A reader wrote to Francis Collins about the use of his name to promote D. James Kennedy’s upcoming ahistorical anti-evolution program, and Collins wrote right back. He’s doing exactly the right thing.
(Oops, no — Collins doesn’t want to be quoted on this, so I’ve removed the email. He’s unambiguous in stating that he was interviewed about his book, and that was then inserted into the video without his knowledge.)
Good for him, and that’ll teach me: just when you think there are no further depths to which a creationist will sink, there they go, plumbing ever deeper. Kennedy and his crew are apparently putting together the video equivalent of a quote mine.
I apologize to Dr Collins for assuming he was a party to this creationist video, and I hope he sues those frauds.
Why apologize? He is a creationist. He’s just forced his beliefs about creation to fit approximately into the facts that science has uncovered. What difference does it make to suggest that the world was slowly created through unknown violations of natural law over billions of years, instead of suddenly thousands of years ago?
I apologize for assuming he was a party to Kennedy’s creationist propaganda. He was not, and I accused him unfairly.
That does not mean that I do not think he is naive and shallow and a sloppy thinker.
Caledonian–There’s a huge difference between letting your science drive your religious beliefs and letting your religion drive your scientific beliefs.
My respect for Francis just went up from negative two to zero. Incidentally, for those horrible D. James Kennedy types, if Gawd created the world and Darwin is/was decidedly part of the world, then isn’t Hitler Gawd’s fault?
Collins insists that science is incapable of examining the questions that he finds satisfying ‘answers’ to in his religion. As such, he is misrepresenting the nature of science.
In trying to “bridge the divide between science and religion”, Collins demonstrates himself to be a syncretist. He is a liar and a fraud – I don’t care whether his first act of deception was to deceive himself, or whether he’s knowingly trying to spread untruths about the scientific process and the nature of religious belief.
He’s a “theistic evolutionist”, which means that he’s as certain that his Invisible Sky God directed the creation and development of the world as the ID fools. He’s just not willing to openly make a claim that contradicts the findings of science at this time.
Leaving aside any questions about Collins’s character and thinking style (why flame over that when I know others have and will at great length?), I have to say that the IDiots actions here don’t surprise me at all. “The video equivalent of a quote mine”? Seems long in coming.
Caledonian, I appreciate your passion, but I take issue with your logic. There’s little about being a theistic evolutionist that requires one to be a syncretist. Evolution does not imply or demand atheism, nor does Christianity demand (though I think I’d grant that it implies – at least when the Bible is read literally) creationism.
More pointedly, I agree with the theologians, writing from a position of theistic evolution, who say that the logic of the intelligent design advocates and the atheists like yourself are identical: both think that science has the necessary apparatus to make claims about the non-natural world. (You simply differ as to your conclusion, ID advocates claiming CSI and IC to be something it’s not.)
Atheism is touted to be an intellectual position and I’m impressed by many of PZ’s posts on the matter. But what you’ve written here is reactionary and raving, and frankly unbecoming.
Some people believe in God. Some of those people also are good scientists. This does not render them liars and frauds, however much you hate atheism.
No one’s censoring you. If you hate Collins for his belief in God, post away. Just recognize that you’re making yourself into the caricature that Kennedy and his awful ilk pretend you to be.
BCH
BCH
Why apologize? He is a creationist. He’s just forced his beliefs about creation to fit approximately into the facts that science has uncovered.
There’s two distinct levels of daftness. Collins is arational – he accepts the facts, he just doesn’t take the most parsimonious interpretation of them. Folks like Hovind are irrational – they ignore the facts and any semblance of logic.
Collins still isn’t a member of the Reality-Based Community, but at least he’s not actively opposed to it like the real creationist nutjobs.
But why do we have to be rational about everything we do? Richard Dawkins himself is probably moved when he hears a good concert being expertly played, but the rationalist – at least of the kind Corkscrew seems to endorse – would need to see everything rationally and without emotion.
I’m writing here as a theistic evolutionist, so I am a priori irrational about certain things. But to me, the rationalist’s efforts need to not be spent on trying to make every decision from a completely rational foundation, becoming Vulkans, as it were. There is a role for emotion, passion, and, yes, irrationality in our lives. The question is to what limits we constrain our irrationality. Do we let our feelings trump the facts, and end up with the O’Reillyian charicature expertly lampooned by Cobert’s truthiness? Should we let our quest for rationalism trump our emotion and feeling, going so far as to refuse to be moved by classical music?
No, I think our efforts are best spent on not promoting spiritualism or atheism or godlessness or fundamentalism. Our efforts need to be spent on promoting enlightenment, in whatever shape or form it comes. In this, Collins seems to be on the right path, even if some of the “evidences” with which he supports his spiritual views would be unconvincing to a nonbeliever.
Go go the intellectual descendents of the Scottish philosophers!
