…and this is a 
Reasons to believe, according to Collins
Category: Kooks • Religion • Stupidity
Posted on: April 5, 2007 10:43 AM, by PZ Myers
If I see Francis Collins' pious, simpering facade one more time, I'm going to get really pissed off. Can someone please give that man a Templeton Prize and let him retire to the Cascades, where he can stare at waterfalls to his heart's content? CNN has an article on "Why this scientist believes in God", and it's just more vapid crap distilled from his vapid book.
But OK, let's take him at his word. He claims to be presenting reasons to believe … what are they? Do they meet any kind of scientific standard?
I've thrown out most of his essay, and pulled out just those parts that actually address the issue. Not much was left.
…I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.
This is an empty tautology. He sees something as a product of a god, therefore he believes in a god…but he offers no reason to see it as a god-product in the first place. If the reason for that is "elegance and complexity", then he is making the intelligent design argument. We know, however, that complexity is a consequence of accumulating randomness, and that elegance is honed out of the noise by selection. No gods are required for either, this is not a reason to believe.
I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"
After the first bogus argument, it's hard to believe it could get worse, but it does.
There are questions that science can't answer because they are meaningless or make false assumptions. People once wondered whether the miniature human embryo was present in the sperm, or in the egg; the answer was neither, because preformation was false. It was not a failure of science that it couldn't pick one of the two answers that were thought up, it was a failure of conception on the part of the questioners.
Same here. Some of those questions are nonsense ("What is the meaning of life?" There is no meaning beyond what you give to it), some are more tautologies ("Who created the universe?" Why assume it was a who?), and some have been answered or can be answered by science ("Why do humans have a moral sense?" Look up the word "altruism" in an evolution text, buddy.)
Most damning of all, though, why would an inability to answer a question cause one to turn from science to an alternative, religion, that is spectacularly unqualified to answer any of the questions posed? Religion cannot tell you what happens after you die in any meaningful way. The religious have no answers, nothing that someone trained to think scientifically can trace back to the evidence — they have assertions, and every one seems to make a different claim.
…was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds.
And these rational, plausible reasons are … ? That was the job of this essay, to summarize the reasons to believe, and simply saying that some other author somewhere made a strong case is inadequate … he's passing the buck.
And, unfortunately, I've read C.S. Lewis. His arguments are as flimsy and evasive as Collins'.
after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.
Now we get to the ahistorical lies. There is a poor historical record of Jesus—nothing he wrote survived, all the accounts are second hand, there is no contemporary documentation of his existence. Loving your neighbor is not a remarkable claim, nor is it one first made by Jesus; the golden rule has been around for ages. Atheists can say it, so it's certainly no evidence of divinity. Claims about being a god's son, though, are evidence of insanity. He has presented no reason that he would resolve his uncertainty by supporting the claim of kinship with a deity (which has innumerable logical problems already), rather than deciding he was yet another tinpot messiah making ridiculous claims.
And how does a search to learn about God's character lead to a Hebrew priest, anyway? Why should we assume God even has a comprehensible character? Collins is another example of someone who believes there is "some great big person up there", one of those naive hicks Elaine Pagels disparages.
I would suggest that this argument by Collins would be better answered by supporting the divinity of Julius Caesar. His existence is far better supported than that of Jesus; we even have examples of his writings preserved, with monuments and first hand personal accounts of his life. He allowed himself to be called a god — Deo Invicto, no less — and his successor built temples to the Divus Julius. It's awfully silly that Collins thinks the argument that either Caesar or Jesus was a god generates uncertainty, that he resolves in one direction for one of the pair, and in the other direction for the other.
And that's it. Collins is given space to make an argument for the existence of his god, and this is the best he can do: nostrums, nonsense, noise. He should have been more honest and simply said he believes because he wants to believe, and he has no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to give his belief greater credibility than that of any unlettered church-going yokel.
At least he spared us the waterfall excuse this time, but it's still all the same insipid mewlings he's been giving to a willing and anxious media since his awful book came out.
