The Language Of Ignorance

[filkertom]

Francis Collins -- physical chemist, medical geneticist and head of the Human Genome Project -- has written a book entitled The Language of God. In it, he attempts to demonstrate that there is "a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony" between 21st-century science and evangelical Christianity.

Scientist and philosopher Sam Harris disagrees.

Comments

Not trying to start a fight, but ...

[youngcurmudgeon.livejournal.com]

It is possible to believe in both God and evolution. I'm not saying the two meet up quite as nicely as Collins would like, but someone -- say, me -- can believe in God and Jesus and good feelings and also get the idea of us coming from frogs and monkeys.

And Neither Am I

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Hey. Atheist though I am, I have far too many friends who believe to actually get in the way of them believing. My problem usually stems (har har) from religious types trying to legislate their beliefs, usually in conflict with people's health care and sexuality. But this struck me because of the prominence of the scientist -- I mean, Francis Collins is a big gun -- and the disingenuity of his arguments.

The problem I have with the creationists is that, why, of course, the only possible explanation is God... when the entire purpose of science is not to disprove God, but just to find out how things happen. If it's God or random chance or Barry Ween with his Mail-Order Creation Kit or Galen come through the Big Bang from the previous universe or some wonderful pairing of The Joy Of Sex with The Joy Of Cooking, the point is to figure out what happened. The rest can take care of itself.

Consider this quote from Collins (taken from the article):

The major and inescapable flaw of ... [the] claim that science demands of atheism is that it goes beyond the evidence. If God is outside of nature, then science can neither prove nor disprove His existence. Atheism itself must therefore be considered a form of blind faith, in that it adopts a belief system that cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.

I don't believe it has occurred to Mr. Collins that, if God did create the universe from his position outside of nature, He did it inside of nature. Is it outside the realm of science to look for possible evidence of that? More to the point, given that science is based on physical laws, why do some religious types insist that God not work within them? He made them, after all, right?

What it comes down to, for me, is that God might be. Reality is. And that's what I choose to work with. If others wish to do otherwise, that's fine. But Collins' book, to me, is denying science for no good reason.

And I hope I don't...

[salkryn.livejournal.com]

A couple of things that religious people seem very unwilling to talk about...

1) The whole "original sin" thing. God says "You can have anything in the garden, except that one tree". If God didn't want us getting at it, why would he put it there in the first place? The single best way to make sure somebody does something and make them think it is their own idea is to make a big show of saying "NO!" and then turning your back.

2) Lucifer. Okay, if he's all that EVIL...then why doesn't he just open up the gates of hell and let it loose on Earth? I mean, really? As it is, his sole purpose in existence seems to be punishing those that deserve to be punished. I mean if there is any chance at all of saving your soul, you go to Purgatory right? It seems to me that the CEO of the infernal regions seems to be doing God's work for him...

Anyone care to give me an explanation for these two issues? Any time I ask a really religious person about them, they tend to get really offended. Either that or they do the equivalent of closing their eyes, covering their ears, and chanting "Not listening, not listening..."

Re: And I hope I don't...

[connor-campbell.livejournal.com]

okay, i'll try to field this one, based on my learning. to give some background: i do call myself a "Christ-follower", and i believe in the whole Protestant Bible, including the Old and New Testaments. i also have a love of science and i do believe that they can and do work together. i also believe that until there is solid evidence in support of it, what people call "evolution" takes just as much faith as the belief in intelligent design. at the moment, there is equal evidence for both. now, to the points asked here.

1) why did Jehovah (i use this name, as there are lots of gods. personal preference, not any religious reason. would you always call your best friend by what he is?) Why did Jehovah put the tree in the middle of the garden if he didn't want it to be eaten from? very simple answer here. Jehovah holds one thing to be ultimately dear - free will. he wants true loyalty to him. if he had stuck Adam and Eve in the garden where everything is perfect and kept all not perfect from humans, he would also be keeping from them choice, and the right to make one's own decision. he wants true loyalty, not forced slavery or robots. he also does not want blind faith, and has no problem with asking questions. the problem comes in what questions are asked, and how they are asked. reason #1 why i think science and the Bible work together. properly done, science is just asking Jehovah about what is around us.

