The Language of God: a scientist presents evidence for belief
by Francis S. Collins
Free Press, Simon and Schuster
2006, 295 pages
Amazon link
Part 1 of 4 - Introduction and the Chasm Between Science and Faith
Most of you have probably heard of Francis Collins. If you haven’t heard of him as a evangelical Christian who believes in evolution, at least you’ve heard of him as the head of the Human Genome Project. His list of degrees, accomplishments and publications is impressive from a purely secular view, but his story of how he came to faith as an adult and how he relates faith to the study of human genetics is impressive too. The title of his book comes from a speech given by then President Bill Clinton on June 26, 2000 when it was announced that the first draft of the human genome had been assembled. Clinton said,
Today we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God’s most divine and sacred gift.
Chapter 1 of this book is Collins’s autobiographic tale of how he came to faith. Collins’s parents were homeschooling free thinkers. Growing up only vaguely aware of the idea of God, he began college as a lazy agnostic (”In fact, my assertion of ‘I don’t know’ was really more along the lines of ‘I don’t want to know.’” p.16) and gradually became a full-fledged atheist while studying physical chemistry at Yale. After taking a course in biochemistry he got excited about studying medicine and found a way to combine his love of mathematics with his new interest in medicine by studying genetics. At the age of 26, a patient asked him about his religious beliefs. This question haunted him until he felt compelled to make a full investigation into religion, fully expecting to find no rational reasons to believe and thus to reaffirm his atheism. He dug into a survey of the world’s religions and eventually made a visit to a local Methodist preacher who gave him a copy of CS Lewis’s Mere Christianity.
Lewis’s point that struck closest home to Collins was the discussion of right and wrong and the moral law. Collins returns to this idea often throughout his book–that man has something inside of him that knows there is a right and a wrong. (One negative reviewer pointed out that Collins should have mentioned that recent ideas in evolutionary biology claim this perhaps universal idea of the existence of right and wrong is just one more thing evolution has brought the human race.) It was the realization that the moral law points to a God and that this God is holy which soon led to his conversion:
I had started this journey of intellectual exploration to confirm my atheism. That now lay in ruins as the argument from the Moral Law (and many other issues) forced me to admit the plausibility of the God hypothesis. Agnosticism, which had seemed like a safe second-place haven, now loomed like the great cop-out it often is. Faith in God now seemed more rational than disbelief. (p.30)
Chapter 2 was written for skeptics. Collins gives a brief and very readable explanation about how he worked through each of these four rather common objections we hear from unbelievers:
- Isn’t the idea of God just wishful thinking?
- What about the horrible things have been done in the name of God and religion?
- How could a loving God allow so much suffering in the world?
- How can a rational person believe in miracles?
Next week: Part 2 of 4 - The great questions of human existence
Now this book looks worth reading! Just my cup of tea.
Just my cup of tea.
You crazy Brit.
“(One negative reviewer pointed out that Collins should have mentioned that recent ideas in evolutionary biology claim this perhaps universal idea of the existence of right and wrong is just one more thing evolution has brought the human race.)”
Quite a number of scientifically literate reviewers have mentioned this. To claim that universal morality could only have come from God is to claim that no current theory for the natural development of morality, and no _possible_ theory for the natural development of morality, could explain what we see. I like the way Sam Harris put it link
“According to Collins, the moral law applies exclusively to human beings:
Though other animals may at times appear to show glimmerings of a moral sense, they are certainly not widespread, and in many instances other species’ behavior seems to be in dramatic contrast to any sense of universal rightness.
One wonders if the author has ever read a newspaper. The behavior of humans offers no such “dramatic contrast.” How badly must human beings behave to put this “sense of universal rightness” in doubt? And just how widespread must “glimmerings” of morality be among other animals before Collins—who, after all, knows a thing or two about genes—begins to wonder whether our moral sense has evolutionary precursors in the natural world? What if mice showed greater distress at the suffering of familiar mice than unfamiliar ones? (They do.) What if monkeys will starve themselves to prevent their cage-mates from receiving painful shocks? (They will.) What if chimps have a demonstrable sense of fairness when receiving food rewards? (They have.) Wouldn’t these be precisely the sorts of findings one would expect if our morality were the product of evolution?”
“(One negative reviewer pointed out that Collins should have mentioned that recent ideas in evolutionary biology claim this perhaps universal idea of the existence of right and wrong is just one more thing evolution has brought the human race.)”
On the outside looking in, it appears the negative reviewer has not read Mere Christianity. Lewis covers this idea in Book 1 Ch. 2. The recent ideas in evolutionary biology only try to lay claim to the inexplicable like charity, love, & purpose. These ideals had been left to religion until recently, when Hitchens and crew have made a grab for them, thus the ‘new’ atheism. Thanks for the reveiw I am looking forward part 2.
I’m no expert on atheism, but the “new” atheists did come to mind while I was reading the review by Sam Harris. They seem to leave no possibility for the existence of a god, a dogmatic attitude that itself seems to be more religious than scientific.
Also, as much as I appreciate science in general, I don’t think it takes a genius to realize that not all of life’s questions can be answered by science.
I too appreciated Collins’ book - and his personal story is definitely powerful. For me, growing up in a conservative Evangelical culture where evolution was equated to atheism, I found Darrel Falk’s story in “Coming to Peace with Science” even more powerful. I could identify completely with the struggles & questions he had, even as a young child. But both Collins & Falk should be commended for speaking the truth when many (on both sides) are throwing darts at them.
Morality along cultures are similar (and different) in many ways, but that is not “evidence” for the existance of God.
As an atheist, I am still waiting.
thainamu
The new atheists only claim they do not believe in God and cite specific reasons why.
None of the new atheists would claim there is no possibility for the existance of God. They all admit the existance of God is possible, only just that the evidence for it is about equal to that of the existance of the flying spaghetti monster and Zeus. It is defacto, weak, implicit, or agnostic atheism, not strong atheism.
Convese02 wrote: Morality along cultures are similar (and different) in many ways, but that is not “evidence” for the existance of God.
Sure it’s evidence. It isn’t incontrovertible proof, but it is evidence.
the evidence for [God] is about equal to that of the existance of the flying spaghetti monster
Yeah, that’s not what Flying Spaghetti Monster is all about. FSM is about ridiculing Creationists who advocate teaching the controversy. It’s meant to make Creationists look silly by trapping them into agreeing that FSM should be taught in schools. The whole point of FSM is that it’s utterly ridiculous, not that it’s on the same level as the God of the Bible. There is significantly more evidence for the God of scripture than there is for FSM. To start with, there is a Bible (written thousands of years ago and still preserved today) that teaches us about God, while FSM was invented in 2005 as a propaganda tool to ridicule some Creationists.
“(FSM) is meant to make Creationists look silly by trapping them into agreeing that FSM should be taught in schools”
Close. It’s meant to expose them as hypocrites when they do NOT agree that FSM should be taught in schools. (Because we all know that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with any speicific designer, such as the Christian God; wink wink nudge nudge)
BTW, I hear the portion of Collins’ book which attacks Intelligent Design is pretty good.
“BTW, I hear the portion of Collins’ book which attacks Intelligent Design is pretty good.”
If you think that part is good, you should hear what he says about atheists.
(I’ll get to his take on ID in parts 2 and 3.)
Everything seems natural on this earth apart from the human race look deeper and some of you might agree we are the diffrent ones