Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

Can’t wait to listen to it. 

Awesome, nice work getting Francis Collins on.

.

Next thing you know we’ll have believers like Martin Gardner writing for Skeptical Inquirer, or even Free Inquiry (been what, almost ten years).

I’m disappointed, as I had hoped for a synopsis of his book and arguments. But the only thing I recall is the claim that naturalists supposedly make a mistake by not admitting “deeper” questions outside the natural domain. And of course my bs detector activated when it became clear that this man is a Christian. How strange that an inquiring mind looking for religion comes to the conclusion that by sheer coincidence he happened to be born into the one religion that happens to be true (while malingning the plausible atheist argument about childhood indoctrination). That question about the meaning of it all, of dying and suffering is being answered in astoundingly different ways around the globe, which demonstrates that apparently those kinds of questions are in principle not answerable (but invite ‘creative’ input). DJ also said that Collins even believes in a decidedly childish version of God, one who cares, answers prayers, looks after people. Oh boy.
Or the claim that some god has endowed us with a sense of good and evil. How about some anthropology 101 (which I did take)? Ask about honor killings. Infanticide. Gerontocide. Apathy in the face of cruelty. That ‘father God’ Collins seems to espouse apparently does not care enough to make sure societies don’t diverge too much in their basic declarations of good and evil.
Gods, fairies, leprechauns, demons: just because you can conceive of entities does not make them real.
If Collins had any good cards up his sleeve, why didn’t he present them in the interview?
If anyone here goes to the trouble of reading the actual book (I won’t) please let us know what they are.

DJ showed remarkable self control and went easy on him!

Until the very end I kept waiting for some clarification on some higher spiritual belief beyond matter.

The balloon was punctured when he blurted the bones of Jesus comment, obviously he has limited his depth of knowledge to Genetics.

I believe Dr. Shermer has stated that some intelligent people choose to believe a lie and are superb at justifying/denying such belief.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t C.S. Lewis just an author of fiction, not a Biblical Scholar?

I had hoped that the discussion with an obviously eminent scientist would enlighten us to some new argument/evidence for the existantance of god.  I thought that maybe through his researce in the Human genome that he would state that he found something that swayed his mind.  I had thought that his believe would have been deistic in nature.

But what does he have as evidence for his belief emotions and wishful thinking - Jesus bones??  How hard has this man thought about it- really??

Disappointed in that I was not challenged in my thinking.

Relieved that I have saved myself on the purchase of a book

Dr. Collins related how he “did not grow up in a religious home.  Faith was not not something mentioned around the dinner table or much of any time.”  Later, at graduate school he “became an atheist.”  So it seems he initially considered himself non-theist and defines atheists as only those making the positive claim that there is no god.  Dr. Collins now derides atheism “because it assumed that the atheist knows so much as to be able to exclude within their own band of knowledge the possibility of something outside of nature, namely God.”  He goes on to call atheism “arrogant”, “hubris”, and rationally indefensible.

There’s no shortage of folks, usually theists, who’ll define atheism as Dr. Collins does.  They erect that straw man because it is so easily torn down.  It’s just not an accurate description of most atheists.  He defines his theism as “belief in God is more plausible than disbelief.”  So let’s consider the reverse of that position: disbelief in a god is more plausible than belief.  If the doctor defined atheism this way he’d have no room to cast aspersions without sullying his own position.

So Dr. Collins’ argument just boils down to a fallacious argument from ignorance with a sprinkling of the thoroughly debunked argument from design.  He kept claiming to have a compelling rational case but he never presents it.  He also fails to explain why his particular brand of Christian theology is more rationally compelling than any other variety of theism.  He’s not a very good apologist - just a sad rehasher of previous poor arguments.

I liked the interview very much! Interesting philosophical questions maybe not anything new though. But atheists are also always repeating the same stuff.

I liked the interview very much! Interesting philosophical questions maybe not anything new though. But atheists are also always repeating the same stuff.

Of course.  Even Dr. Collins admits that, within the scientific community, that “same stuff” repeated by atheists is the default position.  It is the extraordinary claims that need to keep looking for a foothold.

I really look forward to POI podcasts each week. This one was a bit dissapointing. I wish DJ had pushed Collins more on his assertion that altruism is some kind of evidence for theism.  While Collins rejects Intelligent design on the surface, he relies heavily upon the current inability of science to account fully for human behavior. It is argument from ignorance no different than ID.

I’ve read Collin’s book and written a detailed review over at Amazon. I do still suggest that people read it. He does a crystal clear job of demolishing creationism and Intelligent Design. The science is excellent. The theology, however, is straight out of CS Lewis. Lewis was a distinguished professor of literature as well as a popular writer. He is not highly regarded (or even noticed) in philosophy or biblical study.

After reading the book, I do have a much better sense of why Collins believes. While universal morals seems to be his main logical argument, I don’t get the impression that it is all that important to his own faith. As in many persons of faith, it is the emotional experiences that have happened at critical times in one’s life.

RG

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2XVCEXLX3RRD4/ref=cm_cr_auth/102-5628907-9189747?ie=UTF8&sort;_by=MostRecentReview

Wow, your Amazon review was superb.
On the subject, isn’t it a sign of intellectual laziness to invoke Mother Teresa as some kind of role model? As others have pointed out, she was a person driven by an extreme (read: insane) sectarian Catholic ideology, which earned her many enemies for her draconian opposition against a women’s right to chose, divorce, etc while at the same time she consorted with dictators like Haiti’s Duvalier. Apparently her hospices were solely a vehicle to deliver dying people to her imagined heaven’s door instead of to the - likewise imagined - heaven of local beliefs. Her concern was solely with the afterlife, ie pie in the sky. She did it all “for the Lord” - not for the people, as “medecins sans frontieres” or the Intl Red Cross would approach it.
If she’s a role model for anything then in the sense that a person who is driven - be it by religious fervour, manic competitiveness, organizational genius or whatnot - can build a large organization with fabulous cash flow. Whether that’s a slaughterhouse, a bordell, a hospital, a media empire or a political party is beside the point. The point is:  some people are high achievers, but religious conviction is not a deciding factor in it, it may even be a hindrance.
Take J.S. Bach: this musical genius was super busy with his weekly compositions for the Sunday service that prevented him from producing much outside the religious frame. The Brandenburg Concertoes are marvellous, but I wish there was more that was not thematically tied to Christian mythology or texts.
I’ve been in a choir named after the guy for almost 20 years, but as my dislike for religious stuff grew I found it less and less tolerable to “sing to the glory of God” while being convinced that it’s all bogus. After all, to perform well you’ll want to put some feeling and emotion in it, and acting is work.

Some people need a metaphysical father to look up to and to reassure them that they are good.
Some people need this father to show them right from wrong and to explain to them what they cannot understand.
Some people just can’t cope with the idea that one day they will no longer exist despite the fact that they never existed for the past 13.7 billion years.

The rest of us just grow up.

“You can certainly prove [from observations of nature] that belief in God is more rational than disbelief” - Oh please!  Observing nature shows us that there is absolutely no evidence whatever for any of the gods ever having existed.  The other thing about this is what Fracis says regarding science if done correctly is not incompatible with religion.  Now, I’m not an advocate of the idea that science is the only rationale for being atheist (I was atheist as a small child from the moment I first understood the fairy stories told to me in mass, long before I became a scietist), but depending on which religion he is talking about, science tends to disprove vast tracts of it.  Not intentionally, I would add (despite what southern baptists and pentecostals may think) - science does sciency stuff, and coincidentally the sciency stuff it discovers contradicts religious explanations. 

Francis Collins also says that atheism should cause you to go out and be as nasty to others as you can possibly be.  Why?  Common sense dictates that you shouldn’t; on way too many levels.  And unlike people who believe in some beardy-weirdy who dwells in the clouds getting upset when people eat apples, atheists have this in abundance.

“I certainly do not have that kind of unshakable faith - I admire people who do”

Why?

What in the hell is admirable about it?

“I certainly do not have that kind of unshakable faith - I admire people who do”

Why?

What in the hell is admirable about it?

I’m right in the middle of Daniel Dennett’s book “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.” I’m not a great fan of Dennett (yet), but he has a chapter called “Belief in Belief” which addresses this observation that a lot of people admire unshakable faith. Certainly that idea is promoted in the Christian scriptures (the story of Doubting Thomas, for example. Also, if you have faith as a mustard seed ... ). I think religious culture & ritual constantly reinforce that idea to the point that people who are immersed in it just never question the concept anymore.

Richard

ps, I should add that Collins does consider Christian scripture to be authoritative (i.e. a reliable eye-witness account) according to his book.  This explains quite a bit. I criticize his book for not including enough critical biblical scholarship (mainly popular appologetics, though maybe A.B. Bruce is the more skeptical of his references).

.

I have no issues with books like “Breaking the Spell”, but the books I have read so far- The God Delusion, End of Faith, and alike- basically say the same things that I have said or thought before.  I’m not sure anymore what is the point in my reading them, except maybe they have thought of something I have not.  I haven’t read “Breaking the Spell” and it’s not that I don’t want to, but it seems my line of thinking agrees with them already.  The problem is getting the audience they are actually directed to, to read them.  Until then, they are just “preaching to the chior”.

how would any of the christian scripture writers have been eye-witnesses.  The first writings weren’t until 30-odd years after the supposed blokes supposed crucifixion was claimed to have happened, and were written by a guy who claims he never even met the guy he was writing about.  The earliest of the Gospels was written by a Roman, living in Rome 67 years after the date they give for the supposed crucixion.  And he wasn’t over the age of 67 years (being exactly 67 wouldn’t count, but he seems to have been middle aged rather than pensionable anyway so this is irrelevent).  And there is no evidence that he had ever left Rome itself.  There is no way that any of the christian scripture writers could have witnessed the crucifixion given the time scale and it is extremely proable that Jesus was made up for political reasons that later backfired on Rome whereupon they had to start using the christians as big cat food.  Mark (the first Gospel writer) is purported to have been in prison awaiting the arena when he wrote his gospel).

They aren’t and can’t be, Narwhol.  He was talking about Collins.  Needless to say, you’re “preaching to the choir” too.  There are just too many people who want to believe they are true and eyewitness accounts even though they are not.