2)Lucifer...this one is harder. first, Lucifer is in heaven, not Hell. not yet, anyway. he is there constantly trying to condemn us before Jehovah. trying to show how sinful we are. he has "angels" of his own who work in his favor, influencing us to do things to make us sin. *please note i said INFLUENCE* the ultimate decision is still ours. again, free will is what is important.

and as i am not a follower of the Catholic traditions, i cannot comment on purgatory. i do not believe in it. i can support this with scripture if you like. one of the big problems is that the Biible was put together in a very interesting manner. it was not written in the order you see it in today. actually, the first book written was Job. and there are places where one of the scribes (i say this because the Bible was written by Jehovah, and just put down in physical writing by men. sort of like dictation) mentioned both the past and future, as well as the present. this can get confusing. i must admit, i don't fully understand it all myself, and am still in the process of learning about it.

for the record, i, as a believer, will never cover my ears and shut my eyes to any questions concerning this matter. nor will i take it personally or try to B.S. my way out of it. should you have further wuestions, please ask

one last thing. i realize that i have not really answered the question of Lucifer. i need to study on that one some more. if you would like to keep working on this one, or are interested in learning more about it, again, keep in touch with me, and i will give you a straight answer. even if it is "i don't know". but there are rules, that even Lucifer follows. i know this.

Re: And Neither Am I. Um, Either.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Well, science has done a great deal toward figuring out what happened. We've gone from "Hey, there's milk and china all over the floor" to "The jug fell" to "The jug, moving at a velocity v, tipped at an angle of twenty-three degrees, turned over completely, hit something that sent it off at a slight angle and incidentally chipped pieces j, k and l off the rim, turned over twice more and landed at an angle of thirty-seven degrees, whereupon breakage began at this point A here and proceeded along these fault lines B, C and D, while the contents exited the jug at velocity v sub 1, expanded according to the principle of Brownian motion, described a rough parabola and landed in a pseudo-random pattern determined by quantum mechanics." Doubtless even more exhaustive detail will emerge as our instrumentation improves.

We're still no nearer discovering through science *why* the jug fell, of course, which is a fairly major component of "what happened," and so the guesses of the religious are the only things we have that fill that gap. Most of them incline to the view that someone knocked it off, and in the absence of any other explanation that seems reasonable. Certainly the milk and china won't tell us, unless someone finds a fingerprint...

Re: And Neither Am I. Um, Either.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Um.

Okay, look -- we've had this kind of discussion before. And it seems to me (please tell me if I'm wrong on this) that you're not getting an important point, and you even say it as if it bolsters your argument: Why something happened IS part of the answer to "what happened".

What force kept the jug from moving around on the table? What force came along to move it off the table? What did it land on that had the property of causing it to shatter, and what was that property? All that stuff gets asked, and usually it can be found. The ultimate initial mechanism isn't known in a lot of cases, but in a lot of cases it is -- and, even if it isn't, does that mean we throw up our hands and say, "Must be God"? (And the milk and china certainly could tell us something, even without fingerprints -- the splatter would give us an idea of the direction of the original force, or whether it dropped or was shoved or was even picked up and smashed).

There's a cartoon I saw last year, with a complex scientific formula showing the progress of creation, with a big white circle in the middle labeled "THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENED". Are you trying to argue that, if science cannot create instant or near-instant gratification, we just assume God did it? That's not science.

Re: And Neither Am I. Um, Either.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

I don't remember mentioning "instant or near-instant gratification." Hang on... (re-reads post) Nope, not there. Are you then saying we do know why the jug fell, i.e. why the universe came into being? Or am I correct in thinking that the last umpteen years of research have come up with more and more facts and figures about what happened in the nanoseconds immediately after the moment of origin, and nothing at all about the cause of it? I read somewhere that secular scientists were ready to admit their ignorance on this point.

No, assuming it was God isn't science. And when the fancy restaurant is closed, the burger I eat instead isn't cordon bleu cuisine, but it's what's there, and it'll keep me going till the fancy restaurant opens.

One final point...the cartoon was dead right. Whatever you or I believe, whatever caused the universe to exist, whether we ever find the answer or not...it was a miracle. A thing to be wondered at. Wouldn't you say? :)

Re: And Neither Am I. Um, Either.

[skemono.livejournal.com]

Are you then saying we do know why the jug fell, i.e. why the universe came into being?

Why? Why did the universe come into being? That's assuming your answer already--that there was any reason at all, necessitating an intelligent force that had this reason in mind when it decided that creating a universe was the best way to accomplish this goal.