BCH
Burt-
No offense but this is an absolutely empty sentence:
What exactly is the non-natural world? And how could we know it in any event? If we know it it has to become natural and therefor is subject to science.
Obviously the theologians you are reading are pretty clueless. But I’ll agree in part evolution doesn’t lead to atheism. But it does make Christianity particuarlly less tenable. Other religions less so.
No he is not. This is weak attempt to make the atheist position of no evidence with a group that spouts on about religious dogma. Anyone who says as much is either deluded or clueless.
Why would it? There is nothing irrational about any of those in and of themselves. But religion makes claims about life, morals etc that are subject to reason and logic. There is no reason to not examine these for what they are.
I agree, but when it comes to people believing things minus evidence and en masse your enlightenment tends to come to a close pretty quickly.
I don’t quite understand people who argue that being rational means you can’t appreciate beauty anymore, or that you have to be an emotionless robot. Did somebody watch too much Star Trek?
Well then **** him. If he’s not willing to make a public statement opposing this, then why shouldn’t I assume he is telling each side what they want to hear?
Francis Collins, show some ******** backbone.
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. I think he was swamped with email from people protesting his involvement, and he’s responding to all of them (I’ve seen a few copies of the letter now) with the same short text. He may want more time to compose a stronger response. I hope.
So they did what you do on an almost daily basis.
To answer PZ’s question, yes. I watched *way* too much Star Trek.
Second, maybe we’re working off of different definitions, but I am taking emotion to be the opposite of, perhaps a complement to, rationalism. Rational is deductive and logical, whereas emotion and intuition are not that. It was this sense of rationalism in Corkscrew’s writing – “Collins is arational – he accepts the facts, he just doesn’t take the most parsimonious interpretation of them” – to which I was referring. (Contra PZ, I wasn’t making the case that being “rational means you can’t appreciate beauty anymore.”) I don’t hold that, but Corkscrew seemed to, so I was arguing against *that* particular take on rationalism. (I may be doing Corkscrew’s perspectives violence in interpreting it in that fashion, but I’m left with that opinion.)
If Collins is allowed to be moved by music, then why can’t he be moved by theology. If Collins is not allowed to be moved by theology on the basis that he would then be irrational (or arational, as Corkscew put it), then he’s not allowed to be moved by music for similar reasons. I hold that the committment to rationalism at all times in our lives, with all decisions, with no exceptions being made regardless of the situation or lack of scientific import, is preposterous; I called instead for enlightenment, rather than rationalism, which seems to me more virtuous and inclusive. That was my thesis, however horrible I expressed it.
BCH
Jason are you a new earth creationist or old earth creationist?
Being moved by music doesn’t entail subscribing to beliefs unsupported by evidence. In fact, being moved by music doesn’t entail subscribing to any belief (other than that the piece in question is a moving one).
The problem I have with Collins is that he goes well beyond merely being “moved by theology”, to making anti-scientific claims about the natural world, specifically human evolution. Yes, that is irrational in a completely pejorative sense. And no, the music analogy is in no way, shape or form a relevant one to that issue.
quork–I was the one Collins emailed. I forwarded it to PZ because if it weren’t for him, I wouldn’t have written to Collins in the first place, but since Collins didn’t know about Kennedy’s crockumentary, it’s fair to assume he doesn’t know about this thread either (or the previous one).
He made it clear that that Kennedy was misusing an interview he (Collins) gave about his book a while back, that Kennedy’s broadcast was news to him, and that he was taking steps to get Kennedy to bugger off using his name.
However, he didn’t give permission to reprint his email, and I figure he’s had enough of being quoted without his okay.
Jason are you claiming that PZ quotes people in a way that makes it appear they support his position when in fact they don’t?
I think you’ll have a problem showing that.
Appreciation of music has nothing to do with epistemology. Collins claims not just that he appreciates theology as some sort of abstract art, but that it is true. He also claims there is scientific evidence to back up this truth claim.
Because he claims that science cannot address questions of the supernatural, but that he also has scientific evidence of God’s existence, he is self-contradictory. He is a hypocrite.
If you agree with these positions that Collins takes, then I am sorry to hear it.
Jason, don’t forget: “broad brush.” Don’t let your fans down.
Wouldn’t being “moved by theology” be something akin to finding a work of theology pleasant or enjoyable rather than being a believer? I’ve been “moved by theology” at times – in that I find the wok of some older, more pious philosophers enjoyable – yet I’m an atheist.
I think it’s perfectly rational to find enjoyment in music and art. But perhaps there’s an irrational way to do so too; I’m thinking of those people who further justify their enjoyment by arguing that art is a source of profound truth, on par with or perhaps stronger than empirical science. That sort of “postmodernist” position, I’d argue, is to art appreciation as religious belief is to being “moved by theology.” Both are irrational.
Hi, Molly!