Francis Collins might be considered “one of the world’s leading scientists”, but that shouldn’t mislead us into assuming that he can think clearly on topics not directly related to DNA. In the course of the interview, he expressed some pretty fuzzy, confused opinions. He makes a continuous series of logical errors and contradictions. It’s hard to know where to start.

As he gets to the core of his argument, he starts stumbling around in evolutionary biology:

“Remember, evolution cares about your genes, they don’t care about much else. And they care about the genes of the individual, not the genes of the group.”

If we disregard the personification of evolution as a natural process that “cares”, this doesn’t sound so bad. But then he almost immediately goes on to ask:

“Why would we admire someone like an Oskar Schindler who risks his life to save thousands of Jews from the holocaust when he’s not even himself Jewish?”

What does Schindler’s group affiliation have to do with his altruism? It seems like Collins wasn’t listening when he just said that evolution doesn’t “care” about the genes of the group. We, of course, admire Schindler because he put his life on the line for others. Obviously this is something we hold in high regard because it benefits people we care about. And if Collins is a little bit confused about why we should care about people without a specific sanction from a god, it’s because we enjoy their company and appreciate that together we can accomplish what individually we cannot. The Nazis, on the other hand, would have considered Schindler despicable and traitorous.

But why is Collins asking why we admire Schindler? He had just spoken of how, although altruism is often of no direct value to a person or their kin, they still do it. He should have asked, “Why did Arthur Schindler put his life on the line to save unrelated people?” Obviously, Collins hasn’t gotten beyond his simplistic ideas of what evolution “cares about” to consider other options besides blind compliance with “divine law” such as: a parental concern for those in need (Schindler referred to his Jewish workers as “my children”), the future potential benefits from increasing one’s standing in the community, etc. Collins even admits that Schindler’s actions were “. . . a stunning example of the noble kind of action that we all feel we should somehow try to achieve and usually don’t.” So what is his confused point? That these altruistic actions that we seldom exhibit prove that there’s a god?

It seems like Collins has gotten stuck in a fantasy that gives him warm and fuzzy feelings. Sure we can enjoy fantasy as well as reality, but come on Francis, grow up and learn to differentiate between the two.

I don’t have Francis’ book to check to see where he may state that he believes the NT is all authoritative in the sense of eye witness accounts. This would imply a kind of literalism, which from Francis’ influences would seem odd.

I don’t have Francis’ book to check to see where he may state that he believes the NT is all authoritative in the sense of eye witness accounts. This would imply a kind of literalism, which from Francis’ influences would seem odd.

I don’t actually own a copy, but had borrowed one from a friend to read. My hand-written notes are at home right now so I can’t give you page numbers.  By authoritative, I do not mean literal. I suspect that the majority of Christians consider the Bible to be an authority (basically reliable and inspired by God), but not literal in every detail. Collins falls into this category. He claims that the Genesis creation stories are metaphorical, but considers the Gospel accounts as essentially true, and yes, I believe he did use the phase “eye-witness accounts”, but I’ll have to check my notes.  He cites Christian appologist authors like Habermas, Strobel (The Case for Christ)  and Bruce (A.B.?).

Richard

I have no issues with books like “Breaking the Spell”, but the books I have read so far- The God Delusion, End of Faith, and alike- basically say the same things that I have said or thought before.  I’m not sure anymore what is the point in my reading them, except maybe they have thought of something I have not.  I haven’t read “Breaking the Spell” and it’s not that I don’t want to, but it seems my line of thinking agrees with them already.  The problem is getting the audience they are actually directed to, to read them.  Until then, they are just “preaching to the chior”.

I can’t recommend “Breaking the Spell” at this time. I don’t like his writing style at all (could have used a better editor). He wastes the first 70 or more pages going on and on and on about how we all ought study religion more (as if nobody had done this before). Maybe this is common for philosophy books, but he is continually going off on tangents, almost as if enumerating all the possible explanations.  All I can say is “talk is cheap.” After page 200 things start to get more interesting, so I’ll reserve judgment till the end of the book. Anyhow, the book does not get off to a good start.

Richard

Sometimes we tend to think because a person has attained a considerable amount of knowledge or fame in one area, they must be experts in all areas. 

If Dr. Collins would think things through, he would realize only a third of the world’s 6.6 billion are Christian. 4.6 billion do NOT believe JC is their personal savior as claimed in John 14:6.  Of the 55,242,00 deaths on this planet each year 37,012,140 are non Christian and therefore, will go straight to hell. (Remember, Collins didn’t say it, Jesus did) At a rate of 70 per minute, in just the 5 minutes it took to pound out these thoughts, 350 people are doomed for eternity.  And since god is omniscient, he/she it knew this all along. 

If one knew in advance that 4 out of 6 children they brought into the world would suffer some hideous painful disease for, say 60 years before they died, would you still do it?  Probably not.  But, our Christian friends argue; god’s ways are not man’s ways. Indeed. They should be better.

Ok, my notes are a bit sketchy, so feel free to check the context of these quotes if you have a copy of the book (I don’t).

——
Regarding Scripture he says on p 223 “Concerns about errors creeping in mostly laid to rest”

“The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbaised historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar” (p 279?)

for p 219, my notes read “convinced by eyewitness nature of narratives”

p 208 “Many sacred texts do indeed carry the clear marks of eyewitness history, and we as believers must hold fast to those truths”
——

There are actually quite a few outragious quotes in the book.

RG

I have no issues with books like “Breaking the Spell”, but the books I have read so far- The God Delusion, End of Faith, and alike- basically say the same things that I have said or thought before.  I’m not sure anymore what is the point in my reading them, except maybe they have thought of something I have not.  I haven’t read “Breaking the Spell” and it’s not that I don’t want to, but it seems my line of thinking agrees with them already.  The problem is getting the audience they are actually directed to, to read them.  Until then, they are just “preaching to the chior”.

I can’t recommend “Breaking the Spell” at this time. I don’t like his writing style at all (could have used a better editor). He wastes the first 70 or more pages going on and on and on about how we all ought study religion more (as if nobody had done this before). Maybe this is common for philosophy books, but he is continually going off on tangents, almost as if enumerating all the possible explanations.  All I can say is “talk is cheap.” After page 200 things start to get more interesting, so I’ll reserve judgment till the end of the book. Anyhow, the book does not get off to a good start.

Richard

I haven’t jumped to getting and reading the book yet.  I some how feel, like I said before, he probably wrote the same thing I have been saying for years.  So, far I haven’t read much of anything new, except maybe Dawkins use of science to make his point.

I haven’t jumped to getting and reading the book yet.  I some how feel, like I said before, he probably wrote the same thing I have been saying for years.  So, far I haven’t read much of anything new, except maybe Dawkins use of science to make his point.

I’ve felt the same way about Dawkin’s books. I read “The Blind Watchmaker” 15 years ago, and really enjoyed it, but haven’t bothered with his recent work (though I enjoy listening to his debates and TV series). Would rather spend my time reading things that are more challening to my worldview. I’m stuck reading Dennett only because I agreed to write an essay on him for a book. I went to a lecture by David Sloan Wilson that was really excellent and novel. Bought his book “Darwin’s Cathedral” but haven’t read it yet.  Wilson gets flack from both Christians and athiests alike (he’s one of those evolutionary anthropology types who is trying to re-popularize a form of group selection and functional approach to religion ... though he seems to be surprisingly apologetic towards John Calvin).

He would make a great guest for a future Point of Inquiry podcast.

Richard

Oh I did that for Hemant Mehta- wrote a review for him to get his book, for free.  (I love being a writer!  Now if I could just get REAL pay for my efforts.    )  However, I did learn something from his book though- a little about Jainism, where he was coming from by going to all those Christian churches, and alike.  He did have a point when he wrote that he did not know anything about other religions, except Jainism, to make an informed decision.  Which means, his culture was different too.  So, he was learning about a different culture as well as a different religion.  If all you know is one thing that comes with your cultural background, how can you really say something else is not for me?

Basically, what I’m saying is, not all books written by atheists say the same thing that I have thought for a very long time.  That is the advantage of reading books that you promise to write a review or an essay about.  You sometimes do get a new thought. Consequently, I have studying Hinduism this semester at the university, but like him, I’m not going to convert from atheism to a form of Hinduism.    I can at least say I do know a little about Hinduism though when I’m finished and the prof is good enough to teach some cultural background of India, but it won’t be the same as going there.

Humm… I guess this is not too far of topic, for the idea/language of God in Christianity is far different from Jainism.

I was impressed by the recent discussion with Hemant Mehta on the Infidel Guy’s show, and I was thinking of getting his book ... mainly so I could include it on a recommended reading list for a talk I will be giving in February on christian - atheist dialog.

BTW, I think Jainism gets used by both Sam Harris and David Sloan Wilson as an example. If I recall correctly, it is an example of how religion can be economically beneficial to a group (a functional view of religion), and also of how a small number of extreme altruists within the group are important for overall group success. This relates to Collin’s (I think misguided) statements on the nature of altruism.

Richard

I haven’t read any of Dawkins’ books or that of Francis Collins.  I don’t like reading very much and prefer to figure things out for myself and watch television.  The only “atheist” book I’ve ever read was Tolstoy’s Confessions and other religious writings and that was just plain moronic.

Well, Jainism does not believe in violence, but that does not mean all the followers of the philosophy ascribe to that position.

Whoops!  Missed you Narwhol.  That last statement was to rgill.  Sorry about that.

About Jainism: let’s not forget that among its positive sides it’s also a prime example of whacky thinking. As such it serves to underline the point that religions are concoctions of the wondrous human brain but have no necessary relation to reality.

Oh I’m not saying Jainism is rational, I’m just saying it’s has a doctrine of non-violence.

I liked the interview very much! Interesting philosophical questions maybe not anything new though. But atheists are also always repeating the same stuff.

Of course.  Even Dr. Collins admits that, within the scientific community, that “same stuff” repeated by atheists is the default position.  It is the extraordinary claims that need to keep looking for a foothold.