Re: And Neither Am I. Um, Either.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

No, it doesn't necessitate an intelligent force. It necessitates a cause. Somewhere back there, according to everyone but Hoyle :), there was a change. There was a lot of matter all bunched together, minding its own business, and then there was space and time and a sudden universe. It's been accepted wisdom for a long time (though now, I believe, it is being challenged, as is just about everything except the one thing we're talking about) that any event must have a cause. In my jug analogy, the cause might be an inquisitive cat, a passing truck, a localised earthquake or termites in the table leg. I don't know, and I for one am not presupposing anything, except that to speak of the universe beginning, to speak of it as an event, itself presupposes that there was a causative factor. (And also implies a sequence of events before time began, which implies a form of time outside this universe, which implies some kind of universe outside this universe for the sequence of events to be contained in...)

Incidentally, I'm always amazed that people who deal with infinity on a daily basis, who have whole shedloads of infinities sitting up and begging, fetching sticks and parping out "The Star-Spangled Banner" on serried air horns, are invariably shocked, shocked I say, at the concept of an infinite regress of meta-meta-meta-[etc.]-universes. But that's a side issue and just one of those things that makes me smile from time to time.

And I call upon filkertom to witness that I tried to bow out gracefully, I really did, but being told that I said what I did not say is the one thing guaranteed to bring me back into the discussion, if only to try to say it better this time...

Re: And Neither Am I. Um, Either.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

Knowing why the jug fell -- some object of a reasonably determinate mass knocked it over, and gravity did the rest -- is not the same as knowing why the universe came into being.

I think this is a problem of conflated terminology. Science addresses the "why" of "what caused this to happen?". Religion addresses the "why" of "for what grand purpose did this happen?" Although, by and large, religion frames the question as "who did this?"

Myself, I still like the title of Oolon Coloophid's third philosophical work, Just Who Is This God Person, Anyway?

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

I got as far as

"It is worth pointing out the term 'supernatural,' which Collins uses freely throughout his book, is semantically indistinguishable from the term 'magical.'"

Which is nonsense. The two terms are as different as "chalky" and "gritty," "blonde" and "brunette." They both refer to similar kinds of entities and processes, but they are not indistinguishable, and if he's so unsure of his argument as to resort to that kind of hand-waving, the rest of it is probably just as weak.

I agree that a lot of the other chap's arguments are equally nonsensical, but that doesn't make this one right. To take another example: to me, without knowing whether it's true or not, it makes perfect sense that a sight such as a frozen waterfall could cause a mental connection that leads to an epiphany of some sort. One might ask in the same spirit: What is there about a snake with its tail in its mouth that could possibly be connected to the structure of a tiny chemical molecule? Are molecules made of snakes?

These arguments, starting from a position of certainty as rigid and frozen as that waterfall, do not help Mr Harris' case one bit, and Mr Collins does far more to hurt his own case than Mr Harris can manage. If the causes of secularism and religion can't do better than these two, they're in trouble. Well, secularism is. :)

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Ummm... I admit that I have no trouble at all with "magical" and "supernatural" being synonymous. Could you please explain your distinction between them?

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

"Supernatural" refers to an order of phenomena which is deemed to be outside the realm of nature as we understand it. "Magical" refers to a specific set of forces and techniques which can in theory be harnessed and used by people who know about such things to bring about results that could not be achieved by normal means.

One word is a general term for things that have not been proved to exist. The other is a specific term for something that has been proved not to exist. There is a distinction there. Ghosts (to take an example at random) are not "magical." Neither is God.

Blurring the distinction between the two words is a cheating way of shoving the concept of a god, or a ghost, into the same bracket as Doctor Strange and David Copperfield: fiction or illusion. Do you see what I'm getting at? It's exactly like saying, for instance, "It is worth pointing out [that]* the term 'Democrat,' which Kerry uses freely throughout his campaign literature, is semantically indistinguishable from the term 'Communist.'" Same switcheroo, and the two words are just as different. There are actually very few "semantically indistinguishable" words in our language: synonyms are very rarely exact. That's kind of why we have so many words in the first place.

Personally, I don't believe in the "supernatural": I believe in the "natural that we haven't explored yet." And I'm open-minded about magic. But that's just me.