Dr. Collins also responded to my e-mail with the same sentiments. I sent copies of both to PZ for his records but suggested that we not distribute Collins’ email on this forum for much the same reason. Glad to see others are willing to step up to the plate…SH
JASON-
Come on, speak up! We’re waiting on tinterhooks for you to show us PZ’s quote-mining.
Sorry, I just can’t resist: Steve, do we need to know? I think the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” defense has a power and dignity that speaks for itself. ;)
…
Sorry for just appearing out of the ether to be a smart ass.
I lurk at PT a lot, and followed the link here because I find Collins such an oddity. I do not at all understand his decision to embrace Christianity. I understand the feelings of awe his work must have inspired, just not why this in turn inspired him to be a born again. It seems to me like that would be the last thing one would want to do… but oh well.
I am very ambivalent about it though. I appreciate that he strongly criticizes the anti-evolution crowd. Just because he’s Christian he has a better chance of gettting through. On the other hand I think his position is silly. And a bit like the traditional version of Cinderella, where the stepsisters hack their toes and heels off in a desperate (and bloody- you should see some of the illustrations!) attempt to fit into the glass slipper.
Very true. The only way that exposing oneself to aesthetic pleasure could be contrued as irrational is if I were listening to a concert during an earthquake with the hall ceiling about to fall down, or something like that. And even then the irrationality would not be inherent in the experience of beauty.
The sense of beauty and scientific creativity seem to be neurologically associated, so it can be argued that it’s particularly rational for scientists to sharpen their aesthetic perception.
Except the part about unifying religion and science. That’s syncretism all over.
We have dozens of people loudly proclaiming that one can accept the findings of science while accepting religious tenets, which is sometimes true but always misleading. The issue is not whether a finding of science conflicts with religion, but whether the method of science conflicts with religion, which it does. Necessarily, and always.
Faith and reason are not compatible. Pretending that they are so denigrates both.
Apparently, some people don’t watch “enough” Star Trek. Vulcan’s where not devoid of art, they just talked about it being “pleasing”, rather than moving, same with music, etc. Their emotional state was surpressed, often ritualistically in some cases, where the natural control wasn’t available from birth for some reason, like T’vok in one episode of Voyager, which referred to his childhood. They didn’t “lack” the capacity to enjoy things, they just went to rediculous extremes to supress it, on the grounds that in the distant past “not” doing so led to all sorts of insanities, including civil wars. There are also hints too though, here in there in the various series, but more prominently in Enterprise that the philosopher who led them to the change didn’t really intend to take it to the extreme they did either. Anything taken to an extreme in unhealthy, even logic. But one can hardly argue that the lack of self examination and critical thinking implied by Collins’ interpretations of things could be described as going “too far” (unless you are trying to make a very ludicrous joke), never mind merely, “far enough”.
Oh? What about moderation?
“All things in moderation. Including moderation.”
Then it follows that ‘extremes’ aren’t necessarily unhealthy.
One way to tell whether a person is actually thinking or just mindlessly repeating learned statements is to see if they repeat specific, invalid sayings. “Extremes are bad”, and variations on that concept, are examples of such invalidities.
Hey, Jason, how old do you think the earth is?
I tend to take moderation to extremes. My friends tell me I go way overboard with it.
…just when you think there are no further depths to which a creationist will sink, there they go, plumbing ever deeper. Kennedy and his crew are apparently putting together the video equivalent of a quote mine.
Didn’t some creationist group do something similar to Dawkins a while back?
“I don’t quite understand people who argue that being rational means you can’t appreciate beauty anymore, or that you have to be an emotionless robot.”
I think one should be careful to separate what is rational from what is scientific. You would never get a court to take away anyone’s rights to their own possessions by claiming they were irrational for believing in a god. A fair definition of rationality is: governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or obvious prejudice. Now I would propose that not to at least profess to believe in God in say Iraq where, since the US invasion they apparently shoot people for arranging vegetables incorrectly, let alone for not believing, would be irrational. It could get you killed. That is not sensible. We are social animals, if you are brought up among believers where the presence of god is an accepted entity, to believe is entirely rational. It is sensible thinking and judgment. It is the way to fit in and do well. If from young you have prayed to a god and it has seemed to help, going on doing so is entirely rational. If you really feel good after prayer, I would say to stop may be irrational. You can be rational according to your society and your feelings, without being scientific, which I would say is specialized form of rationalism. But I think we might look a little absurd if we refer to everyone who believes in some sort of religion as irrational, at least in the way our society looks at rationality today.
Well…
I think that religion can nevertheless be called irrational, though. Ultimately, holding a religous belief means either directly denying scientific findings that have real, physical evidence to back it up, or, if willing to concede that the science is always correct (or at least a better approximation of truth than religious belief), holding on to vaguely Deistic or pantheistic nonprovables. Which isn’t exactly rational.
The point about conforming to the local religion as being a rational strategy doesn’t mean that the religion (or other local customs) are rational, just that appearing to respect the local customs is rational. Picking a fight with a tiger or a group of other wild animals is irrational because it will also get one killed; that doesn’t mean that the animals are acting rationally when they kill one.