The argument that “atheism is an old argument and inherently uninteresting” is one of the arguments addressed by Dawkins in his book, and a variation on a rhetorical technique—rather than addressing the merits of an argument one tries to say one isn’t interested, it’s “old news”, or something similar.  Press secretaries use it.  I’m afraid that the flip side is also true—to someone who no longer believes in Santa Claus, it gets boring trying to come up with new reasons why he doesn’t exist…

We can see it used in a recent series of articles in the Washington Post ( 
“secularism boring”  )

The only “atheist” book I’ve ever read was Tolstoy’s Confessions and other religious writings and that was just plain moronic.

Tolstoy’s Confession (not Confessions) is an “atheist” book? How so?

Sometimes it is better to go to the source directly:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Confession

I’m amazed at the lack of logic in Collins’ thinking, especially because he is so highly trained in science.  I hate to say it, but it cats a pall on his scientific work.

For someone who demands rigorous thinking about these issues, his thinking seems sloppy and circular.

Sometimes it is better to go to the source directly:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Confession

I’ve read the book. In it, Tolstoy talks about his lack of faith as a young man. He blames it on the church. By the time he wrote Confession, he had found his faith, even though he still despised the church. This is certainly not an “atheist” book.

I’m amazed at the lack of logic in Collins’ thinking, especially because he is so highly trained in science.  I hate to say it, but it cats a pall on his scientific work.

For someone who demands rigorous thinking about these issues, his thinking seems sloppy and circular.

I thought his writing was actually quite good. You have to be a clear persuasive writer to win reseach grants. He just hasn’t read enough critical scholarship yet (as opposed to Christian apologetics).  He even admitted to DJ that, during his atheist phase, he hadn’t really made a careful study of his position and so was unprepared for how to deal with the intense issues of human suffering he encountered as a young physician. In his book, he admits that he is not a theologian or philosopher.  Most of the science we have today has come from people who were embedded in a religious culture.  People are very very good at compartmentalization. It’s just more difficult to have unbiased, even-handed judgement when it comes to the hot-button moral and religious (and political) issues. Once you stand outside religion, you wonder how on Earth you could have believed all that stuff, but, from the inside it looks very different. I tend to view religious thinking as quite logical at times (almost axiomatic in the case of extreme literalism), but simply unwilling or unable to question basic presuppositions. Belief in an omnipotent God is, unfortunately, a very convenient way to sweep contraditions under the rug.

Richard

So ... Collins doesn’t believe in creationism, because Darwinian evolution is able to create complexity in a stepwise fashion, and the God-of-the-gaps is hence a bad argument. All that, yet it appears that his knock-down argument for the existence of God is that evolution can’t give us the sense of morality that we find in Mother Teresa ...

So he doesn’t believe in a God-of-the-gaps and yet he believes that there is an evolutionary gap in creating human morality, which is ... filled by God.

Similarly: he doesn’t believe in present day miracles (or would be very skeptical of them), and yet when it comes to his Christianity, he’d become an atheist if they found Jesus’s bones. So he believes that Jesus’s real bones disappeared in a miracle.

Collins appears to be very fond of inconsistency.

Right on, Richard: Compartmentalization is key. We all do it all the time. There are stark examples where you’re reminded of Hannah Ahrend’s observations on murderous Nazi war criminals who were, at the same time, loving heads of family (The Eichmann Syndrome). But even if you don’t look at the extremes but at examples in one’s own daily life the range of different roles and personas we exhibit (with a wife, children, clients, servants, friends, acquaintances, bosses, etc) is astounding. It’s all reality, and yet it’s all play-acting, to a degree, while at the same time the behaviours and perceptions are ‘serious’. Given that flexibility of the human mind and experience it should come as no surprise that we can experience ‘communion with God’ or whatnot.

Doug,
you pointed out the inconsistencies nicely. The miracle thing was something that gave me pause while listening to Collins. Isn’t it funny how “ancient” miracles are often taken for granted while people claim to be sophisticated modern people who refuse to buy into more current incidents that are passed off as miraculous.
The same is often seen where merchants in the new age scene try to sell various snake oil products to the gullible as being derived from ‘ancient’ wisdom.
But it should be said here that the Vatican still is declaring sainthood on people, which does require that the person has ‘pulled off’ a miracle.

Also, I just noticed your signature, it’s a favorite quote and picture.
El sueño de la razón produce monstruos
http://www.museum.cornell.edu/HFJ/permcoll/pdp/img_pr/monstros_m.jpg

Doug,
you pointed out the inconsistencies nicely. The miracle thing was something that gave me pause while listening to Collins. Isn’t it funny how “ancient” miracles are often taken for granted while people claim to be sophisticated modern people who refuse to buy into more current incidents that are passed off as miraculous.
The same is often seen where merchants in the new age scene try to sell various snake oil products to the gullible as being derived from ‘ancient’ wisdom.
But it should be said here that the Vatican still is declaring sainthood on people, which does require that the person has ‘pulled off’ a miracle.

Also, I just noticed your signature, it’s a favorite quote and picture.
El sueño de la razón produce monstruos
http://www.museum.cornell.edu/HFJ/permcoll/pdp/img_pr/monstros_m.jpg

That’s apparently in the collection of the Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art at Cornell, though I don’t recall seeing it on display last I was there.

Richard

you pointed out the inconsistencies nicely. The miracle thing was something that gave me pause while listening to Collins. Isn’t it funny how “ancient” miracles are often taken for granted while people claim to be sophisticated modern people who refuse to buy into more current incidents that are passed off as miraculous.
The same is often seen where merchants in the new age scene try to sell various snake oil products to the gullible as being derived from ‘ancient’ wisdom.
But it should be said here that the Vatican still is declaring sainthood on people, which does require that the person has ‘pulled off’ a miracle.

Yes. And then there’s the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and all the other miracle-mongering one finds discussed in Skeptical Inquirer. The only difference about the supposed miracles of the past and those of now are the dates.

... and the fact that our evidence for the ones in the past is significantly flimsier, which should give us all the less reason to believe in them.

Also, I just noticed your signature, it’s a favorite quote and picture.
El sueño de la razón produce monstruos
http://www.museum.cornell.edu/HFJ/permcoll/pdp/img_pr/monstros_m.jpg

Yes, it’s by Francisco Goya, one of my favorite artists. I felt the sentiment was à propos.

Yes, it’s by Francisco Goya, one of my favorite artists. I felt the sentiment was à propos.

Doug,
Did you get to see Goya’s Ghosts while you were in Europe? I don’t think they are going to show it here, in North America.

Doug,
Did you get to see Goya’s Ghosts while you were in Europe? I don’t think they are going to show it here, in North America.

No, although I recall seeing a spanish film about Goya a few years back. I’m very much of two minds about historical fiction ...

Well, let’s see: 

Collins admits that his conversion to christianity was mostly caused by the writings of CS Lewis.  Check.

He makes a claim that is tantamount to saying that scientific evidence is a form of “just-so story” (but apparently bible stories are not).  Check.

He rejects the morality of atheist/humanist thinking, and prefers the judgmental, violent, and exclusionary
morals of christianity.  Check.

He says that atheism is the most irrational of all stances on these existential questions.  Check.

Then Collins admits he’s “not much of a deep thinker.”  Check, check, and double-check!!!

The only “atheist” book I’ve ever read was Tolstoy’s Confessions and other religious writings and that was just plain moronic.

Tolstoy’s Confession (not Confessions) is an “atheist” book? How so?

Inasmuch, he claims to be atheist throughout, but says he wants some sort of spirituality because the common folk seem so happy, despite their poverty, because of their faith.  It’s not actually because of their faith.  They’re happier than him because he’s bored rigid, but he never seems to realise it.

Doug,
Did you get to see Goya’s Ghosts while you were in Europe? I don’t think they are going to show it here, in North America.

No, although I recall seeing a spanish film about Goya a few years back. I’m very much of two minds about historical fiction ...

A little detour/distraction:

Any comments on creativity, madness and disability?

http://uchsc.edu/news/bridge/2003/January/art1.html

http://www.marxist.com/beethoven-man-composer-revolutionary260506-7.htm

http://www.iht.com/articles/1994/04/23/goya.php

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/29/1067233241109.html?from=storyrhs

There are more if you google deafness, Goya, Beethoven.

I just posted this to my blog and I thought you guys might be interested. Cheers.

Listening to the Point of Inquiry podcast with Francis Collins was a little bit frustrating. Francis Collins is a world renowned researcher - one might say one of the most important scientists in the world - yet he’s a Theist. I’m convinced that having the skepticism and critical thinking skills that make a good scientist leads to agnosticism/atheism. When Dr. Joe Shmoe preaches something crazy about God, it’s easy to think, “Anyone can get a PhD these days!” But when it’s a top scientist it makes you wonder what’s going on.

Listening to the podcast is very insightful as to what’s going on.  Although Francis Collins seems to be a well educated and smart man as far as his job is concerned he has little understanding in the realm of theological arguments, and in the realm of evolutionary biology.  He cites CS Lewis as being his initial influence for a conversion to Christianity.  He also states that he think the arguments of CS Lewis are even today hard to refute. This is complete bunk!  All of CS Lewis’ arguments have been absolutely shredded apart.

DJ Grothe, an altogether outstanding interviewer, throws Francis Collins complete softball questions (reminiscent of Bill O’Reilly interviewing George W. Bush). I don’t blame DJ though - it makes sense to be respectful of your guests (lest he wants this to be his last theistic guest).  Although I think DJ should have asked slightly more critical questions he was erring on the side of caution.

Francis asserts that Evolution is all about reproducing your individual genes. I’d agree with him that this is the case.  Francis says “Evolution cares about your genes, they don’t care about much else. And remember, they care about the genes of the individual and not so much the genes of the group.” This is true too, but he makes a logical error after this.

He goes on to challenge Evolutionary Biologists “Why do we respect people like Oscar Schindler who risks his life to save thousands of Jews from the Holocaust when he himself isn’t Jewish?” (he lists Mother Teresa too). Granted I’m no evolutionary biologist, but I think this question is far from a paradox. In a society where people cooperate - it increases everyone’s chance of reproducing. This is a broader form of reciprocal altruism (which he actually mentions). I don’t see how he didn’t connect the dots. When humans evolved in tribal societies cooperation was necessary to survival. It is easy to imagine altruism and cooperation being sewn into the human genome. Surely the head genome decoder could imagine that?