*And the bad grammar is irritating as well. Fine in a WIDTW post to friends, not so good in what's supposed to be a serious argument that turns on a point of language.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Actually, no, Zander, I don't buy it at all. What you're basically trying to say, it seems, is that we don't understand how "supernatural" forces work, they're "outside the realm of nature"; but we might understand how to control "magical" forces... but we still don't know how they work, because they "bring about results that could not be achieved by normal means"... which sounds exactly like "outside the realm of nature" to me.

And I think you're wrong about "Democrat" and "Communist", as well, but that should be another thread.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

No, what I'm saying is what I said. The terms have different definitions, which means they are not semantically indistinguishable. One is, as I said, general, the other is specific. As in "democrat" (with a small D this time) and "Communist." What we understand and what we do not has nothing to do with it.

And I think I'm going to leave that there.

[devospice.livejournal.com]

Before the human genome project even existed my father wrote a short story about a scientist who uses a supercomputer to decode the human genome. The scientist was a devout atheist who's best friend was a Catholic priest. What the computer spit out when it decoded the genome was "And God said...", then a few hundred thousand prints or so of the DNA sequences, and concluded with "Amen."

It was a neat story. It was supposed to be published in some magazine but I think the magazine folded right before this issue went to print.

->Later.....Spice

[nodakwriter.livejournal.com]

The Scienceblogs crew (http://scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/MT/mt-search.cgi?Template=combinedSearch&search=francis+collins&x=0&y=0) has been pretty vocal about it as well. There is something catchy about the term Dyslexic Deism. Makes you think about your relationship with Dog.

[tesral.livejournal.com]

     Having not myself read the book I'll not comment on the book as anything I said would be hearsay.

     My personal belief is that faith in God, as you see him, is not counter or against science in any fashion, and cannot be against science for the simple reason that if you accept the existence of God, you must accept the existence of the natural laws as we discover them. That is science.

     Those that speak against science in 'the name of God" are men of little faith who want god in the image they have made him in, and cannot abide the idea that the god of their creation is wrong. It was St. Thomas Aquinas who said "Beware the man of one book.” That certainly includes the Bible, any version, or the scripture of any religion.

And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.

The Word of God -- Catherine Faber

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Works for me. :)

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have never found a better expression of my personal spirituality than that song.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

That we agree on.

[jackwalker.livejournal.com]

(Jack nods.) I'm both a theist and, I hope, a rational materialist. I don't have any trouble reconciling my belief in something we may as well call God with my examination of the natural universe, fourteen billion years old and counting, evolving with no clear evidence of any kind of divine intervention.

Despite that position, superficially similar to that of Collins, I found his book hopelessly inept. He's certainly no theologian, and his understanding of the philosophy of science is surprisingly poor.

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

I honestly feel sorry for the people whose view of their god is so small and parochial that they can't ascribe more than a few millennia and one inhabited planet to him. I mean, when you contemplate the universe, the real universe, all fifteen billion years and some 10^82±x particles and the near-infinite possibilities that offers for life and variety, that takes my breath away.

And that's the thing. There is nothing mutually exclusive about science and religion. Science is trying to answer the question "how". Religion is trying to answer "why".

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

You know that, and I know that, and everyone in this thread knows that...but there are religious people who keep trying to make out in the teeth of all the evidence that science has the "how" wrong, and lots of scientific-minded people who want to put a ring-fence round "why" even though they haven't anything to put in there themselves...it's a whole big thing.

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

I am related to many people (my mom was a physics professor, my uncle was an engineer who developed the mission program for Apollo XI) who are hard-science scientists and devout Christians. They choose to get joy and validation from the beauty of the universe, but they consider faith to be a matter of, well, faith, and science to be an independent paradigm which does not require or rely on unprovable axioms. The connection they make between their experience of the world and their experience of God is internal and personal, not empirical. Science is about how, faith is about why; these don't overlap. Trying to find proof of God is like trying to quantify one's personal experience of beauty or to definitively decode a particular passage of poetry; it's just not meaningful in a scientific sense.

The Bible contains contextual and often symbolic information about the universe which some people misinterpret as literal historic and scientific fact. I was taught that God gave us intellect (through an involved and indirect set of processes) to help us make ethical decisions, so each new discovery brings us closer to God's intent. Given an apparent conflict between observed reality, divine intent, Biblical text, and interpretation of the text, the Catholics I know believe that the error must arise from the interpretation and that that's what needs to be corrected. Human beings don't have perfect understanding of the world or of the world beyond.

(I can talk the talk because I was raised with it, but my own experience has led me to become much more atheist.)