Why Are We Still Arguing About Science and the Supernatural?

Massimo Pigliucci thinks Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins have naive views about science and the supernatural:

My problem with Dawkins and Coyne is different, but stems from the same root: their position on morality is indeed distinct from Harris' (at least Dawkins', I don't recall having read anything by Coyne on morality), but they insist in applying science to the supernatural, which is simply another form of the same malady that strikes Harris: scientism, the idea that science can do everything and provides us with all the answers that are worth having.

Jerry Coyne replies by explaining why Massimo is being silly:

Dawkins, too, is not immune to the blandishments of art and literature, as you can see by simply reading his books. I suspect that both Richard and I are advocates of “scientism” only to the extent that when questions are amenable to logic, reason, and empirical investigation, then we should always use those tools. If that's “scientism,” then so be it.

Jerry then goes on to give some examples of places where hypotheses involving the supernatural can be tested.

This issue flares up periodically, but is it really all that complicated?

Read the rest here.