“Why do Atheists insist that we get over religion and be good to one another? Who cares about being good? If they are right, we should shrug off the whole idea and be just as darned selfish as we possibly can because we’ve all been hoodwinked by evolution into being just as good as we possibly can and we should rebel against that?” This is slightly reminiscent of when I told someone I was an Atheist and they responded “Do you have morals?” Francis, evolution also “hoodwinked” me into standing upright, opposable thumbs, and other biological features. Actually Francis, I’m quite happy with most of my evolutionarily developed features, including my empathy.

“By committing the scientific method to religious claims you’re committing a logical fallacy” - Francis Collins argument is that the scientific method is the wrong tool to study religion.  Francis Collins is dead wrong here, with little wiggle room.  Science is the best tool humanity has.  And anything that is possibly provable - is best proved by Science. If anyone is trying to prove a religious claim without using scientific proof - then you have no way of knowing if they are telling the truth, a liar, or delusional. I would assume Francis Collins makes his religious decisions not based on Science, but on emotion. I wonder if then there’s any coincidence that he was born in the USA and decided to become Christian and not Jainist? Are emotions a good tool to use to judge truth? Have you ever liked someone before they did something awful? How about nymphomaniacs, kleptomaniacs, or homicidal maniacs?  For them the ideal to strive for is as much sex, stealing, or murder as possible. Yet not everybody does (or should) share these Truths.

One thing Francis Collins doesn’t explain is how he goes from believing in the stereotypical philosophical God (omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent) to believing in a particular Christian view of God.  Again, he doesn’t mention what type of Christian he is, but he believes in the resurrection of Jesus. Please Francis - the resurrection of Jesus? If I told you something impossible to happen happened - would you just believe it, or would you think I’m either lying or delusional?  What are the chances of each side being true?

Francis Collins is not as kooky as many religious people we hear about. He does afterall believe in evolution - yet it’s still disturbing that he’s a top scientist and doesn’t use (or doesn’t know how to use) the scientific method in his personal life.

Doug,
Did you get to see Goya’s Ghosts while you were in Europe? I don’t think they are going to show it here, in North America.

No, although I recall seeing a spanish film about Goya a few years back. I’m very much of two minds about historical fiction ...

I know what you mean. But you can always look at it as art, instead of historical fiction. But that would be Milos Forman’s art, not Goya’s, obviously.

The only “atheist” book I’ve ever read was Tolstoy’s Confessions and other religious writings and that was just plain moronic.

Tolstoy’s Confession (not Confessions) is an “atheist” book? How so?

Inasmuch, he claims to be atheist throughout, but says he wants some sort of spirituality because the common folk seem so happy, despite their poverty, because of their faith.  It’s not actually because of their faith.  They’re happier than him because he’s bored rigid, but he never seems to realise it.

Well, this is what he says towards the end of Confession: “I have no doubt that there is truth in the doctrine, but there can also be no doubt that it harbors a lie; and I must find the truth and the lie so I can tell them apart.” As far as I can recall he did find the truth in his later works such as Resurrection, and others. Too bad, I always thought; he should have stopped after War and Peace and Anna Karenina.

Doug,
Did you get to see Goya’s Ghosts while you were in Europe? I don’t think they are going to show it here, in North America.

No, although I recall seeing a spanish film about Goya a few years back. I’m very much of two minds about historical fiction ...

A little detour/distraction:

Any comments on creativity, madness and disability?

http://uchsc.edu/news/bridge/2003/January/art1.html

http://www.marxist.com/beethoven-man-composer-revolutionary260506-7.htm

http://www.iht.com/articles/1994/04/23/goya.php

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/29/1067233241109.html?from=storyrhs

There are more if you google deafness, Goya, Beethoven.

Interesting links, OhioDoc. Thanks.

I thought the interview was good as far as it went. but it didn’t go far enough.  I was waiting to hear why FC believes in god and the “evidence” and “rational arguments” he says exist.
Is the book worth a buy?

Is the book worth a buy?

Richard Gill, in the 12th response to this thread (first page) gives a link to a detailed review he posted on Amazon; read that and then decide. But I share your frustration as Collins only hinted at his arguments but never revealed them. If you ask me: not a good sign. I’m sure though your library will carry it.

Is the book worth a buy?

Richard Gill, in the 12th response to this thread (first page) gives a link to a detailed review he posted on Amazon; read that and then decide. But I share your frustration as Collins only hinted at his arguments but never revealed them. If you ask me: not a good sign. I’m sure though your library will carry it.

Ok, so people don’t have to go searching, I’ll post the review here. Sorry, it’s long, so I’ll post it in parts:

Review of “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”

Francis Collins, a devout Christian who is director of the Human Genome Project, is surely one of the most distinguished proponents of theistic evolution (the idea that God created life by means of evolution) in recent years.  His outstandingly clear and compelling prose will, no doubt, be a great comfort to many Christians who are having difficulty reconciling their faith with the revelations of modern biological science.

What’s in this book for nonbelievers? Collins claims to have been an atheist who, through his personal experiences and study, eventually became a believer.  With some 85% of the National Academy of Sciences rejecting the notion of a personal God, that places him in a minority.  Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium, recently remarked that, rather than asking why so many scientists reject the notion of a god, we should be asking why 15% don’t [1].  Beyond Collins’ very readable and concise refutations of creationism and intelligent design, and beneath the largely reused Christian apologetics, lies a highly personal and emotional account of the events that ultimately shaped his worldview.

The dialog between believers and nonbelievers so often focuses on elaborate reasoning that ultimate personal motivations remain undiscussed. This is not surprising, since few individuals are courageous enough to expose their most guarded life stories to the scrutiny of skeptics, indeed, the Bible warns against doing just this: (Matt 7:6). An honest meeting of minds, however, demands courage. Collins’ efforts, with his life story laid out before the reader, are highly commendable in this regard.

Readers looking for novel Christian apologetics will be somewhat dissapointed by this book, though there are certainly a few nuances to be considered. Collins relies heavily on “no less an intellect than C. S. Lewis” (p208), quoting Lewis liberally throughout the book.  Readers may want to simply skip Collins and go directly to C. S. Lewis for more complete versions of the theological arguments.  In the acknowledgments, Collins readily admits that “few if any original theological concepts are portrayed within these pages.”

His main evidence for belief, following Lewis, is the existence of common or universal moral principles, though Collins stays clear of making any claims of Christian moral superiority. Citing a biomedical ethics text, the appendix of the book actually lists four central ethical principles “common to virtually all cultures and societies” (p243).  Some time is spent addressing the new field of sociobiology, which claims that behavior is a natural product of evolution. Here Collins faces off against no less an intellect than E. O. Wilson. To Collins “selfless altruism presents a major challenge for the evolutionist. It is quite frankly a scandal to reductionist reasoning” (p27). He is not talking about simple reciprocity, but rather pure altruism in which there are absolutely no secondary motives. Oskar Schindler and Mother Teresa are pulled out as two presumably inexplicable examples of pure altruism, but it seems that the argument is not that there are no motives, but rather that the motives are somehow divine in origin because they are not subject to evolutionary pressure. Humans may well have compulsions that sometimes run counter to their own long-term survival (think about the Shakers failure to reproduce). Evolution simply dictates that there can’t be very many such persons in a population ... and there certainly aren’t.  That benevolent persons are highly valued by society is no surprise at all, nor is it surprising that persons want to be valued by others, including gods.  While group selection remains a controversial subject in biology to be sure, it seems that the reader is still left with an argument from ignorance.

Collins similarly argues against the notion of religion as wish fulfillment originally posited by Sigmund Freud. Citing Armand Nicholi, a professor of clinical psychology at Harvard and author of a book contrasting Freud and Lewis (also a PBS series), Collins dismisses the notion that God might arise out of our ability and need to relate to parents. Nicholi, by the way, was a founding member of the Family Research Council, a controversial Christian right wing think tank and lobbying organization formed by James Dobson.  It seems dated to focus on historical figures while the rich body of contemporary thinking in the psychology of religion, sociology, and anthropology seem not to be discussed at all this book. Skeptical readers may seem absolutely puzzled as to why Collins thinks the compulsion to seek a favorable relationship with a god is difficult to explain on natural grounds when the world is full of people who worship, fall in love with, and cozy up to powerful leaders, sports heros, and famous personalities.  On the surface, this book rejects “God of the gaps” arguments, yet it seems to rely heavily upon the inability of current science to fully explain human behavior.

[continued]

Review of “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”  (part II)

One may wonder why moral behavior counts as evidence of the divine, while immoral behavior does not count as evidence against the divine. This, of course, is the famous problem of evil which Collins attacks early in his book.  The Universe appears, to the objective observer, to be unsupervised.  The innocent, the pure, the devout, and those deeply loved, all occasionally suffer the same terrible, tragic, and unjust events as everyone else.  Following C. S. Lewis once again, Collins mainly appeals to free will, claiming that too much divine intervention would result in chaos, that suffering builds character, and that God sometimes teaches us something through severe misfortune.  Despite its simple appearance, the problem of evil is a complex topic of debate with a long history. Simple arguments such as those offered by Lewis have already been addressed many times over in philosophy. At least a reference or two to the modern lines of argument would have been helpful [2]. Logic is little consolation though, for those suffering. Collins tells the tragic story of his daughter’s violent rape and his personal search for meaning in that event.  Skeptical readers should at least appreciate in this story the magnitude to which humans depend upon their interpretation of reality to ease pain and restore wellness. It is no wonder that religious ideas are zealously defended when so much is at stake.

Collins argues that the paradoxical findings of modern physics should convince people that materialism is not simpler or more intuitive than theism. “Today, Occam’s Razor appears to have been relegated to the Dumpster by the bizarre models of quantum physics”  he proclaims (p 61). This is a peculiar statement coming from a scientist, though he admits that the principle is still evident in the mathematical descriptions of the phenomena. Occam’s Razor, the philosophical principle that the simplest answer is more likely to be the right one, does not demand that the simplest answer must itself be simple or intuitive. It is simply a statement that unnecessary and unjustified complexity should be trimmed from any explanation. It may seem simple and intuitive to say “God did it”, but a great deal of complexity has been swept under the rug in doing so. While Collins’ razor is headed for the dumpster, it does get a good slice out of William Dembski’s Intelligent Design theory before the end of the book (p194). “In addressing philosophical issues, I speak mainly as a lay person” Collins reminds readers (p34).
   
