Bigfoot atheist Sam Harris lays into Francis Collins, the new NIH Director, here. It’s a considerably expanded version (7,570 words vs. 953) of an Op-Ed Harris did for the New York Times.
-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
As Theodore Dalyrmple notes in his brilliant essay on the new atheists, Harris comes across as an angry adoloscent. One wonders what Harris thinks he is accomplishing in arguing that Christianity is incompatible with science. Most American Christians see no conflict between science and faith, a happy situation for both. Why does this bother Harris so?
Too bad Harris wasn’t around to protect science from contamination by the likes of Msgr. Georges Lemaitre or Abbot Gregor Mendel, O. S. A. No doubt they were every bit as “irrational” as Collins, probably more so, since they were actually priests. Of course, they contributed more to science that Harris has, or will, but Harris wants us to ignore inconvenient facts like those.
Well, Collins’ chronology of the creation of the universe and Almighty God’s subsequent check-up to install us with moral law didn’t exactly fry my eggs.
Piatak: Your reply yet again shows why so many people who defend the compatibility thesis are hopelessly wrong. It doesn’t matter that many famous and important scientists are religious, except if what you mean by compatibility of science and Christianity is that a human being can hold both in his head. The religiosity of many scientists is no more an “inconvenient fact” than the existence of any other person who has two or more mutually exclusive ideas. So it doesn’t matter that “most American Christians see no conflict” – because their opinion doesn’t settle the real (philosophical) question of whether Christianity and religion in general are compatible with the underpinnings and the findings of science.
This isn’t a philosophical question, it’s a practical one. Harris wrote his op-ed in the Times to oppose Collins’ appointment to NIH. Harris wants scientists who believe in God to be excluded from employment on the basis that they believe in God. That is essentially what Harris is arguing, and that is bigotry, pure and simple. It’s also stupid bigotry, because the example of scientists like Mendel, Lemaitre, and indeed Collins shows that what Harris takes to be the fundamental irrationality of Christianity is no impediment at all to scientific achievement.
John Derbyshire is proud of his English practicality and scornful of metaphysics. Harris’ argument is entirely metaphysical–he admits Collins’ sterling scientific credentials and produces no evidence at all that Collins’ beliefs have compromised his science, though he insists loudly that they should.
@Tom Piatak
Pointing out the tiger in the room, I suspect.
Christianity IS incompatible with science, as are all religions. Truth is not determined by taking a poll of people’s feelings; what any number of Americans feel is not relevant.
We might plausibly argue that believing that the Earth is a flat disk suspended upon a gigantic turtle and the Moon a mile-wide sphere of unripened cheese has no implications for one’s ability to do good work in biochemistry.
However, those beliefs are not compatible with consistent utilization of the scientific method, and thus with the state of being a scientist. Such a person, no matter how skilled they are at biochemistry, is only a technician. Possibly a very skilled or even a gifted one, but a technician nevertheless.
It is not bigotry to refuse leadership of a scientific organization to a non-scientist, for the same reason it would not be bigotry to refuse to accept a Buddhist as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
Caledonian:
So Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, and Lavoisier were “non-scientists?” Interesting.
I’d love be a lawyer on the other side of a religious discrimination lawsuit brought by a scientist who was fired becuase “Christianity is incompatible with science.” After you get finished explaining to the jury and the judge that that isn’t bigotry, I get to retire on the punitive damages award the jury has returned.
“Harris wants scientists who believe in God to be excluded from employment on the basis that they believe in God.”
Except that he doesn’t. Have you actually read his essay?
@kurt9
Hmm. He is smarter than I thought.
Alex,
Yes, I read the essay and the NY Times op-ed it expanded. This is how Harris conludes his op-ed: “Francis Collins is an accomplished scientist and a man who is sincere in his beliefs. And that is precisely what makes me so uncomfortable about his nomination. Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?”
This is how Kenneth Miller, biologist and Catholic, responded in his letter to the editor: “Sam Harris’s article attacking Dr. Francis S. Collins, President Obama’s nominee to be the director of the National Institutes of Health, demonstrates nothing so much as Mr. Harris’s own deeply held prejudices against religion. Dr. Collins’s sin, despite credentials Mr. Harris calls ‘impeccable,’ is that he is a Christian. Mr. Harris is not alone in holding this view. A leading science blogger, also attacking Dr. Collins, demonstrated his own commitment to reasoned dialogue by calling the scientist a ‘clown’ and a ‘flaming idjit.’ When reason has such defenders, Heaven help us.”