At least with humans there is at least the possibility of making an appeal to rationality, as unlikely as that sometimes seems.
Liking some type of art (stories, music, paintings, etc) is mildly irrational, but acknowledging that the preference is irrational is rational. Asserting that the art is true, or depicts true events (without other evidence), is taking an irrationality and increasing its severity into delusion.
“Liking some type of art (stories, music, paintings, etc) is mildly irrational”
Not at all. It is just part of what we are. There is nothing irrational about preferences, and they are very important part of how we function. I have heard that in some rare forms of illness in which all emotion gets cut off, people cannot make the simplest decision and will spend hours deciding which breakfast cereal to eat.
“Liking some type of art (stories, music, paintings, etc) is mildly irrational”
oldhippie wrote:
Some years ago New Scientist ran a feature looking at the latest research into the role emotions play in human intelligence.
I remember it quoted the case of a man who suffered a brain injury in an accident. He recovered but was left more or less incapable of emotional responses.
Prior to the accident, he had a thriving career, marriage and children. Afterwards, he lost his job and his marriage broke up.
Apparently, although he was able make rational assessments of various alternatives open to him, he found it very difficult to choose between them and no longer felt anything for his wife and family.
Perhaps the problem is that there isn’t enough gradation in just rational/irrational. Rational ideas arise from reason; irrational ideas are specifically against reason. So “nonrational” could be used to refer to that which doesn’t arise from reason, but which isn’t against reason either. Thus, rather than using the phrase “mildly irrational”, I should have used “nonrational”.
So my point could have been better phrased as: asserting that nonrational preferences are “true” is irrational; the greater the emotional emphasis on their truth, the greater the irrationality.
Collins is not arational. He is a liar. He says that human morality cannot have a natural explanation. This has nothing to do with an aesthetic need to believe in a god.
Thanks for that back Ian, my source was Ackerman’s “an alchemy of the mind”, a really interesting book I highly recommend.
“Thus, rather than using the phrase “mildly irrational”, I should have used “nonrational”.
No, rational as we use it is not confined only to reason devoid of feeling. For example I like the taste of chocolate, so I eat it. That is a rational action – it has a valid reason. Liking chocolate is also a function of my biology so liking it is not irrational either. Similarly I start getting fat so I stop eating chocolate, that is also rational for the same reason. There is nothing irrational about having preferences, likes, dislikes, enjoying music etc, unless they become phobias or compulsions to the degree they become out of proportion enough to be considered irrational.
“He says that human morality cannot have a natural explanation”
If Collins says that, he is at the very least overly ignorant for a scientist. I have aso heard him say that his belief in god is scientific. I would love to hear his explanation for that. Because it sounds irrational and completely off the wall.
Junk science,
I have not seen him make that statement. I think he said that science doesn’t provide an ethical system — which is true. Seems highly irrational to call him a liar.
Oldhippie,
That’s a great description you posted above. Thanks.
He made this statement in his Salon interview:
He unambiguously offers our understanding of morality as evidence for the existence of “a God who really cares about us.” He’s either dishonest or extremely stupid, and I’d prefer to give him enough credit not to call him stupid.
Junk science, that’s quite a stretch. I hope you are not called to jury duty.
It’s not a stretch at all.
“I did not leap to a conclusion. I took one tiny little step, and there conclusion was.”
Hey gang:
I don’t believe Collins said that “human morality cannot have a natural explanation.” If you have that quote, I’d like to see it. What Collins has specifically said on that topic, to my knowledge, is this:
“Sociobiologists will argue that human nature is all, in some way, an evolutionary consequence. That just never seemed particularly compelling to me as an explanation for the moral law: that we know somehow intrinsically, and yet often do not obey.”
You can find that quote here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf
So Collins clearly is not denying that naturalistic accounts of morality exist; rather, he is saying that he is not convinced by such accounts. I’m not myself swayed by his line of reasoning, but I think it’s a bit much to claim that he is ignorant, or a liar.
In fact, I would ask if some of you guys see the irony here? There are people here who are quick to point out the logical fallacy in the ‘trillemma’ argument proposed by Collins’ inspiration (C.S. Lewis); you know, the ‘liar/lunatic/Lord’ business. Clearly, there are other possibilities so Lewis’s argument is not compelling.
In the same vein, many of us seem predisposed to assume that Collins must be either a liar, or else ignorant. Not only does this not seem born out by the quote I provided, it reveals that desire (so prevalent amongst the religious) to first dichotomize, then demonize. Scientists should resist this impulse.
Sincerely…SH
In some way?
In some way?!
It’s perfectly clear to me that this individual doesn’t believe evolutionary change can be responsible for our moral and ethical impulses. There’s a great deal of research on how certain concepts are build into human beings, and even more research on how those concepts might have arisen from an evolutionary standpoint. Saying that one “doesn’t find it convincing” then talking about Invisible Sky Fairies is rather like saying one doesn’t find explanations of how the Pyramids were built to be convincing, then speculating that alien UFOs run by glowing-eyed parasites might have been involved.