The more interesting parts of this book, in my opinion, are the more personal ones. Collin’s voyage of spiritual discovery seems to have begun in graduate school.  Within sight of obtaining a Ph.D. in quantum mechanics, he became discouraged with his career path, even doubting his ability to do independent research. Collins does not give details as to exactly what turn of events led to this situation. Many former graduate students will relate (myself included), having considered alternative service-oriented careers at some low point in their education. For Collins it was a switch to medical school. There, his apparently atheistic worldview was put to the test in unexpected ways. When cornered into giving a statement of his own belief by a seriously ill, but very devout Christian, he recounts a dramatic sense of relief as he admitted “I’m not really sure.” Evidently, this event caused him to feel that he had never really given fair consideration to theism and that perhaps he had been “willfully blind” or even “arrogant.”  Who wouldn’t have an ethical crisis telling a very sick individual that you do not share in the beliefs that help them to find meaning, assurance, and comfort in their suffering? It would be very difficult not to be humbled in that situation and to wonder whether or not one’s own worldview would do so well in the same circumstances. One wonders, however, if the experience would have been different had he been cornered by a critically ill Buddhist or Hindu. This would not be the last time in his career in which Collins was both humbled and deeply touched by the generosity and equanimity of a critically ill, but devoutly religious person. His poignant encounter with a poor Nigerian farmer near death with little hope of long-term survival was the most potent experience he describes. As a discouraged doctor in emotional turmoil, he experiences a dramatic transformation of heart and sense of relief by the calm insightful words of the Bible-toting farmer who, in a profound moment, switches the role of healer and patient.  Though Collins doesn’t explicitly draw the parallel (and may not even be aware of it) , astute Christians will immediately identify the farmer’s behavior as “Christ-like.” It is precisely this reaction to altruism that lies at the heart of how many Christians develop a relationship with the perceived divine being of Christ.

[continued]

Review of “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”  (part III)

Collins makes brief mention of another key experience in which, hiking in the Cascades,  he is now wrestling with his newfound belief in God and the claims of Christian scripture. Citing the famous “trilemma” of C.S. Lewis (Jesus must be either lord, lunatic, or liar), Collins finds himself forced to make a choice. Primed for a moment of synchronicity, he happens upon a breathtaking three-tiered waterfall which, for him, becomes a much-needed sign. It may seem odd to readers that seeing a waterfall, however beautiful, could be a major turning point in someone’s life. His account of this experience is an abbreviated version of a more complete testimony that appears elsewhere in print [3]. There, it is revealed that the three-in-one waterfall reminded him of the Christian concept of the trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) and so must have helped confirm the divinity Jesus and the veracity of scripture in his mind.

Skeptics familiar with the apologetics of Lewis believe, of course, that the trilemma is really a false trichotomy.  The fourth possibility, is that the accounts of Jesus, collected years later by gospel writers, are mostly “legend”, faithful exaggeration, and midrashic retelling of the best Old Testament stories with Jesus as the hero. Collins sites a few popular apologetic authors such as Strobel, Habermas, and Bruce, but never any critical biblical scholarship [4-6]. This is, of course, a book of “evidence for belief”, so one can hardly expect a balanced treatment. In all fairness, this is also a book about science and belief in God, not specifically Christian doctrine or scriptures.

Collins apparently does not believe in intercessory prayer, but rather prayer as a way of “seeking fellowship with God, learning about Him, and attempting to perceive His perspective on the many issues around us that cause us puzzlement, wonder, or distress” (p220). It is in this sense that Collins sees God acting in the natural world rather than through miracles. He does not altogether dismiss miracles, but sees them more as rare revelations to humanity. He also views the Genesis creation accounts as alegory. While his views may seem theologically liberal at times (he even cites Paul Tillich), he has strong words for “many churches of a spiritually dead, secular faith, which strips out all of the numinous aspects of traditional belief, presenting a version of spiritual life that is all about social events and/or tradition, and nothing about the search for God” (p41).  Such churches are “insidious and widespread”, in his words, but, diplomatically, he doesn’t name names.

No book that addresses atheism these days is without mention of Marxism or Mao’s China.  Of these regimes Collins says “In fact, by denying the existence of any higher authority, atheism has the now-realized potential to free humans completely from any responsibility not to oppress one another.” Collins stops short of directly blaming the violence and oppression of secular regimes on godlessness, but urges readers of overlook the violence and oppression of religious regimes as merely a case of “pure water in rusty containers” (p42). So much for the Fruits of the Spirit.

The appendix, in my opinion, is the best part of the book, and well worth reading. Collins covers a short but fascinating list of current and future bioethical dilemmas, including DNA testing, cloning, and genetic enhancement. He takes a firm stance against human cloning ( “making human copies in this unnatural way”) but never makes clear the details of his moral and theological objections beyond pointing out that the current techniques result in a high level of miscarriage and abnormality. Since some 20% of recognized natural pregnancies end in miscarriage and possibly as many as 50% of natural human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion [7], the ethical bar may not be as high as we think. What if cloning becomes safe in the future? What are the real moral objections, if any? Collins is too brief here.  He says, “I hesitate, however, to advocate very strongly for faith-based bioethics. The obvious danger is the historical record that believers can and will sometimes utilize their faith in a way never intended by God, ...”  The appendix seems almost out of character for Collins.  While he sees God as a being with which one may establish a relationship, that relationship is admittedly rather one-sided. With the occasional rare sign of assurance, and with prayer being only an attempt to perceive God’s perspective, Collins is reluctant to let faith be a guiding principle in major life-and-death bioethical decisions. Evidently, faith can be mistaken.

[1] Beyond Belief 2006 symposium
[2] Nicholas Everitt, “The Non-existence of God”
[3] Collins interview with Salon.com
[4] Bart D. Ehrman, “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”
[5] David Friedrich Strauss (1892) “The Life of Jesus Critically Examined” (ed. Peter C. Hodgson, 2002)
[6] “The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave” (ed Robert M. Price & Jeffery Jay Lowder 2005)
[7] Sam Harris, “Letter to a Christian Nation” p 38

You should try to read C. S. Lewis’s Myth Became Fact.  It is not all convincing.    I don’t see how he converted anyone with that junk.  I seriously doubt he did.

You should try to read C. S. Lewis’s Myth Became Fact.  It is not all convincing.    I don’t see how he converted anyone with that junk.  I seriously doubt he did.

Exactly what converts people is a very interesting topic. I remember seeing a recent documentary about Mormonism. In it, some lady tells her story of hardship growing up without responsible parents. She’s skeptical when a couple of missionaries come to the door, but they leave her a copy of the Book of Mormon. She opens it and reads the first sentence of Chapter 1: “I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, ...” At that point, tears well up in her eyes, the doubts fall away, and she becomes converted. After first sentence! Clearly, she was ready for some kind of conversion and that line hit the right note for her.

Religious people invest a great deal of effort to do this, but their explanations for how it works are essentially supernatural. Missionaries would probably explain that phenomenon by saying something like “the Holy Spirit prepares the way and was already working in her life (because we said a prayer before entering the house).”

Here’s were scientific naturalism can make very significant inroads I think. We need to better understand what’s going on here. While people aren’t converted by earthquakes, volcanos, and other natural phenomena much anymore (because those things are no longer viewed as supernatural), human behavior and emotion are still poorly understood and so are places where the supernatural can still hide. Sorry to see Collins and many others still looking there for signs of a god, but it’s a very human thing to do.

Richard

Thought you might find the following interesting:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/09/francis-collins.html

I’m amazed at the lack of logic in Collins’ thinking, especially because he is so highly trained in science.  I hate to say it, but it cats a pall on his scientific work.

I knew if I looked through this thread, I would find someone making this statement.  You *should* hate to say it, because there’s no basis for the statement.  The evidence suggests that Dr. Collin’s scientific work to date is impeccable.  It’s fine if you think that he is philosophically inconsistent (I would agree with that), but to say that his work in science is suspect because of this is a serious logical fallacy.  It’s like saying “that’s guy tripped on his shoelace, he shouldn’t be allowed to drive a car.”

J. D.

I think that “great” people in general but especially when already accredited and praised during their lifetime tend to become obstinate. Don’t forget that Albert Einstein said about Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, which is nowadays widely excepted throughout the scientific community, that God doesn’t play dice. I just want to point out that even great minds are not impeccable.

You should try to read C. S. Lewis’s Myth Became Fact.  It is not all convincing.    I don’t see how he converted anyone with that junk.  I seriously doubt he did.

Exactly what converts people is a very interesting topic. I remember seeing a recent documentary about Mormonism. In it, some lady tells her story of hardship growing up without responsible parents. She’s skeptical when a couple of missionaries come to the door, but they leave her a copy of the Book of Mormon. She opens it and reads the first sentence of Chapter 1: “I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, ...” At that point, tears well up in her eyes, the doubts fall away, and she becomes converted. After first sentence! Clearly, she was ready for some kind of conversion and that line hit the right note for her.

Religious people invest a great deal of effort to do this, but their explanations for how it works are essentially supernatural. Missionaries would probably explain that phenomenon by saying something like “the Holy Spirit prepares the way and was already working in her life (because we said a prayer before entering the house).”

Here’s were scientific naturalism can make very significant inroads I think. We need to better understand what’s going on here. While people aren’t converted by earthquakes, volcanos, and other natural phenomena much anymore (because those things are no longer viewed as supernatural), human behavior and emotion are still poorly understood and so are places where the supernatural can still hide. Sorry to see Collins and many others still looking there for signs of a god, but it’s a very human thing to do.

Richard

Interesting.  Sounds to me like a strange coensidence not some Casper the Friendly Ghost.  IMHO, if religious people spend a great deal of effort to convert others, then apparently they do amatuer psychology and look for what they think will get the person, esp when they are at their lowest.  IMHO, it is a sneaky underhanded trick.    Even so, I have seen them do these underhanded tricks to people all the time.  It’s not the Holy Spirit, it is only other humans doing it to others.