I read Harris the same way Miller does. (The unnamed science blogger Miller refers to is the execrable PZ Myers.)
That’s a ridiculous reading of Harris, though. Surely you don’t believe that he would write the same of any Christian up for the position. Yes, the problem is Collins’ beliefs, but the problem is Collins’ beliefs because of the particular content of those beliefs and not their vaguely Christian character. Assume for the moment that the person up for the position was an outspoken advocate of creationism and had publicly lobbied for it to be taught alongside “Darwinism” in schools. Surely it would be sensible to say that the problem with the nominee is his/her religious beliefs, or at least the expression of those beliefs. Harris’ claim is that Collins’ beliefs are of this sort. He nowhere claims that the beliefs of all Christians are of this sort.
I’m personally uncomfortable with the idea of someone who’s used his legitimately-gained status to strenuously evangelize a philosophical/religious position being given a position of public authority from which he can continue his/her attempts at conversion. The director of the NIH oughtn’t to obviously take sides in significant disputes among scientists only peripherally related to doing science. I’d be uncomfortable with Richard Dawkins in such a position too. Whatever one thinks of the compatibility of science and religion, surely religious scientists should still be welcome members of the community and should be able to participate in science without constantly being challenged on their religious beliefs. But likewise it’s profoundly insulting to atheist scientists to make the head of the NIH someone who (loudly) thinks that they’re deeply irrational and who rejects the possibility of some of their ideas for research programs on face (and the research programs of many religious scientists, for that matter).
Tom, ever lived in the south? I grew up there and it was remarkable how bent of out of shape people would get over evolution. It doesn’t matter what “most American Christians” think if an activist minority are bent on censoring textbooks. See also the state of Kansas.
Also re: Miller’s response – Sam Harris said that he was “uncomfortable,” not violently opposed. Collins’ sin is not that he’s a Christian, but his silly, very illogical attempts to argue that his particularly evangelical view of Christianity is compatible with science. Harris just has the balls (and eloquence) to call BS on it.
We all hold illogical beliefs — we’re emotional creatures, after all — but that doesn’t mean we all have to argue that they are in fact scientific. That Collins tries to do so opens him up to argument.
Gotchaye:
No, it’s not a ridiculous reading of Harris. What he lists as Collins’ supposedly disturbing beliefs are, in fact, pretty mainstream expressions of orthodox Christianity. As evidence of rationality, Harris and his ideological allies demand a confession that God does not exist, which is why P Z Myers bitterly attacks Kenneth Miller, who has provided expert testimony against “Intelligent Design” in court, as a “creationist.”
Nor do only religious believers read Harris this way. This is what Theodore Dalrymple, a non-believer, had to say of Harris’ book “The End of Faith:”
“This sloppiness and lack of intellectual scruple, with the assumption of certainty where there is none, combined with adolescent shrillness and intolerance, reach an apogee in Sam Harris’s book ‘The End of Faith.’ It is not easy to do justice to the book’s nastiness; it makes Dawkins’s claim that religious education constitutes child abuse seem sane and moderate.”
“Harris tells us, for example, that ‘we must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. Given the present state of the world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting.’ I am glad that I am old enough that I shall not see the future of reason as laid down by Harris; but I am puzzled by the status of the compulsion in the first sentence I have quoted. Is Harris writing of a historical inevitability? Of a categorial imperative? Or is he merely making a legislative proposal? This is who-will-rid-me-of-this-troublesome-priest language, ambiguous no doubt, but not open to generous interpretation.”
Gotchaye just made me realize something…the New Atheists aren’t fundamentalists.
They are evangelists.
Is Dr. Collins a Scientist of the Third Culture?
Collins view of a Maker that occasionally “tunes up” humans when their brain “houses” are ready reminds me of the alien monoliths in the novelization of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Only the monoliths taught us and our ancestors useful things, like how to kill tapirs and how to become a space fetus. Where would we be without those black slabs?
Many people claim to have reconciled science with faith, but it’s not often (at least for me) that you see it written down. Unfortunately, these syntheses are always very stupid. For example, when exactly did God “gift” humanity with the moral law? How did he do it? Did we always have free will to break the moral law, or did He “gift” us with that beforehand? And so on.
As long as Collins doesn’t go all Discovery Institute on us, I won’t lose much sleep.
