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 par