Interesting.  Sounds to me like a strange coensidence not some Casper the Friendly Ghost.  IMHO, if religious people spend a great deal of effort to convert others, then apparently they do amatuer psychology and look for what they think will get the person, esp when they are at their lowest.  IMHO, it is a sneaky underhanded trick.    Even so, I have seen them do these underhanded tricks to people all the time.  It’s not the Holy Spirit, it is only other humans doing it to others.

Yes, I think it is amateur psychology, though I don’t think people usually realize what they are doing. For the most part, they think they are doing others a favor.

I was running in a foot race a year ago. In the last dozen yards, one of the race volunteers was stationed to direct traffic and offer encouragement to the runners.  Unfortunately, this volunteer was yelling something like “It’s not your hard work that has brought you this far, it’s God’s grace and mercy.” When a person is pushing their limits, they are tired, oxygen-deprived and not able to think very clearly. I don’t get offended easily, but this seemed like an overt attempt to brainwash people when they were vulnerable to suggestion. I regret not making a fuss about it to race officials. Ethically, that really steps over the line. I wouldn’t be surprised if the person doing the “encouragement” knew full well what he was doing, but rationalized that the ends justify the means.

Richard

Oh I really hate it when they don’t give someone any credit at all for their hard work.  What?  The person didn’t do anything to achieve success?  PLEASE!  I would have made a fuss about it.  It does step over the line.  Sorry, but I see no divine intervention there.  You did it all yourself fair and square, thus you deserve all the credit that is due you and you are right, it is brainwashing.

Oh I really hate it when they don’t give someone any credit at all for their hard work.  What?  The person didn’t do anything to achieve success?  PLEASE!  I would have made a fuss about it.  It does step over the line.  Sorry, but I see no divine intervention there.  You did it all yourself fair and square, thus you deserve all the credit that is due you and you are right, it is brainwashing.

It’s a clever scheme really, not unlike military indoctrination at boot camp. First step is to break a person’s self esteem. The event was actually hosted at a campground that caters to military personnel.

Richard

jdmack -

It casts a pall because it has an effect on the kinds of questions hat he is likely to ask, the way he asks them, and the resulting latent biases with subtle effects.  A person’s philosophical outlook is not a side-issue, it is central to everything that person does and is, and so it shapes everything that person produces, and especially that which the person cares and thinks most deeply about.

The analogy to a clumsy person driving a car is not quite valid, but to extend it anyways - if you saw the neurosurgeon who was about to operate on your brain trip on his shoelace, would you be as confident of the coming result?

“Impeccable” in science means only that the work is not falsified, the numbers add up right, the methods are sound, etc.  There is more to scientific work than that, however.  There are things like social responsibility, intellectual integrity, ethics, and politics, and they extend to the principles informing the rationale behind the work, and also to how that work fits back into the society that produced it.  Collins’ himself has said, of the new genetic technologies: “As Christians, we bring a special perspective on how to usher in this new revolution in a fashion that has the maximum benefits and is done in the most benevolent way.”  I don’t want Jesus-freaky Christians anywhere near those decisions.

rsonin,

I think you are right in that no one is free of bias and what we bring to the table has our own sense of flavor. Here comes the “but”, But, this recognition is what has driven refinements to the processes of doing science. The goal then is to allow the process to weed out what are fruitless vines. In this manner it matters not what bias is brought forth, the measure of the science must stand on its own merit.

As far as Francis’ religious views, I heard nothing new in the interview. I say this in the same way I found nothing to new in Richard Dawkins’ latest book. My opinion as I listened was the voice of someone straining to address issues brought to light not by his own doing. I would argue Francis holds a belief in a personal type of God and in essence is arguing with himself. Part of the reason I say this is because of the argument of “arrogance”. When I hear this it is often from people who considered themselves non-theist at some point in their lives. A sort of answer to; “how could I have been so blind”. Seek and ye shall find.

jdmack -

It casts a pall because it has an effect on the kinds of questions hat he is likely to ask, the way he asks them, and the resulting latent biases with subtle effects.  A person’s philosophical outlook is not a side-issue, it is central to everything that person does and is, and so it shapes everything that person produces, and especially that which the person cares and thinks most deeply about.

The analogy to a clumsy person driving a car is not quite valid, but to extend it anyways - if you saw the neurosurgeon who was about to operate on your brain trip on his shoelace, would you be as confident of the coming result?

“Impeccable” in science means only that the work is not falsified, the numbers add up right, the methods are sound, etc.  There is more to scientific work than that, however.  There are things like social responsibility, intellectual integrity, ethics, and politics, and they extend to the principles informing the rationale behind the work, and also to how that work fits back into the society that produced it.  Collins’ himself has said, of the new genetic technologies: “As Christians, we bring a special perspective on how to usher in this new revolution in a fashion that has the maximum benefits and is done in the most benevolent way.”  I don’t want Jesus-freaky Christians anywhere near those decisions.

I hope jdmack replies. I tend to agree with Zarcus. As long as a person is honestly applying methodological naturalism, then trustworthy science will result regardless of what wacky ideas they may have. When it comes to advances in sociobiology, it will be interesting to see how he deals with the evidence. The main problem I have is that persons like Collins will eventually be elevated to high positions in government where their religious biases may come into play in major policy decisions. On the whole, I thought his book section (Appendix) on ethics was pretty good (he was actually recommending against faith-based decisions), though I did have a couple concerns. Theologically speaking, he is quite far removed from the religious right.

Richard

I would like to add one further thought to my last post. Without addressing any one particular post on this thread, I must say that I found Francis to be quite restrained and open. If I found myself in his, and countless others shoes over the last year I’m not so sure I could be so accommodating. I say this based on incredibly arrogant statements made by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. Calls to end faith, allowing the submitting of religion being the root of all evil (even if just a question, after all those with Atheist bias can read that with an answer in mind). Sam’s constant tirades against “moderates”, liberals and his view of “apologist”. It is seemingly possible to me that one of the leading influential intellectuals in the field of Evolutionary Biology will be remember for a mediocre book on religion. It is a good book, the message of “consciousness raising” is needed, but once the arguments are understood, we can not be left with people thinking they will end faith or even religion. That can only lead to resentment and continued irrational anger.

I would like to add one further thought to my last post. Without addressing any one particular post on this thread, I must say that I found Francis to be quite restrained and open. If I found myself in his, and countless others shoes over the last year I’m not so sure I could be so accommodating. I say this based on incredibly arrogant statements made by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. Calls to end faith, allowing the submitting of religion being the root of all evil (even if just a question, after all those with Atheist bias can read that with an answer in mind). Sam’s constant tirades against “moderates”, liberals and his view of “apologist”. It is seemingly possible to me that one of the leading influential intellectuals in the field of Evolutionary Biology will be remember for a mediocre book on religion. It is a good book, the message of “consciousness raising” is needed, but once the arguments are understood, we can not be left with people thinking they will end faith or even religion. That can only lead to resentment and continued irrational anger.

I actually like that fact that Harris, Dawkins and even Hitchens are out there.  For too long, fundamentalist right-wing religion has had free run of the airwaves and we’ve suffered for it. Now there is more balance and people can choose whatever middle ground they want.  Polemicists are blunt, passionate, and even rude at times on purpose to get people’s attention.

I do think that the extreme positions advocated by Harris et. al. will ultimately be found overly simplistic. The problem of dogmatism is much broader and more complex than faith or religion. I think that he’s also mistaken about moderates. Moderate religion may serve as an important conduit for people to gradually leave religious dogma.

RG

Collins’ himself has said, of the new genetic technologies: “As Christians, we bring a special perspective on how to usher in this new revolution in a fashion that has the maximum benefits and is done in the most benevolent way.”  I don’t want Jesus-freaky Christians anywhere near those decisions.

We are basically in agreement here.  When it comes to what is done *with* science, then one’s philosophies definitely matter.  But as far as *doing* science, in the case of Dr. Collins, I do not think that they do.  I believe that Dr. Collins is unlikely to ignore or distort any data as it relates to the human genome based on his personal faith.

(on a side note - I think I went on my little tirade here because I’m still miffed by some of the people on the Skepticality forum who argue that Hal Bidlack cannot be a true skeptic because he is a deist.)

J. D.

Deleted by author

He seems to fall into the same pits as many people who may be perfectly rational in one hand but very irrational on another.  Shouldn’t something as important as the very essence of the Universe deserve the greatest of scrutiny?  His reasons are entirely emotional and seem to have been brought on by trauma while working with dying people.  His argument about some kind of moral source is also very flimsy.  He argues that Evolutionary biology (as it concerns morality) would only care about the immediate family, but one also has to worry about social dynamics in large groups.  What really floors me is that He not only believes in some kind of unprovable shot in the dark that is the eternal creator mind, but he is also Christian.  He not only has to explain why he is a theist (which so far has only been arguments from ignorance and emotional appeal) but has to argue why his version of Theism is valid as well.

Thought you might find the following interesting:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/09/francis-collins.html

Thank you for that link!

Here is another recent article on Science and Islam, in the August 2007 Physics Today.

The author mentions the Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam, a winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize, who belonged to a Muslim sect officially declared heretical by the Pakastani government in 1974.  The article suggests to me that concerns are justified.

I thought the Francis Collins podcast was another in an excellent string DJ Grothe has delivered, and I think hearing these authors and a variety of perspectives is helpful.

deleted by author

Rgill,

I appreciate your comments and I hope for sustained openness to the views of the secularist. It appears to me that post release of The End of Faith there are many Atheist that have hit the ground running.

... stuff deleted ...

Harris’ call in the journal Nature is a good example of how willingly misguided the “aggressive” (often harsher) advocates can become. Harris states that scientist must stand against religion. He chose Francis Collins’ editorial review and an essay from a Muslim in the journal to use as a platform for his dictate. It cuts very close to claiming scientists that are religious should be ignored, even castigated. When this missive of Harris’ hit the interested public, I’m speaking of mainly Atheist, there was no disagreement that I found scouting forum boards, blogs and anywhere it caught attention on the net.