Tom, you’re talking about two different things there. Yes, Harris is an atheist. He thinks that theists are wrong, and he believes that there is sufficient evidence to reject all proposed religious theories. He sees those who disagree with him as incorrectly reasoning from their available evidence – he sees them as irrational. I think that pretty much everyone thinks this about the people who disagree with them on issues that they care about at all.
But that’s not quite the same as thinking that it would always be inappropriate for a Christian to be the director of the NIH. His case for Collins’ unsuitability is based on the particulars of Collins’ beliefs. Some of these beliefs are rather mainstream, but then so is creationism. These beliefs aren’t identical with Christianity or religion, however. Most of Harris’ letter seems summarizable as “Collins has expressed hostility to whole fields of scientific inquiry”. Again, do you honestly think that Harris would have written this if the nominee were just a churchgoer without Collins’ record of using his positions to soapbox about his religious beliefs and Collins’ clear hostility to (or at least strong and unscientific beliefs about) fields like neuroscience and evolutionary psychology?
“Would Collins have received the same treatment in Nature if he had argued for the compatibility between science and witchcraft, astrology, or Tarot cards? Not a chance. In fact, we can be confident that his scientific career would have terminated in an inferno of criticism.”
Kary Mullis claimed he he encountered a glow-in-the-dark talking raccoon in the woods. Does anyone know if that hurt his career?
Yes, I think my reading of Harris is correct. Would you want to be a Christian scientist working in a department headed by Harris?
Here’s just another example, from Harris’ longer essay: “Would Collins have received the same treatment in Nature if he had argued for the compatibility between science and witchcraft, astrology, or Tarot cards? Not a chance. In fact, we can be confident that his scientific career would have terminated in an inferno of criticism.” It is difficult to read this other than as an assetion that 1) Belief in the religion that created Western culture is the equivalent of belief in withcraft, 2) Professing a belief in witchcraft would properly destroy any scientific career, and 3) Professing a belief in Christianity should also destroy any scientific career.
First, no I wouldn’t want to be a religious scientist under Harris. I said in my first post that I wouldn’t want Dawkins to be given a position like the directorship of the NIH. That a scientist with Harris’ views and record shouldn’t be the director of the NIH doesn’t mean that Harris can’t point out that someone else also shouldn’t be the director of the NIH.
Only your second point follows. To the first – Harris believes that Christianity is as true as witchcraft, but (noting that I haven’t read much of him other than this) it’s not clear to me that he would say that the Christian is just as epistemically reckless as the witch. Perhaps Christianity’s privileged status in our culture makes belief in Christianity somewhat more excusable. To the third – in additions to the problems with the first point, you’re supposing that he thinks it appropriate for a scientist who spoke out about the truth of witchcraft to have his/her career destroyed. He well might, but that’s not argued for in the letter that I saw and isn’t what he’s basing his claims about Collins on.
I think it’s entirely legitimate to criticize a scientist who rejects the epistemology of scientific naturalism. If a scientist claims the truth of hypotheses that cannot be explained or tested by natural causes and events, they are making claims that deny science.
I don’t care whether those beliefs are “orthodox Christianity” or “the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” or something of non-religious origin. It doesn’t really matter, I don’t think Christianity has anything to do with it per se.
Why pussyfoot around and talk about practical this or that? Either you believe in the scientific method, or you don’t. Collins doesn’t. Just watch the Youtube video, res ipsa loquitur.
Rick R.
Collins doesn’t reject the scientific method. Someone who rejects the scientific method would say, “I do not believe that man can learn anything that is true from the type of experimentation and observation in which scientists engage.” Of course, Collins doesn’t say this. What Collins doesn’t agree with is the proposition the only way to know anything that is true is from the type of experimentation and observation in which scientists engage. The second proposition is a philosophical proposition, and cannot itself be demonstrated by science. Adherence to the second proposition has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to be a good scientist, and in fact requiring adherence to that proposition would have disqualified most of the men who gave us Western science and many scientists today.
Gotchaye: “Perhaps Christianity’s privileged status in our culture makes belief in Christianity somewhat more excusable.”
Definitely that, and the fact that Christians (or ‘Christianity’) just change their claims as scientific knowledge changes.
I agree that Collins is guilty of a bit of philosophical inconsistency, but if Harris is going to say that we need to impose a metaphysical filter on posts like head of the NIH, then he should be a bit more consistent himself and call for its abolition. I can’t think of anything more unjust than taking tax-dollars from Christians to pay for a post they are excluded from by a religious test.