If you saw this weekend’s installed of The Coral Ridge Hour from D. James Kennedy’s Ministry of Propaganda, you got to see clips of Ann Coulter blathering about the supposed flaws in the theory of evolution and how oppressive government monopolies on education are brainwashing our children (not that she has any children herself). I transcribed Coulter’s quotes and posted them here. Anyone who wants to can therefore scan them quickly without losing one’s cookies through exposure to the actual video. (The words alone are bad enough.)
Consider yourself warned.
Well, Caledonian, as I said I’m not convinced by Collins’ argument, perhaps because I know a little something about the topic. I’ve read Hamilton, Trivers, Wilson, Dawkins, etc. and I’m persuaded that natural selection is the best explanation for altruism, just like it’s the best explanation for a lot of other human traits.
But there really is a difference between being aware of a line of reasoning and being familiar with the research that informs it, much less being persuaded by it. Many of us on this thread are guilty of not making that distinction with respect to the views of Frances Collins, and that’s the point I was attempting to make.
(Besides, as long as we’re being logical, it would not follow that if the sociobiology research program was to some degree falsified that it would necessarily follow that no naturalistic explanation existed. You can defend your agenda admirably by criticizing Collins’ views; there is no dichotomy that requires you to also defend, for example, kin selection. Of course, if you prefer dichotomous thinking, knock yourself out.)
Just the facts, ma’am….SH
So Collins clearly is not denying that naturalistic accounts of morality exist; rather, he is saying that he is not convinced by such accounts. I’m not myself swayed by his line of reasoning, but I think it’s a bit much to claim that he is ignorant, or a liar.
To assert again and again that science and religion are “compatible” or “complementary” interpretations of reality is either lying or being criminally disingenuous. For Collins to use his authority as a scientist to make this assertion is reprehensible. He provides no explanations for his faith that any rational thinker would find compelling. Either he is lying to himself or to other people or he’s a hideous scientist, which doesn’t seem to be the case.
Agreed, although one must wonder about someone who finds the natural answer less persuasive than an invisible superbeing. It is really an odd way to think.
And is virtually no different than a ‘gap’ argument, I can’t understand it therefor a supernatural agent did it.
“Agreed, although one must wonder about someone who finds the natural answer less persuasive than an invisible superbeing. It is really an odd way to think.”
Absolutely, from a scientific point of view. But what we decide to believe in is also based on cultural norms and feelings as much an anything else. And the reason for this is that is the way our brains have evolved. Our natural tendency is to look for quick and dirty solutions that seem to work, not exacting ones that take a lot of time and thought. If we had been too exacting sometime in the past a tiger would have eaten us while we were still conteplating whether we were sure it was a threat.
It takes considerable study and thought to understand where we came form and what we are. A simple belief works just as well in a practical way of making people feel comfortable in the world and is a lot less work.
Religion is a cultural phenomenon with no apparent basis in fact. If only one person in a society believed in god they would be considered by the rest as just as stark raving bonkers as someone that believes in fairies.
Oldhippie, summed it quite nicely with “Religion is a cultural phenomenon with no apparent basis in fact.” I wish more of the science supporters here (Caledonian and junk science to name two) would actually look at the situation with their science hats on and give the “if I shout louder they will be enlightened” hat a rest.
As oldhippie said, “It takes considerable study and thought to understand where we came from and what we are.” The same effort is required to understand why people — even scientists — continue to believe in the supernatural and how to address this state of affairs.
One way to tell whether a person is actually thinking or just mindlessly repeating learned statements is to see if they repeat specific, invalid sayings.
Interesting. I find that another way to tell that is to see whether someone is asking questions for the purpose of clarifying someone’s position and reaching consensus, or simply trying to trip them up with ridiculous gotchas. For instance:
“Oh? What about moderation?”
Ah, now there’s a reliable warning sign. Not erroneous in itself, but frequently indicative of the wrong attitude towards logical truths.
Note: I can’t trip you in ‘gotchas’ if you don’t put your head in the noose. Weaving the rope, then twisting it into a knot and handing it to me, would probably also be contraindicated.
To make a speech like this
a man has to actively turn off his brain. If he were to admit that his belief in Christ is completely irrational and unscientific, I might believe that he could be reached. Instead, he pretends that his faith is in any way compatible with his understanding of science, for which he should not be excused.
Junk Science:
What do you mean by ‘lying to one’s self?’ Does it equate, in your mind, with belief or with something else? I mean, I’m genuinely confused here. Do you think Collins knows better, but doesn’t want to admit what he knows? Did Collins know better once, but deliberately suppress what he knew because he ‘couldn’t handle the truth’, and so now he doesn’t know better? I mean, I have questions.