Well, reading Harris is really entertaining and a lot of people look forward to his blunt commentary. Among the athiests I meet with regularly though, most have some reservations about his approach. I’ve read both his books. The End of Faith was my first Amazon review. He is a remarkably clear and forceful speaker I must say, and all this while still a grad student! But anyone who has spent even a little time reading anthropology, sociology and the like realizes that his black and white view is overly simplistic and extremist.  More moderate and experienced voices like Daniel Dennett (and others like Atran, Sloan Wilson, etc) are less inclined to make definitive pronouncements. It was entaining to watch Harris debate some of the experienced anthropologists at Beyond Belief 2006 ... the word hubris did come to mind. Harris is really speaking more on the level of a political commentator and rhetorician than academic.

... stuff deleted ...

Of course Sam is going to say many things that are rational, after all when he speaks of science and reason, he is standing on solid ground.

I also think he is willing to listen to reason, which is far more than one can say of religious extremists. I just think he draws conclusions too easily with not enough data (fallacy of hasty conclusion).

Richard

I don’t think my iPod is updating this series.  :(  I can’t find this podcast on it’s list and I keep trying to get it to update.  Other podcasts update, so I don’t know what the problem is.

Mriana,

As an alternative until you figure what’s up, you can listen on the Point of Inquiry web site.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/  Just click the “Listen Now”, they offer a great player with the full list of guest. Also, it’s instant play back, very generous.

Yes, that is the only thing I can do, but I don’t always have time to listen to it all while I’m online and I can’t start where I left off as easily as I can with my iPod.  :(

deleted by author

deleted by author

deleted by author

But Collins, in his position as a director of a program, rather than as a lab tech, is in a position where most of what he does is doing things *with* science.  When he speaks to Christian fora he is not *doing* science.

Data, inasmuch as it is mere observation - the recording of measurements - cannot be distorted.  But interpretations of that data, the *information* produced by interpreting data, certainly can be distorted, and usually is.  When it comes to which base pair is likely to be found at what location, Dr. Collins is probably as close to a perfect source as ever there was, and, from what I’ve seen, I would trust his data almost completely (as simplistic as that is).  However, when it comes to what the whole thing means, I do not trust him at all, and the meaning of the whole thing is what will first filter into society in general, and which will have the most power in political discourse.

I don’t think my iPod is updating this series.  :(  I can’t find this podcast on it’s list and I keep trying to get it to update.  Other podcasts update, so I don’t know what the problem is.

Probably a local iPod setup problem. I synched up yesterday and picked up the ep with no problem. Good luck with figuring out the glitch.

rsonin,

I’m not clear on what you mean by; “However, when it comes to what the whole thing means, I do not trust him at all, and the meaning of the whole thing is what will first filter into society in general, and which will have the most power in political discourse.”

Perhaps you could elaborate please.

Scientists are not led to what they do by something devoid of values.  The work they choose to do is based on something outside the work itself.  Then, having made heir discoveries, these discoveries are summarized and have an impact in terms of that thing outside the work, and how it affects other such things.

In this case, I think it is quite clear from Collins’ own statements that one of his major interests in genetics is to be able to cure genetic disorders - that is not a scientific goal, it is a social or moral one.  In turn, whatever controversies exist concerning the genome itself will not be what society in general is concerned with; what society in general is concerned with is gene therapy, or some other engineering of genes based on what the various genome projects and other genetic research has come up with.  So, the meaning of the project, or of the whole genetic enterprise (the “revolution” that geneticists and others speak of), is not some arcane chemical sampling or statistical methods, it is what human beings can do to alter what, until now, has been considered what it is that makes humans human in the material sense.  That, in turn, gets into philosophical issues that science has nothing to say about, and those philosophical issues, which may include theological issues, are of a kind that are complicated and politically contentious.  Curing ills is not the only thing we can do, or will be able to do, with this technology.

So, as to his genome I may trust Collins.  As to what is to be done with it I do not (and not because I think he is evil, only because I think he is likely to get it wrong).

I think he is likely to get it wrong

Get what wrong?

What is to be done with this information and technology.

It must be said, too, that he is only one man - the decision is not up to him.

So far, from what I’ve read, Francis’ forecasting into the future uses of the discoveries he is part include; inexpensive gene sequencing to individualize health care for treatment and prevention, being able to discover and reprogram the mechanism for cell growth that cause cancer and aging, supports stem cell research with in vitro fertilization and somatic cell nuclear transfer cells with the hope of treating a wide range of illness including Parkinson’s disease, diabetes etc.

Of course that is just a very short list. He also is a spokesmen for continued research, and one hell of an amazing scientist, that’s how he got the job.

But, perhaps there is an agenda I am unaware at this time. If there are specifics you could share, I would appreciate that. I know he is iffy on “human cloning”, but he supports cell nuclear transfer which may extend beyond skin cells, he thinks its more ethical to use in vitro stem cells then to create them, but that is standing far apart from the anti-stem cell advocates, such as our president.

In every interview I’ve seen done with Francis he is asked about “creationism”, each time he responds in support of Evolution by Natural Selection. He does this with a great deal of respect to the “creationist”. It is obvious why he approaches the topic this way, he knows it is predominately Christians that reject the science of Evolution and he understands they are listening to him. When I see criticisms of Francis’ book that mention the fact that so many in this country are creationist, I am dumbfounded. Francis has mentioned many times since publication that he wants to strike a middle ground. He is speaking out against many Atheist these days in a way which seems timid compared to what is being said about “faith” and Christianity by these same people.

In my imagination I can envision Francis being interviewed by DJ or another secular organization and keep the focus on “creationism” and Evolution. Instead of being “ashamed” of Francis’ book, he could be a powerful partner in the battle to further the science of Evolution. By only repeating with amazed rhetoric that so many people in the US believe in “creationism” gets science only so far. There is no agenda that I see in Francis’ views of Evolution that negates the science. He may claim it is a process put in motion by a God, but so what. If we took all the people who use the bible or other sacred text to reject the science of Evolution and found they suddenly accepted the science in the way Francis does, I would call that amazing progress. This idea of not respecting the “belief” and continuing a call to view “faith” as dangerous that needs to be eradicated will only go so far in forwarding science and reason. These ideas do not communicate into a vacuum, they are heard and taken to heart by the believers. Who, by and large will become hardened, and irrationally defensive. Many times I have seen Atheist that were once “fundamentalist” who recognize this fact, but who still go ahead and mock. How is that rational? Most often I see these prior believers tell stories of how difficult it was to move to Atheism, how it was a personal journey. I recognize the idea that once the move is made there is a tendency to want to shout about it, to view prior beliefs as “crazy”, this seems normal, but why not use what was learned through the process to understand that “snapping” people out of it does not happen over night. Of course I realize that there are some that responded to direct confrontation, but they are a small minority and can learn from their fellow ex- believers.

Finally got to listent o the interview this morning. I agree with what has been said about the weakness of Collin’s arguments. I think he is, if anything, a great example of why belief or disbelief in god is often not an issue of reason and evidence but a much more emotional and existential issue. Sadly, the more I learn and see, the less convinced I am that fact and evidence is all that usefull in convincing people of things. We’re not as rational a creature as we like to suppose.

I applaude Dj for having him on and for treating him gently. I think POI will be stronger for a variety of perspectives, and while we can’t avoid asking people tough questions, if we get a reputation as atheist pit bulls we’re not going to get anyone who challenges our ideas or assumptions on the show. And while I didn’t hear any brilliant new insights from Collins on why we should believe in God, I do think it’s interesting and important to hear from a truly smart accomplished scientist who does believe because it provides an example of that phenomenon, and perhaps some lessons in how to deal with it and irrational belief in general.

perhaps there is an agenda I am unaware at this time

Do people need an agenda in order to make bad decisions?

This idea of not respecting the “belief” and continuing a call to view “faith” as dangerous that needs to be eradicated will only go so far in forwarding science and reason.

Well, there’s an agenda.  I don’t share that agenda.  I just want my decisions to be based in reality and evidence rather than delusions and fairy tales.  I want all decisions that affect me to be made in the same way.  In my experience, irrational decisions result in harm, and that makes faith dangerous.  It also makes people who feel comfortable thinking and acting irrationally dangerous.

What if Collins didn’t believe in Christ, but believed in leprechauns?  Would you have such faith in his science then?  What if he went around town wearing a foil hat to protect him from Marian brain rays?  Would you be so quick to set that behaviour aside?  To “respect” it?

If he was a leprechaun who wore a foil hat then I’m sure he would ask a more reasonable question.

Why don’t you answer the question - how unusual would Collins’ beliefs have to be before you raised an eyebrow?

First, it’s a false analogy that you proposed. Second, Francis’ beliefs are not “unusual”. Third, you have yet given an example of what he would “get wrong” because of his beliefs.

Francis’ beliefs are not new to me, nor are his arguments. They are arguments that I have considered and rejected over 20 years ago.

Lately the only eyebrow raising I have done with regards to Francis’ beliefs has been from the reaction of many secularist. Somehow its amazing that such an intelligent person could hold the beliefs he does. I believe this reaction is a product of ideas that have proliferated over the course of about 5 years. One way it presents itself is through false analogies such as you proposed.

I finally got my iPod to do what it is suppose to do this weekend.  I can’t wait to listen to this episode and hopefully contribute something worthwhile to this thread.  :D

OK I got to listen to it and I didn’t think much of the guy.  When he mentioned C. S. Lewis I thought, “That twit?”  As it wore on I thought the same of him, but I liked DJ’s response to him when he started talking about morality.  There could have been a wonderful debate in that, but I guess DJ didn’t want to go that route.  It’s just everytime the man started talking about God, I thought, “Oh sure, if you meant love, compassion, reason, nature, the universe (like Carl Sagan and Einstein).”  But of course this guy meant something supernatural, not some sort of electromagnetic energy, human emotion, human nature, or something that is completely natural.  He sounded like he thought those of us who believed in naturalism were irrational or something.

Like Zarcus, I have considered Francis’s thoughts and ideas, but have rejected them too.  If he can be a scientist and keep his religious beliefs separate from his work, then more power to him.  Somehow, I would have preferred listening to Carl Sagan or even Einstein, if they were still alive that is.  SHOOT!  Bishop Spong would be preferable if you wanted someone religious, but he’s not a scientist though.  He does talk about the human striving to be all they can be and loving wastefully, which would be better, I think.

Even so, DJ, you did have a few good responses to him.  I sort wish you had followed through with some of them, but I know there is a time limit to these things too.