Kurt,
I think you should reconsider posting hearsay rumors about individuals. In fact, I’d urge the moderators to look at that comment.
@Tom Piatak
Newton was a Natural Philosopher. Scientists came later.
Pasteur, Faraday, and Lavoisier excluded God completely from their attempts to understand the world. They weren’t very good at being theists. Collins does not exclude God from the subjects he studies. He’s not very good at being a scientist.
Ah, the problem is clear: Tom Piatak doesn’t understand the scientific method.
No, Tom. Science claims exclusive methodological validity. A person who rejects that, rejects science. It doesn’t matter if they believe valid conclusions can be generated with science – if they believe they can be generated without science, they’ve rejected the scientific methodology.
Collins believes all sorts of things which he did not conclude scientifically, and claims that his belief in those claims is valid. Ergo, he rejects science.
Caledonian:
Actually, I ran my comment by a scientist friend before posting it. He liked it. But I guess that he doesn’t understand science either. There are apparently a lot of scientists who don’t understand science. Who knew? Thank God, er something, that we now have Sam Harris and other braying jackasses like P Z Myers to show us the way. However did we get by without them?
I read Sam Harris’ piece with interest, but without enthusiasm or agreement. There may be a certain inquisitorial logic in the case he sets out, but in my view he fails to make adequate allowance for the fact that all humans are a mix of the rational and the irrational, and, critically, that we are often quite skilled at understanding that fact about ourselves. Thus we ‘believe’ stuff and yet, at another level, we don’t. That’s how many religious believers deal with some of the more peculiar passages in, say, their holy texts. To give another example, it’s how some believers in the impending catastrophe allegedly posed by global warming’s ‘day after tomorrow’ continue to live cheerfully on the coast. Yes, to those of us who remain unconvinced by the evidence for a Christian or any other god, some of Collins’ beliefs may appear a little strange, but that he holds them after two thousand years in which Christianity has established itself as a key part of mainstream Western culture, they are hardly a sign of a mind that has either lost its way or the ability to put reason to work. Collins’ beliefs are what they are, but I see nothing in them which is likely to prevent him applying the ‘scientific’ part of his mind to the science, and, for me, that’s what counts.
Caledonian – but so what? Sure, any remotely religious person can be said to “reject science” if you add that clause about absolute exclusivity, but what does that mean? You’re just trying to score a rhetorical point, and something of a problematic one at that because it’s not clear how science can non-circularly lead us to your conclusion. A “science rejector” in your sense isn’t necessarily bad at advancing science in any field, at teaching science in any field, or at increasing public respect and awareness of science and scientific methodology. It seems to be nothing but a derogatory label to indicate that someone isn’t perfectly rational (and, as I noted, it may well apply to everyone alive).
What most of us mean when we talk about someone “rejecting science” is that the person has so little respect for the scientific method that he/she hardly even admits a scientific conclusion as evidence for a proposition in a wide variety of areas. Creationists, for example, tend to throw out geology, biology, and cosmology as completely misguided disciplines. What’s notable about these cases is that their disbelief in science isn’t carefully limited to areas that don’t really matter in everyday life. We generally don’t think that someone who only believes in the resurrection of Jesus is at all handicapped in his/her attempts to engage with scientific reasoning, and I have no problem working with colleagues who do in fact believe that. Belief in the resurrection may in fact be no more true and just as unjustified as belief in full-blown young-earth creationism, but it doesn’t handicap potential scientists to nearly the same extent. Your binary take on things doesn’t serve a purpose other than to communicate your dislike for scientists who disagree with you on metaphysical issues that have almost nothing to do with their work.
I also note that your ideas are rather dangerous. It’s all well and good to talk up the rightful primacy of atheism because it’s true and reasonable, but, whether or not you think they’re crazy, lots of other people think that reason demands that we all be Christians (certainly this was the case for most of western history). Something that we learned from the Enlightenment is that we all benefit when you let people who disagree with you on metaphysics go about their day jobs without being harassed and constantly disrespected or oppressed. If people do good science, they’re scientists. Any other standard does nothing more than to exclude perfectly useful and productive individuals from what we all agree is a good and useful pursuit.
