Francis Collins has been the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993; he headed a multinational 2,400-scientist team that co-mapped the 3 billion biochemical letters of our genetic blueprint. Collins continues to lead his institute in studying the genome and mining it for medical breakthroughs. He is also a forthright Christian who converted from atheism at age 27 and now finds time to advise young evangelical scientists on how to declare their faith in science's largely agnostic upper reaches. His best seller in 2006 was, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press.) Here are some wise words from a debate that same year, with fellow scientist and agnostic, Richard Dawkins.
God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in.
By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable (this is the basis for the omni words, like omiscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.)
I don't think that it is God's purpose to make his intention absolutely obvious to us. If it suits him to be a deity that we must seek without being forced to, would it not have been sensible for him to use the mechanism of evolution without posting obvious road signs to reveal his role in creation?
The gravitational constant, if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. When you look at that evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. But if you are willing to consider the possibility of a designer, this becomes a rather plausible explanation for what is otherwise an exceedingly improbable event--namely, our existence.
Barring a theoretical resolution, which I think is unlikely, you either have to say there are zillions of parallel universes out there that we can't observe at present or you have to say there was a plan. I actually find the argument of the existence of a God who did the planning more compelling than the bubbling of all these multiverses. So Occam's razor--Occam says you should choose the explanation that is most simple and straightforward--leads me more to believe in God than in the multiverse, which seems quite a stretch of the imagination.
I think we don't do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case.
I would challenge the statement that my scientific instincts are any less rigorous than yours. The difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and yours is.
For you to argue that our noblest acts are a misfiring of Darwinian behavior does not do justice to the sense we all have about the absolutes that are involved here of good and evil. Evolution may explain some features of the moral law, but it can't explain why it should have any real significance. If it is solely an evolutionary convenience, there is really no such thing as good or evil. But for me, it is much more than that. The moral law is a reason to think of God as plausible--not just a God who sets the universe in motion but a God who cares about human beings, because we seem uniquely amongst creatures on the planet to have this far-developed sense of morality. What you've said implies that outside of the human mind, tuned by evolutionary processes, good and evil have no meaning. Do you agree with that?
Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 45
Things like the existence of God can't be tested with the scientific method. Intelligent Design and Creationism can't be tested with the scientific method either. They're matters of belief. Evolution, on the other hand is a scientific concept that provides an explanation for the diversity of life forms. It can be tested by the scientific method. It says nothing about purpose, only about how the diversity of life forms developed.
There's a big difference between a scientific theory and what most people call a theory. A scientific theory has been tested by experiment and/or extensive data gathering. In science what people would call a theory in ordinary discourse would be called a conjecture, meaning an idea that hasn't been tested. It's too bad that the word has two meanings depending on the context. It trips a lot of people up.
I don't think you understand what science tries to do. Science and dogma are incompatible by definition. One of the most basic activities in science is testing and retesting existing theory. One of the more interesting results in this area was the 20th century discovery that Newtonian mechanics doesn't work at the quantum level.
I don't think homo floresiensis does much to alter the basics of evolutionary theory. It raises some interesting questions about the particulars of the evolution of apes and humans but doesn't say much about evolution in general.
Why?
And yes Jack E. this is precisely why healthcare will never pass either.
We've all seen a water sprinkler in the middle of the yard spreading rings of water outward. By all appearances the falling drops seem random. But if we count enough of those drops long enough we will find a pattern.
We've all flipped a coin, heads or tails. The more you flip, the tighter the pattern becomes. Flip that coin long enough and you'll reach parity.
Proabililty, big deal. You can learn that watching TV shows like Numb3rs. I'm not sure why you would assume ANYONE wouldn't understand such a concept.
Occam's Razor doesn't deal with this. It's concerned with the number of assumptions required to arrive at a conclusion.
You do understand these aren't my quotes, and Occam's Razor is not a thought put forward by me.
This statement is patently absurd. If god knows the future, then the future is fixed. The future cannot be anything other than what god already knows it will be. You may think you have free will to choose whatever you want. But if god is omniscient, then he knows with certainty what you will do at every point in your life. In effect you cannot choose any other option but the option that god knows that you will opt for. Therefore, you have only ONE option at every point in your life: the option that god knows you will take. You cannot do anything other than what god knows you will do. You have no power whatsoever to do anything else. Therefore, when you have only ONE option, you do not actually have a choice, and thus you have no free will. You are not free to do anything whatsoever but that which god already knows you will do.