By the way, with respect to Chet, this is not a gotcha, ridiculous or otherwise.
Curiously….Scott
I have no idea what Collins’s thought process is. I know that he’s pretending his irrational beliefs are rational and can be aligned with his knowledge of science. Either he really believes this, in which case he’s genuinely mistaken or lying to himself, or he doesn’t, in which case he’s lying to others.
I’m sorry, Junk Science, I’m to blame for not speaking clearly. I wasn’t really interested in determining Collins’ thought process, nor did I mean to imply that you were or had to be telepathic! I was just trying to understand what you MEANT by the phrase ‘lying to himself’ and I hurriedly threw out a few possibilities. I would still be interested in anyone’s comments on the notion.
Thanks…Scott
Junk science,
So there is no place for poetry or imaginative speech acts in your brain, or the brain of a scientist?
Maybe he can’t bear to conceive of a reality without a god, so he’s consciously or unconsciously pretending that his irrational beliefs can be reconciled with reality. But I don’t want to put thoughts in anyone’s head.
Of course there is, if they’re not mistaken for objective truth.
Wasn’t O’Brien complaining bitterly about ad hominems Juat a day or so ago?
There is an important distinction between insults and ad hominems. Of course, when insults are the only response to an argument, and the argument doesn’t appear to be obviously invalid or incorrect, that distinction blurs very rapidly.
Well, true.
“You’re an idiot” followed by a complete failure to rebut the argument is logically different from “you’re an idiot, therefore I don’t need to rebut your argument”. But you could cut yourself on the difference.
I still say O’Brien reeks of hypocracy.
Junk Science: Thanks for your reply!
Everyone else: Over at the Panda’s Thumb, B. Spitzer writes something that seems penetrating to me. With respect to Collins, he opines: “It looks to me as though people are reacting not to what Collins has actually said or done, but are instead basing their reactions on whether or not they approve of religion. Those who can get along with religion are giving him the benefit of the doubt; those who hate religion are looking for reasons to dislike him.”
I think this colors the discussion over here, as well. One senses a certain joy in some when Collins appeared to be in bed with Coral Ridge and, a little bit later, a sense of disappointment from the same quarter when the certainty of that seems to evaporate. Whereas, speaking only for myself, I feel alarm when any senior scientist appears to be carrying water for the creationists and satisfaction when they disassociate themselves from the same.
Scott
Burt Humburg: The problem is that theologies make claims about the world, and moreover those claims seem to be part of what believers want to adopt. Is the difference between Islam and Christianity (say) to be just a difference in musical style? I don’t think Collins or the vast majority of believers would claim that. Collins, for example, is on record as claiming that there is some sort of ontological difference about humans, particularly their ethical “sense”. That’s a claim about the world …
Kagehi: Moreover – Spock explains quite clearly that the Vulcan emotionlessness is basically a religious belief. Figure that one out.
Owlmirror: I’ve also stressed here that I always consider irrationality to come in degrees. I’ve said (for example) that the previous Pope was clearly a creationist but one of less irrationality than the ID proponents. (I don’t think one can quantify irrationality yet, but an ordering is certainly doable.)
JimC: Right – and that would be true even if there were no avenues of known research available. (Incidentally one doesn’t have to appeal to the evolutionary psychology literature here; there are also other, non-evolutionary works on the origins and development of ethics. Piaget, I believe, did some work in this area many years ago.) This is because of what E. O. Wilson calls “consilience” and Mario Bunge calls “convergence” (of research fields).
PZ wrote:
I wouldn’t worry about it.
Heck, philosophically, I think he is wrong about the existence of a personal god (that goes without saying), and what I have seen quoted suggests that his theology is a little sloppy. But I still think he is on the right side. In any case, with pluralism, there are bound to be disagreements – some of which will be fairly strong disagreements – but I find this preferable to the alternative.
Caledonian wrote:
He is dubious about our discovering a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. (I am not.) However, he also believes that if we discover a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, this will in no way affect his belief in his god. At least in this case, he does not seem to be advocating the existence of violations of natural law.
Do you have something else in mind?
I suspect that his notion of a personal god is a great deal more abstract than this – as suggested above. Is there a reason why you are trying to paint it as some primitive, animistic, tribal belief?
I do believe you have demonstrating admirable fencing ability against that strawman!
PZ wrote:
He should give some thought with regard to the phrasing, but he should make a statement and have people quote away. I hope that he will reconsider.
He’s a Christian, for Christ’s sake.
Caledonian (and for that matter, PZ):
Why such vehemence against a potential ally? Your “my way or the high-way” approach is such a non-starter… Look, if 65% of the US doesn’t even believe in evolution, then they are bigger fish to fry than a famous scientist who does. Just because his religious beliefs don’t match yours does not make him an idiot. The human genome project, in which he played a significant part, is the ultimate proof of evolution. (Would an intelligent designer have filled our genome with pseudogenes and retro-transposons?) Dr. Collins has done much to advance our knowledge of human biology, and to help translate that knowledge into treatments. Can any of us say the same? (PZ, where are all your recent publications? I can’t find them in PubMed…) So lighten up on the intolerence! That mindset is no more attractive in atheists than in fundies.