And Tom – I’d like to point out that neither Harris (to my limited knowledge) nor PZ (who I read a lot of) think that religious scientists aren’t scientists. They think that religious scientists are being silly and inconsistent on Sundays, but they have no problem recognizing that these people are doing science, and PZ at least has respect for what many religious scientists do on the other six days of the week.
Gotchaye,
I appreciate your calm and reasoned posts, but I disagree with you about Myers and Harris. Myers’ desecration of the Eucharist, an act that did nothing except allow Myers to advertise his disdain for the beliefs of large numbers of the people whose taxes pay his salary, marked him as, at best, a non-serious person. Harris is far less tolerant than Myers. When I read Harris, I have the same reaction Whittaker Chambers did to Ayn Rand.
First, let’s get away from the language, “the type of
experimentation and observation in which scientists engage”. That’s not
the standard for scientific evidence. Obviously, there are a lot of
practical limits on science. We can’t observe Earth from Alpha
Centauri, but such observation would satisfy the demands of scientific
naturalism and serve as evidence that might support a scientific
theory. Just because it’s outside the realm of things we can do now
or in the immediately forseeable future does not mean that it’s bad
science per se.
So let’s tackle the problem epistemologically.
Certain claims and theories are supported by scientific
evidence.
Sane people call these theories: “true”, their evidence:
“facts”, and the resulting conclusions: “knowledge”.
Evolution clearly falls in this category. Cosmology and
abiogenesis do too, although the degree of evidentiary support, and the
fine details of the theory, leave open many opportunities for
investigation (see (3) below).
Dr. Collins would probably agree with all this, and this is
one reason you want to call him a scientist.
Claims and theories inconsistent with scientific evidence.
Sane people call these theories: “false”, and their
conclusions: “fantasy”. Evidence that might support them may be
invented, unreliable, anecdotal, or otherwise fail basic tests for
valid observation. People who claim they are true are often confused or
intentionally deceptive.
Flat earth, invisible unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster.
Also the kind of stuff James Randi likes to hunt down.
Dr. Collins would almost certainly agree with us here, and I do
not think all of this claims fall in this category, although it could
be argued that some do (leading to diagnosis: confused).
Claims and theories that could be supported by scientific
evidence, but we currently lack the knowledge and observational
capability to confirm or deny them.
Sane people call these “speculation” or colloquially,
“theory”. Scientists might call them, “exciting”. Our friend the Higgs
boson might live here.
To be fair, I’m being a touch sloppy here. The cutting egdes
of science often have one foot in realm (1) and one foot in realm (3);
the Higgs boson is supported by theory that has otherwise been
supported by evidence. This specific part of the theory still
needs to be tested. Much of science is like that.
Again, no problems with Dr. Collins. No doubt he has worked in
cutting edge research and approached many problems with the statement,
“I just don’t know. What would it take to find out?”
Claims and theories that, due to the way they are constructed
and proposed, cannot be tested by scientific methods or evidence, even
hypothetically.
And here is the problem. Dr. Collins’ claims about “the
universe created and tuned to engineer humanity as a vessel for God’s
moral law”, clearly falls into this category. Even if we take the
suggestion seriously, it is impossible to conceive of what evidence
might support such a claim, or what theory is actually being
promulgated with these statements.
Why so much trouble? Because these claims fail the natural
requirement of scientific naturalism. By asserting that phenomena
result from causes and events whose parameters cannot be known, the
claimant is stepping right outside of the realm of science. Scientists
who
accept scientific naturalism would call these claims “mysticism”, and
their resulting conclusions, “false”. Scientists who don’t accept the naturalism or scientific naturalism,
or simply people who fail to understand it, might think these claims are in group (3). But they are not.
But Dr. Collins insists that they are true, which leads me to two possibilities: either he doesn’t
understand that genuine phenomena proceed from natural causes and events, or he does not actually believe it. Either way,
it’s right to throw the issues into the light. It’s also possible, and I think this is what grates on you so much, that he holds
the dual position of believing in and demanding scientific naturalism for certain claims, but witholding naturalism for others because
they are part of his “faith”.
I apologize for the linebreaking there. Allow me to re-post.
First, let’s get away from the language, “the type of experimentation and observation in which scientists engage”. That’s not the standard for scientific evidence. Obviously, there are a lot of practical limits on science. We can’t observe Earth from Alpha Centauri, but such observation would satisfy the demands of scientific naturalism and serve as evidence that might support a scientific theory. Just because it’s outside the realm of things we can do now or in the immediately forseeable future does not mean that it’s bad science per se.
