Doeman find Francis Collin's "Language of God" lacking in rational thought
Francis Collins is widely known as the director of the Human Genome Project, one of humanities finer moments in which our genome was successfully catalogued in a feat of scientific prowess. One might assume that such an accomplishment means that Collins is a pretty bright guy, which is true, however his recent book is proof that the human mind is capable of incredible compartmentalization, the ability to hermetically seal parts of one's thinking from intellectual rigor and honesty.
I don't mean for this to be an in-depth review, so I'll keep my comments succinct and brief. There are some major philosophical oversights Collins made, and while I'd like to take credit for pointing them out, they are so blatantly obvious any one could do so.
The thesis of Collins' book is that science presents undeniable evidence for the existence of the triune Abrahamic God, an interesting thesis and no small claim. How does Collins set about proving his thesis? - through a number of different ways:
First, Collins makes, or rather borrows the 'morality argument' almost completely from C.S. Lewis, the famous Christian apologist. If I was to characterize the argumentative style of Lewis, I would say he characteristically bites off more than he chews, making grandiose claims premised on weak assumptions, a trap Collins walks directly into. The crux of the morality argument in "The Language of God" is that there is no evolutionary justification for altruism on the level of the individual. Collins cannot imagine how individuals performing altruistic actions benefit their own reproductive health and thus assumes altruism must come from outside the individual; it was put there by the Abrahamic God. I have two things to say about this: 1. Collins ignores the research by Richard Dawkins, among others, on the nature of kin selection and how altruistic actions on the individual can plausibly, realistically, support the genetic benefit of the group. 2. Collins is employing "God of the Gaps" logic, something he claims to despise, by looking for a hole where he perceives there isn't a scientific answer and plugging in God. This is no small logical error, and is quite typical of Christian apologists; these individuals search for 'gaps' in science, the places where we don't yet have answers so they may insert their own version of God, as if by proxy. Even if we didn't have a scientific explanation for the existence of altruism, there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume a god is responsible, let alone a Christian version. This kind of logic is pervasive throughout the writings of C.S. Lewis, and because Collins piggybacks so heavily on Lewis's popular books, he falls prey to the same shortcomings.
Second, on the reason why God doesn't provide more concrete evidence of his existence Collins says, "If the case in favor of belief in God were utterly airtight, then the world would be full of confident practitioners of a single faith. But imagine such a world, where the opportunity to make a free choice about belief was taken away by the certainty of the evidence. How interesting would that be?" So, according to Collins the reason God doesn't make his existence clear is because the world would be less interesting. Couple this with the belief that God will damn to hell those who don't accept his existence and you have a fairytale-esque reality set forth by Collins. Why would God hide himself and then damn those who can't find him? Well, because its more interesting than the alternative!
Third, Collins relays a personal experience which he said solidified his Christian belief,
"On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains ... the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ."
If one can deduce the existence of Jesus Christ, and the triune deity from a frozen waterfall, then you can assume anything from anything. Why not assume, from the frozen waterfall the reality and existence of genocidal meatball monsters on the dark side of the moon? Using Collins' logic, there is no difference; in fact anything goes with this kind of pithy thinking.
If Francis Collins wasn't one of the most prominent scientists operating in genetics he probably wouldn't have caught so much flack for this book, however because he is highly educated he should know better. I found this book sadly disappointing.
I don't mean for this to be an in-depth review, so I'll keep my comments succinct and brief. There are some major philosophical oversights Collins made, and while I'd like to take credit for pointing them out, they are so blatantly obvious any one could do so.
The thesis of Collins' book is that science presents undeniable evidence for the existence of the triune Abrahamic God, an interesting thesis and no small claim. How does Collins set about proving his thesis? - through a number of different ways:
First, Collins makes, or rather borrows the 'morality argument' almost completely from C.S. Lewis, the famous Christian apologist. If I was to characterize the argumentative style of Lewis, I would say he characteristically bites off more than he chews, making grandiose claims premised on weak assumptions, a trap Collins walks directly into. The crux of the morality argument in "The Language of God" is that there is no evolutionary justification for altruism on the level of the individual. Collins cannot imagine how individuals performing altruistic actions benefit their own reproductive health and thus assumes altruism must come from outside the individual; it was put there by the Abrahamic God. I have two things to say about this: 1. Collins ignores the research by Richard Dawkins, among others, on the nature of kin selection and how altruistic actions on the individual can plausibly, realistically, support the genetic benefit of the group. 2. Collins is employing "God of the Gaps" logic, something he claims to despise, by looking for a hole where he perceives there isn't a scientific answer and plugging in God. This is no small logical error, and is quite typical of Christian apologists; these individuals search for 'gaps' in science, the places where we don't yet have answers so they may insert their own version of God, as if by proxy. Even if we didn't have a scientific explanation for the existence of altruism, there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume a god is responsible, let alone a Christian version. This kind of logic is pervasive throughout the writings of C.S. Lewis, and because Collins piggybacks so heavily on Lewis's popular books, he falls prey to the same shortcomings.
Second, on the reason why God doesn't provide more concrete evidence of his existence Collins says, "If the case in favor of belief in God were utterly airtight, then the world would be full of confident practitioners of a single faith. But imagine such a world, where the opportunity to make a free choice about belief was taken away by the certainty of the evidence. How interesting would that be?" So, according to Collins the reason God doesn't make his existence clear is because the world would be less interesting. Couple this with the belief that God will damn to hell those who don't accept his existence and you have a fairytale-esque reality set forth by Collins. Why would God hide himself and then damn those who can't find him? Well, because its more interesting than the alternative!
Third, Collins relays a personal experience which he said solidified his Christian belief,
"On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains ... the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ."
If one can deduce the existence of Jesus Christ, and the triune deity from a frozen waterfall, then you can assume anything from anything. Why not assume, from the frozen waterfall the reality and existence of genocidal meatball monsters on the dark side of the moon? Using Collins' logic, there is no difference; in fact anything goes with this kind of pithy thinking.
If Francis Collins wasn't one of the most prominent scientists operating in genetics he probably wouldn't have caught so much flack for this book, however because he is highly educated he should know better. I found this book sadly disappointing.
posted by Joel at
8:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home