Keith,
I tried to make that same case a few threads back and it falls on deaf ears. The general tone of one faction here seems to be “any scientist who expresses a belief in God must be exposed as an idiot otherwise the demise of science is close at hand.” It’s a kind of End Times for Scientists — complete with evangelical ferver.
Caledonian:
In recent months it has occurred to me that atheists, as a group, constitute an oppressed minority group in this country. It was only after meeting with a number of atheists personally over the last several months that I became aware of the extent of this phenomena. Before you say, ‘duh, what took you so long?’ keep in mind that, as a believer, I hadn’t necessarily had those kind of open discussions with anyone, anywhere. I plead ignorance, and, to the extent that my ignorance furthered such injustice, I ask your forgiveness.
I conclude, also, that many vocal atheists are motivated not just by intolerance, but by intense persecution which often couples criticism of their beliefs with that of their lifestyles (antigay propaganda and so forth). I want to make it clear that I reject those sort of dealings with atheists, of whom at least two in my experience are among the most decent, the most moral and (to my mind) far more ‘Christian’ in their conduct than I think this sinner could ever be. I would rather have a deep, heartfelt conversation with one of those folk than rest in the bosom of a multitude of thoughtless ‘believers’, and I have no use for a God that would condemn honest doubters for honest doubt. I would rather burn in Hell than worship such a God.
Having said that, I must tell you I’m disappointed by your rhetoric. To equate Christianity as a whole with animism and other primitive beliefs is hyperbolic and betrays a lack of sophistication that, if you will forgive the irony, completely undercuts your atheistic ‘witness’.
The Abrahamic faiths, whatever their merits or lack of same, are not concerned with totems or with pent-up dryads. They speak of a transcendent God, preexistent and independent from Nature. That God may well not exist, but it is a very different God from the cartoon version of faith that you rail against. I may yet be a fool for believing what I believe, and you can make of that statement what you will, but I am not so much a fool that I can not make the above distinction. You will never convince any knowledgeable theist with arguments that misrepresent the core of their faith. You have many arguments at your disposal, some very forceful, that do not rely upon such misrepresentations: why not employ them instead?
Passionately…Scott
Pharyngula gets a mention in today’s WingNut Daily.
I have to agree with Scott, if most so called Christians really knew what they where talking about, really under stood not only the Holiness of God but also the Rightesneous of God then it would be really interesting to see how many atheists and pagan religions there really would be. For it is in that knowledge and that knowledge only that you will truly beleive that we can’t just occur by accident, and more important WHY God is not only a God of love but also a God of Wrath. With this knowledge shown I myself just as Scot have not and cannot be shown to be a fool in our beleif.
Have a great day / night whatever time it is where ever you are.
Ian,
I think you are refering to the Phineas Gage-case. It is indeed a very good example of how emotions and rational thinking/practical problemsolving are connected.
A very nice overview of this case and also a generalization of the importance of emotional values to rational thinking appears in “Descartes´Error- Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain”, by Antonio Damasio.
Of course, you can also find the Phineas Gage-case in many other neurology and neuropshychology books. It’s a kind of reference casestudy.
Kim
Presented without comment.
Scott, your attitude toward science and religion is far from the norm. I wish its effects were universally as benign as those you share here. However, you have gone beyond the pale of most of the religious by claiming that facts must trump beliefs. If you were representative, I’d have less to say about religion as an atheist than I would about some genre of fiction I don’t particularly care for. Sometimes, religion can be as harmless as any other cultural or esthetic choice, were it not for the religious.
Religion is far from “mostly harmless,” especially any Abrahamic faith. I can no longer regard religion as “another man’s belly laugh” along with Heinlein. These days, I see it not just as a brain-rotting childhood innoculation against critical thinking, but as Dawkins’ loaded guns, littering the streets for any madman to pick up and use against his neighbors. Christianity is no less primitive than any other religion, its gods no less preposterous than those of any other.
As for Francis Collins, how did he expect his “science-approved” stamp on naive Sunday School drivel to be greeted by the enemies of science? I hope these fleas he’s waking up with will show him what kind of dogs he’s chosen to lie with.
Ken: Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree with much of what you say, especially the fleas. I’ll go further and note that I end up with fleas now and then as well, as the post by Gerben shows. I agree that all religions seem to encourage the faithful to check their brains at the door, which from your point of view I suppose renders them all equally primitive.
Having reclaimed my brain from dull orthodoxy, however, I can make the distinction between, say, a transcendental view of God and an animist conception of reality which really does not distinguish between the natural and the supernatural. Wouldn’t you agree that it’s easier to do science with the former than the latter?
