Faith vs/or/and fact. I'm confused.

When I search Amazon for the keywords "science, faith", one book in the results is Jerry Coyne's "Faith vs Fact". He is an American professor of biology, but he's most known by his atheist side. The book I mentioned results from what I consider an "inner" struggle. But, does it make sense?

In a recent editorial on Theology and Science, theologian Ted Peters reflects on the war between science and faith proposed in that book. I haven't read the book yet, but here are some quotes from "Faith vs Fact" insisting on the urban myth

"Religion and science are engaged in a kind of war: a war for understanding, a war about whether we should have good reasons for what we accept as true [ … ] I see this as only one battle in a wider war––a war between rationality and superstition. Religion is but a single brand of superstition (others include beliefs in astrology, paranormal phenomena, homeopathy, and spiritual healing), but it is the most widespread and harmful form of superstition."

I think this is a good example of a close-minded view of religion from a non-religious person. I've stated in other occasions and in my recent short book on "Challenges between Science and Faith" how the universe is the language through which God speaks to us. As a result, a Christian (at least) should love science because it is our human way to understand that language. Jerry Coyne is a good example of scientist, an ideology that "believes" in the materialistic assumption that only through a scientific method are we able to know the Truth (with a capital T).

That's it. Nothing else. Mere opinion. More faith than fact. And if you are against religion, "Faith vs Fact" will appeal to you. But let me ask you. If I were a believer in scientism, and so interested in knowing the truth (which is why I'm against religion, because it deviates me from the truth), a necessary step is to validate my assumptions, right? Otherwise, how could I know that only a materialistic view that science is the sole road to the truth is "the truth"?

So, validation.

There must be a scientific method that allows me to validate he truth of scientism. ... give me a moment. Let me think... could is be biology? Chemistry? Physics? Thermodynamics? Mathematics? ... Let me think.

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time thinking about the scientific method that allows me to validate the assumption that the scientific method is the only road to the truth. If anyone who "believes" in the ideas of Jerry Coyne could help me I appreciate. Honestly.

And this is my problem. Whenever I try to put myself in the skin of some atheists of our time, and applied their ideas to their ideas, my shoes are tied and I cannot walk. Scientism is not science, but ideology and these are a matter of faith, not fact.