If this is the best a renowned scientist can do to justify God, then the faithful are in even deeper trouble than they seem to be.

Note closely how Collins’ science did not lead him to his belief. Rather, it was an emotional reaction to dying people and the comfort some of them got from religion that did the trick. As always, the religious belief comes first (often from an emotional, irrational need) and then science and reason are invoked in support. The same with Michael Behe, ID advocate. I saw him asked: did your religious belief come from a rational assessment of evidence, or did it come first, with the evidence then invoked to “prove” ID? It was, of course, the latter.

I also love Collins’ dodge that God, being supernatural, cannot be tested with scientific methods. It’s basically a “hands off!” claim. Dawkins demolishes it sufficiently with this hypothetical: if incontrovertible scientific proof emerged of God/Jesus’ divinity, would the faithful insist that it was totally irrelevant, since God cannot be tested scientifically? Or would they, in fact, trumpet that evidence from the rooftops and invoke the authority of science in their cause?

So they only say “hands off!” when the data mount that God is less and less plausible.

In any case, how can a god that created nature and, supposedly, us in his image be entirely untestable within the context of nature?

I won’t even get into his drivel about atheism leading to immorality—he clearly knows nothing about atheism—or the shocking infantilism inherent in the position that one “needs” god(s) to be moral, as if only threat of punishment sufficed to ensure moral behaviour. What moral midgets believers are!

I won’t even get into his drivel about atheism leading to immorality—he clearly knows nothing about atheism—or the shocking infantilism inherent in the position that one “needs” god(s) to be moral, as if only threat of punishment sufficed to ensure moral behaviour. What moral midgets believers are!

  I said the same thing about C. S. Lewis and even did a research paper on his so called atheism.  Thus, they are both twits and I’m being nice.

I was a little disappointed that DJ did not put more probing questions to Francis Collins. An earlier poster out it well

“One thing Francis Collins doesn’t explain is how he goes from believing in the stereotypical philosophical God (omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent) to believing in a particular Christian view of God.  Again, he doesn’t mention what type of Christian he is, but he believes in the resurrection of Jesus. Please Francis - the resurrection of Jesus? If I told you something impossible to happen happened - would you just believe it, or would you think I’m either lying or delusional?  What are the chances of each side being true?”

It is one thing to have some belief in some overarching mystic sort of god - quite another to buy one specific sect wholesale. DJ should have questioned him about Christianity vs Muslim and whatever evangelical brand he subscribes to against the other variants.

While here - some posters were dismayed with the Dennet book. I do not agree. Dawkins and Harris provide great ‘rally the troops’ books, but I am mainly interested in just why so many people hold such irrational beliefs so passionately. I do feel that Dawkins and Harris rather ignore this. Dennet makes a valiant attempt at asking just this question and using the scientific method approach an answer.

I was a little disappointed that DJ did not put more probing questions to Francis Collins. An earlier poster out it well

“One thing Francis Collins doesn’t explain is how he goes from believing in the stereotypical philosophical God (omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent) to believing in a particular Christian view of God.  Again, he doesn’t mention what type of Christian he is, but he believes in the resurrection of Jesus. Please Francis - the resurrection of Jesus? If I told you something impossible to happen happened - would you just believe it, or would you think I’m either lying or delusional?  What are the chances of each side being true?”

It is one thing to have some belief in some overarching mystic sort of god - quite another to buy one specific sect wholesale. DJ should have questioned him about Christianity vs Muslim and whatever evangelical brand he subscribes to against the other variants.

While here - some posters were dismayed with the Dennet book. I do not agree. Dawkins and Harris provide great ‘rally the troops’ books, but I am mainly interested in just why so many people hold such irrational beliefs so passionately. I do feel that Dawkins and Harris rather ignore this. Dennet makes a valiant attempt at asking just this question and using the scientific method approach an answer.

I find it a little hard to call what Dennett does science. Social science maybe. More like philosophy with lots of anecdotes. Yes, he is very analytical but in a scattered, unfocused way. I’ve read a lot of good scientific reviews of fields, but reading “Breaking the Spell” has been like getting a bad case of attention deficit disorder. He can’t stay focused on the same idea even within a single sentence in some cases. He cites quite a bit of work done by various anthropologists, which is great, and the book finally starts to get somewhere by Chapt 8, but I found Sam Harris’ “End of Faith” much more coherent and engaging (even though I agree more with Dennett than Harris). There are some nice gems in “Breaking the Spell”, but, sheesh, you have to do so much sifting and untangling to find them.

Perhaps you can recommend a better book by Dennett. Unfortunately, I have to read a lot more of his work.

Richard

I find it a little hard to call what Dennett does science. Social science maybe. More like philosophy with lots of anecdotes. Yes, he is very analytical but in a scattered, unfocused way. I’ve read a lot of good scientific reviews of fields, but reading “Breaking the Spell” has been like getting a bad case of attention deficit disorder. He can’t stay focused on the same idea even within a single sentence in some cases. He cites quite a bit of work done by various anthropologists, which is great, and the book finally starts to get somewhere by Chapt 8, but I found Sam Harris’ “End of Faith” much more coherent and engaging (even though I agree more with Dennett than Harris). There are some nice gems in “Breaking the Spell”, but, sheesh, you have to do so much sifting and untangling to find them.

Perhaps you can recommend a better book by Dennett. Unfortunately, I have to read a lot more of his work.

You’ve described Dennett’s writing style quite well, actually, rgill. His longer books can be quite maddening to read; there are lots of long digressions. He tends to be light on actual arguments and heavy on what he terms “intuition pumps”, that is, experiments that get you to reframe certain subjects and look at them in a new way. For that reason, he can be maddening to some philosophers, who tend to consider his books more a sort of “popular philosophy”, even if they might agree with certain of his conclusions.

I particularly liked his earlier book Elbow Room, about free will, because it is shorter and hence more to the point.

He’s a very nice guy, BTW, and I think actually a better interviewee or lecturer than a writer of long books.

zarcus -

If you think that believing that God had a son with a virgin who rose from the dead after dying for the sins of people not yet born is not an unusual belief, then you might be in the wrong forum.

If he had become a Moonie or a Hare Krishna, there would have been a far greater reaction.  All that protects him from mixing quotes from the Bible in with his scientific explanations without greater ridicule is that the religion he is mixing in happens to be that of the overwhelming majority of his compatriots.

As I said before, science does not happen in a vacuum.  It happens in a social context, and is always, invariably, necessarily bound up with the values of the people doing the science.  The method may be perfect in all ways - but people are not.  Collins is certainly imperfect, and I don’t trust that his relatively new found religiosity will not have an effect on what he brings back into the field, or to the public debate about genetic engineering.

Back when physicists put together the first nuclear bombs, their use was highly influenced by Edward Teller.  Unfortunately, Teller was rabidly anti-communist, to the point of irrationality.  Teller had such influence because his physics were good, and bore fruit.  But as a man, he had some major flaws, and he helped fuel the cold war in very dangerous times, and nearly succeeded in pushing through crackpot civilian uses for nuclear bombs.

Collins may be no Dr. Strangelove, but I do not trust anything the man has to say about genes that goes beyond genomics, any more than I trust what is said that goes beyond genomics by scientists who are owned by private research corporations whose interests are profit and power.

When it comes to science, the proof is in the peer review.  You cannot get the plain science wrong, because if you do the hydrogen bomb doesn’t go off.  You can certainly get the ethics wrong, and if you have influence with people because you got the science right, your wrong ethics can have disastrous results.

.

Dr. Collins said that science should be quiet about the question of God, since he’s of the supernatural realm while science deals with the natural. Nothing new there, quite an old and over recycled argument. However, doesn’t that make his book’s title hypocritical?

Furthermore, God may be of the supernatural realm, but all and any interactions of his with the natural realms do comfortably fall under science’s reach. In other words we may not be able to scientifically test his existence in the supernatural realm, but all of his supposed actions on this realm are testable. Thus we should be able to, at the very least, indirectly prove his existence.

Too bad Dr. Collins did not say anything on the podcast to help that cause.

I posted the following review of Collins’ book on Amazon on September 15, 2007.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1416542744/sr=1-1/qid=1190152833/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_top/102-9660847-4061751?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1190152833&sr=1-1#customerReviews

It begins with the following statement.

The statement that religious belief is a personal matter is an important heuristic in a nation, culture and world of many religious beliefs. As an observation of human behavior, it is also a statement of fact.

It’s a long review, but I was very surprised and disappointed by the book.

I posted the following review of Collins’ book on Amazon on September 15, 2007.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1416542744/sr=1-1/qid=1190152833/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_top/102-9660847-4061751?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1190152833&sr=1-1#customerReviews

It begins with the following statement.

The statement that religious belief is a personal matter is an important heuristic in a nation, culture and world of many religious beliefs. As an observation of human behavior, it is also a statement of fact.

It’s a long review, but I was very surprised and disappointed by the book.

Great review, especially the analysis of Collin’s personal story! I am less sure about these statements you made however:

“Though grounded in our organic brains, sentience cannot be reduced to material terms, even if the cognitive neurosciences identify precisely which brain cells and which chemicals produce particular feelings, thoughts, behaviors and sensations; still, we will be left with our inescapable day-to-day experience, and the question of “ought” in response to “is,” however well understood that “is” may one day become.”

Richard

Hello… I’m new to the forums and of course new to this discussion, so this point may have already been raised, but I just listened to the Collins podcast and one thing in particular struck me. He’s clearly a brilliant scientist, and yet he was able to make a statement to the effect that selfless behavior could only be explained as a product of evolution when applied to ones behavior with family and maybe friends, but not in the context of a Schindler, which is the example he used. That just seems to be an unscientific statement. One could easily make the case that care for others than oneself has been an essential part of the survival of our species to the point that it has become genetically encoded and certainly socially encoded. That in some people and some contexts that nature would manifest in selfless, altruistic behavior, even with a desire to help total strangers, does not seem outlandish at all and certainly does not require a moral sense bestowed by a deity.

I realize that this is a little ‘late’ (i just listened to the podcast tonight), but I just want to thank everyone who’s posted in this thread ~ lots of articulate and very incisive comments:)