So let’s tackle the problem epistemologically.
Certain claims and theories are supported by scientific evidence.
Sane people call these theories: “true”, their evidence: “facts”, and the resulting conclusions: “knowledge”.
Evolution clearly falls in this category. Cosmology and abiogenesis do too, although the degree of evidentiary support, and the fine details of the theory, leave open many opportunities for investigation (see (3) below).
Dr. Collins would probably agree with all this, and this is one reason you want to call him a scientist.
Claims and theories inconsistent with scientific evidence.
Sane people call these theories: “false”, and their conclusions: “fantasy”. Evidence that might support them may be invented, unreliable, anecdotal, or otherwise fail basic tests for valid observation. People who claim they are true are often confused or intentionally deceptive.
Flat earth, invisible unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster. Also the kind of stuff James Randi likes to hunt down.
Dr. Collins would almost certainly agree with us here, and I do not think all of this claims fall in this category, although it could be argued that some do (leading to diagnosis: confused).
Claims and theories that could be supported by scientific evidence, but we currently lack the knowledge and observational capability to confirm or deny them.
Sane people call these “speculation” or colloquially, “theory”. Scientists might call them, “exciting”. Our friend the Higgs boson might live here.
To be fair, I’m being a touch sloppy here. The cutting egdes of science often have one foot in realm (1) and one foot in realm (3); the Higgs boson is supported by theory that has otherwise been supported by evidence. This specific part of the theory still needs to be tested. Much of science is like that.
Again, no problems with Dr. Collins. No doubt he has worked in cutting edge research and approached many problems with the statement, “I just don’t know. What would it take to find out?”
Claims and theories that, due to the way they are constructed and proposed, cannot be tested by scientific methods or evidence, even hypothetically.
And here is the problem. Dr. Collins’ claims about “the universe created and tuned to engineer humanity as a vessel for God’s moral law”, clearly falls into this category. Even if we take the suggestion seriously, it is impossible to conceive of what evidence might support such a claim, or what theory is actually being promulgated with these statements.
Why so much trouble? Because these claims fail the natural requirement of scientific naturalism. By asserting that phenomena result from causes and events whose parameters cannot be known, the claimant is stepping right outside of the realm of science. Scientists who accept scientific naturalism would call these claims “mysticism”, and their resulting conclusions, “false”. Scientists who don’t accept the naturalism or scientific naturalism, or simply people who fail to understand it, might think these claims are in group (3). But they are not.
But Dr. Collins insists that they are true, which leads me to two possibilities: either he doesn’t understand that genuine phenomena proceed from natural causes and events, or he does not actually believe it. Either way, it’s right to throw the issues into the light. It’s also possible, and I think this is what grates on you so much, that he holds the dual position of believing in and demanding scientific naturalism for certain claims, but witholding naturalism for others because they are part of his “faith”.
Crap, this thing doesn’t support the ordered list tag. Sorry. Well, you get the idea. I’ll post a specific version on my blog at http://brainscroll.wordpress.com/.
Pingback: The Brain Scroll
I’m not adding any clauses. I’m accurately stating what science is, and some of the implications that follow from that.
People tend to be inconsistent. That does not excuse or mitigate their error, as some people here seem to be implying. It is merely a fact that we acknowledge. What really matters is how people act when their beliefs come into conflict.
Various famous scientists in the past, when investigating the world, exclude the obvious implications of their religious beliefs from that investigation. For practical purposes, it’s as if they were not religious at all. Given the incompatibility of scientific inquiry and religious dogma, they ignored the religious dogma when push came to shove. That’s part of what makes them scientists.
Collins subordinates the methods and findings of science to specific religious beliefs. That’s what makes him not-a-scientist. He’s a technician.
It’s the difference between memorizing multiplication tables and understanding the concept of multiplication.
What kind of Christian beliefs would be acceptable, then? I agree that Collins’ theology is strained, but strikes me as far less so than that of the overwhelming majority of Christians; indeed, it’s hard to conceive of someone who is meaningfully Christian, but has fewer faith propositions than Collins.
Perhaps Collins is guiltier for still failing to circle-the-square after giving it more thought than most, but that’s a different argument.
I find it a little humorous that Harris gives James Watson a backhand slap in that he suggests even though Watson’s views are, “not unscientific,” this doesn’t mean that race differences should be researched. Whatever happened to boundless scientific curiosity?