interested in the tension between science and religion. By meeting the claims of the faitheists and accommodationists head-on, Coyne shows that in this debate the two sides aren’t preaching to their choirs or talking past each other, and that the truth does not always fall halfway between two extremes.
 
In calm, levelheaded prose, Coyne refutes the “accommodationist” position that science and faith belong to “two non-overlapping magisteria”—a theory coined by his late colleague Stephen Jay Gould that espouses that science concerns itself with establishing facts about the physical universe, while religion is interested in spiritual matters, and the two therefore cannot be in conflict. Reconciling the two is impossible, he writes, because religion’s “combination of certainty, morality, and universal punishment is toxic,” while science, in contrast, acknowledges the fact that it might err, arriving at truths that are “provisional and evidence-based,” but at least testable. Unlike religion, science self-corrects, points out its errors, and tries again.
adicionado por jimroberts | editarThe Atlantic, Jeffrey Tayler (Jul 4, 2015)
 
Although he makes a clear and cogent argument, he may find that, once again, he is preaching to his own choir. Coyne defines science “as a collection of methods” yielding knowledge that can be rejected or confirmed through testing. Religion derives its authority from belief in “a god, gods, or similar superhuman power.” Coyne focuses on religions “that make empirical claims about the existence of a deity, the nature of that deity, and how it interacts with the world,” in particular Judaism, Islam, and especially Christianity.
...
Deeply religious readers may not even pick it up, but this is an important book that deserves an open-minded readership.
adicionado por jimroberts | editarKirkus Reviews (Mar 1, 2015)
 

» Adicionar outros autores

Nome do autorFunçãoTipo de autorObra?Status
Jerry A. Coyneautor principaltodas as ediçõescalculado
Buckley, LynnDesigner da capaautor secundárioalgumas ediçõesconfirmado
Hill, AmyDesignerautor secundárioalgumas ediçõesconfirmado
Você deve entrar para editar os dados de Conhecimento Comum.
Para mais ajuda veja a página de ajuda do Conhecimento Compartilhado.
Título canônico
Título original
Títulos alternativos
Data da publicação original
Pessoas/Personagens
Lugares importantes
Eventos importantes
Filmes relacionados
Epígrafe
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
God is a hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi [burden of proof] rests on the theist.

—Percy Bysshe Shelley
We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skin—they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of theological times. But over and above all this, is the development of the mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average an of to-day—of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.

These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars—neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience—and for them all, man is indebted to man.

—Robert Green Ingersoll
Dedicatória
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
To Bruce Grant, my first mentor in science,
and
Małgorzata, Andrzej, and Hili Koraszewscy, for providing a warm, secular haven for thinking and writing.
Primeiras palavras
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
There are no heated discussions about reconciling sport and religion, literature and religion, or business and religion; the important issue in today's world is the harmony between science and religion.
Citações
Últimas palavras
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
(Clique para mostrar. Atenção: Pode conter revelações sobre o enredo.)
Aviso de desambiguação
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
Parts of chapter 3 are modified from articles in the New Republic and the Times Literary Supplement (Coyne 2000, 2009b), while parts of chapter 4, on religious critiques of science, are modifed from pieces originally publishe on my Web site (Coyne 2013a, 2013b) and in Slate (Coyne 2013c)
Editores da Publicação
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
Autores Resenhistas (normalmente na contracapa do livro)
Idioma original
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
CDD/MDS canônico
LCC Canônico

Referências a esta obra em recursos externos.

Wikipédia em inglês (1)

The best-selling author of Why Evolution Is True discusses the negative role of religion in education, politics, medicine and social policy, explaining how religion cannot provide verifiable or responsible answers to world problems.

Não foram encontradas descrições de bibliotecas.

Descrição do livro
Resumo em haiku

Current Discussions

Nenhum(a)

Capas populares

Links rápidos

Avaliação

Média: (4.26)
0.5
1 3
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5 1
4 18
4.5 1
5 20

É você?

Torne-se um autor do LibraryThing.

 

Sobre | Contato | LibraryThing.com | Privacidade/Termos | Ajuda/Perguntas Frequentes | Blog | Loja | APIs | TinyCat | Bibliotecas Históricas | Os primeiros revisores | Conhecimento Comum | 203,213,725 livros! | Barra superior: Sempre visível