Thanks again…Scott
No matter how “transcendental” Collins’ view of his god, it’s still standing in his way intellectually, preventing him from seriously considering the possibility that human morality has a natural, evolutionary cause. But I don’t think he’s that dangerous to science, really, especially considering its present enemies. He’s determined to keep his faith in his god no matter what, and that’s fine, as long as he’s not trying too hard to fight the forces of reality.
Darwin’s theory has more holes in it than my grandmother’s underwear. The real question is why are Evolutionist afraid of an open enviroment where both sides are discussed? To me it exposes a weak link and only proves that fervent evolutionism is a religion….
Speaking of fleas…
Copernicus’s theory has more holes in it than my grandmother’s underwear. The real question is why are round-earthists afraid of an open enviroment where both sides are discussed? To me it exposes a weak link and only proves that fervent heliocentrism is a religion….
Lewis: (in a cheerful voice)
Nuts. You are seriously misinformed, my friend. Look: I’m not an ‘evolutionist’. I don’t BELIEVE in evolution. I don’t take it on FAITH. It’s not a substitute religion for me. I’m a Christian (Methodist), thank you very much.
But I am also very much a Darwinian. I’m deeply influenced by Darwin’s thought, as all evolutionary biologists are. The problem here is that casual usage of the term ‘evolutionist’ leads to a misleading impresion among (ahem) the uninformed. When a biologist describes themself as an ‘evolutionist’, they are in all likelihood not describing what they hold as a belief that needs to be taken on faith. They mean something different. Yes, it is a world view of sorts, but it is not a belief system.
People like me are not afraid of different views, but as scientists we object to others pushing what are patently beliefs as science. Evolution in and of itself is not a belief and does not need to be taken on faith. It’s a fact, and I KNOW that it is true, the same way that I KNOW that there’s a Law of Gravity and that lightning is electricity, etc.
So, from my point of view the ‘fervent evolutionism’ that you object to is largely a straw man. It doesn’t really exist, except in the mind of misguided and ill-informed ‘believers’ who project their way of thinking onto legitimate scientists.
I’m sorry, but wasn’t Darwin studying to be a Priest before his trip to the Galapagos? Even after he came up with the theory of evolution he still believed he was discovering how God made the Earth and it’s life through Evolution. Why is it you have to be an atheist to believe in Evolution; that logic is seriously flawed.
Logic isn’t really used when believing in a god either.
Steve you miss my point. I am not saying logic is used to believe in God. I am saying that the logic that you have to be an Atheist to believe in Evolution is a flawed logic.
Speaking of fleas…how original?
Scott thanks for the meaningful reply. So what you are saying is that “evolutionist” believe in micro evolution? Which, I don’t really think contradicts what the creationist believe. Am I missing something here? Maybe a link? (Pun intended)
Lewis, from which anti-science Sunday School tract did you crib your ignorant little squawk about evolution and your granny’s undies?
Your claims about evolution are no more true than the idea that the fact of the earth’s orbiting the sun is a religious belief. In a discussion about the fact and theory of evolution, the only reason to give equal time to ignorance and deceit, like that trotted out by you, would be to provide special dispensation for the sort of religion that can’t deal with reality.
Where did you find any reference to “micro evolution” in Scott’s entirely too patient response to you? When his main point was to disavow the notion that science is a belief, for what purpose would you pretend to infer that Scott is telling you scientists believe in micro evolution, unless you wanted to make everybody understand that you have no capacity to comprehend what you read?
Ken,
I can see this is getting no where…the part about “granny’s undies” was an attempt to prove that Darwinist can be just as much “religious” in their views…so impassioned in their stance that anything that would contradict what they believe, even if plausable, would not be given a fair hearing. Your response only proved (at least to me) my point as your disdain and hate could not be controlled. For You assumed that I was one way or the other, when in fact, I am neither one. My goal was merely to find the arguments for and against…so that I could be better informed, evidently I’ll not find that here!
Why are most people here asserting various ideas without giving a reasonable basis for them? seems odd to me.
have any of you guys actually looked at Darwin’s hypothesis objectively alongside modern science?
tell me this:
Has an any scientist witnessed an increase of genetic complexity produced by mutations and passed on by natural selection? I haven’t.
has anyone seen real evidence of millions of years in geology? I personally struggle to understand how one tree trunk can bisect 20 million years worth of strata.
how come the oldest trees that still exist are aged by their rings to be about 4000 years old? By biblical chronology they started growing just after Noah’s flood?
how come the measurements God gave for Noah’s ark are considered by modern shipbuilders as the most stable design possible for floating on rough water.
I could ramble on about this for ages but i hope you got the point.
I can prove there is not a god. Oh, actually, I can’t. I have FAITH that there is no god.
Just like believers have FAITH there is a god. Same thing, no?
Brunhilde
How is it that the trolls always manage to hamfist their way into the old threads, rather than the current ones?
Oh yeah… it’s because they’re idiots.