If god is omniscient, then god cannot be omnipotent because god has no power to do anything other than what he already knows he will do. He cannot change his own future since he knows with certainty exactly what he will do. He cannot change anything anywhere anytime since he is constrained by his own knowledge of what will happen and what he will do himself. Therefor, if god is omniscient, then he must be powerless.
There are so many choices available to me, I could eat something different every day for many months, and do, but what I happen to eat on the first day, the second day, and so on is my choice. Even though I could pick chicken fried rice on the first day, I happen to be cordon bleu. I had all of those choices for one moment in time, though God is able to imagine what my life would be like had I chosen the chicken fried rice instead, or the hot dogs, or the pizza or hamburger. God knows how my life would turn out no matter what I ate at any meal.
What if you took that job instead of turning it down? God knows how that different decision would have impacted your life for the rest of your life, and IF you had made that choice then and only then would the alternate reality have happened. What if you took the job but insisted you need a six moth hiatus before starting? What if you took the job, but in a freak, unanticipated moment they withdrew the offer without reason? God knows the resolution to all of those scenarios, and how the rest of your life would be different after turning on a moment in time. It's like timelines, alternate versions of you if the circumstances were different. The idea there is only one reality at any given point in time, seems rather limited to me. God knows what you will do, no matter what you do, that's how many probabilities God processes in an instant. He measures each and every moment of your life against each and every other moment of your life, one, cannot logically exist without the other, you must be the collection of decisions you are to be you, and God knows every collection of decisions you could ever be, not only does he know what you will do he knows what you won't do and what you could do if you wanted to or knew how to or if you had the courage to do it, that's why God is all of those omni words.
No, Maggie, god does not IMAGINE. God KNOWS what your life would be like had you chosen this or that. But that does not obviate the choice that you DID make, or will make for that matter, being exactly what god KNOWS you will make in this reality or that reality. You still have no power whatsoever to fool god in any reality since he is omniscient in any reality at any point in time. You still have no choice at all because you have only ONE thing that you can do, if god is omniscient.
You actually said it yourself: God knows what you will do, no matter what you do,... Exactly!!
The rest of your sentence: that's how many probabilities God processes in an instant.
Probabilities????? If god is omniscient, he does not deal in Probabilities!! He deals in absolute KNOWING. You are contradicting yourself! Probabilities inherently include an element of chance, and by definition, a probability is an admission of not knowing for certain what the outcome will be. And chance can play no part of omniscience. Perhaps you do not understand what a probability is.
Whatever reality you are in, or will be in, an omniscient god will know for certain exactly how you will choose in that reality. So you still have only one option - to do exactly what god knows you will do.
If there is only one god for all these realities you speak of, then you are still constrained to do nothing else but what god knows you will do. For example, in this reality, god knows exactly what words I will type for this comment. The words that I could have chosen, or might choose, are irrelevant because god knows what words I DID choose. But I had no other option but to choose the words that god already knew I would.
If god is omniscient, he cannot be processing probabilities or anything at all because he already has perfect knowledge of everything and has no need to think anything new. If god is omniscient, I repeat, god already knows what he himself will do. Thus god must be like an automaton than can do nothing other than what the automaton is already programmed to do. Again, if god is omniscient, then he cannot be omnipotent since he has no power to do anything other that what he already knows he will do.
What I have tried to do is explain the very basic and simple concept (not just the words) of omniscience and omnipotence. Do you have a different definition of those words and/or concepts? Omniscience mean knowing everything with certainty, doesn't it? How about omnipotence? What do YOU think it means?
In effect, you did not give me a concept that was easy to understand - you gave me a concept that is logically invalid.
It is really not the words, Maggie, but the actual concepts that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive. It is simple logic, not rocket science. It is the same with omnipotence and omniscience - they are not logically compatible and cannot both be true.
If you think that being rational and thoughtful and logical is hubris on my part, then I say that you certainly have a right to your opinion. I am not about to engage in ad hominem exchanges.
All I am asking is that you evaluate your beliefs in a rational and logical light. If you choose not to do that, then so be it.
It is really soooo much easier to see the truth once you stop believing that you already have it. I have searched for truth all my life. What truth have I found? Well, very little actually,... but what I HAVE found is that there are a lot of things that are NOT true.
On the other hand, never mind.
how noble in reason,
how infinite in faculties,
in form and moving how express and admirable,
in action how like an angel,
in apprehension how like a god!
the beauty of the world,
the paragon of animals—and yet, to me,
what is this quintessence of dust?
Man delights not me—
nor woman neither,
though by your smiling you seem to say so.