Comments
There is one God and that God is Bunjil the Eagle - see http://myopinionsareimportant.wordpress.com/2007/03/26/bunjil-the-creator-watches-over-us-all/
(Sorry.)
Posted by: Markk | April 5, 2007 10:48 AM
The question isn't whether his arguments meet any kind of scientific standard, but whether they meet any rational standard. As PZ ably points out, when it comes to his religion, Collins simply checks his brain at the door, and repeats the trite fallacies common in sermons and apologetics. This has nothing to do with science, or Collins being a scientist, but is simply another example of the extent to which people can compartmentalize their mental lives.
Posted by: Russell | April 5, 2007 10:49 AM
PZ said: "He should have been more honest and simply said he believes because he wants to believe..."
I suspect he is incapable of seeing it like that. I believe he really thinks those things are the reasons he has for believing in God, and that they are good reasons for doing so.
Posted by: Håvard | April 5, 2007 10:55 AM
He was on CNN-TV last night and I thought I caught a glimpse of some sort of equal time given to an ID advocate. Did anyone catch what was on the TV? All I know is that Collins was singing at one point, I had better things to do with my son at the time...
Posted by: George | April 5, 2007 10:57 AM
Either these people need to invent new arguments, or I need to spend more time doing actual work instead of blog-surfing. I've said before, "Collins provides an 'argument' for God which is little more than Paley's Watchmaker in disguise" — and I've said it at bloody great length, too. I should stop this before it boosts my blood pressure beyond repair, or at least until somebody pays me to write these things.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 5, 2007 10:58 AM
The trouble with these types of arguments is that the Bible never argues it's case; it just states it.
Nor does any spokesman in the Bible try to argue their case, except by pointing to other Scripture; people were meant to believe because they had seen a miracle, rather than on evidence of the actual claims presented.
Posted by: Markk | April 5, 2007 11:02 AM
I have an important theological question:
Most of the advocates of the existence of a Supreme Being also tend to agree that any proof of its existence is purposefully vague. Thus there is no glowing message orbiting the Earth reading, "Hey, this is God, I created you." Has to do with their complicated arguments about free will.
Yet they keep seeking to find the subtle proofs of God's existence in either cosmology or biology.
(A) Are these people saying that their Supreme Being is INCAPABLE of creating the universe or earthly creatures in such a way as NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER remains of a magical intervention?
(B) Are these people attempting to counter their own God's will, who apparently (according to their logic) chose NOT to leave proofs around of its own existence?
Posted by: El Cid | April 5, 2007 11:03 AM
If you forgive an Offtopic comment: Quick, quick, That Dilbert-guy has written up another (very bad) caricature of how science supposedly works. It's awful, and I'd love to have it seen teared up. ;)
Posted by: Laumei | April 5, 2007 11:11 AM
This is exactly what Martin Gardener did, though his belief did not seem to me to be the "Big Person" that Collins seems to believe exists. IIRC, I came across it in Gardener's collection _The Night Is Large_. He called his position Fideism (but it did not seem consistent with the Protestant concept of salvation by faith exclusively that also goes by that name.)
Posted by: Craig Pennington | April 5, 2007 11:21 AM
George-
You may have seen the "debate" on the validity of teaching religion in science class between Rob Boston from Americans United for Separation of Church and State and some hack shill from the Family Research Council. I can't remember her name. She repeated, as expected, the same clches about teaching the controversy.
Boston made a comment about ID being simply a way to get Genesis creationism into class, and that probably 90% of the FRC are YEC's. Cooper then asked the FRC person if she beleived in 6 day creation and a 6,000 year old earth, which she evaded. Boston tried to follow up and get her to answer it, but the segment ended without a response.
Posted by: chris | April 5, 2007 11:22 AM
"nostrums, nonsense, noise"
A nice symmetrucal countir to C.S. Lowis' "lard, lyre, lonatic" trylemma of fuckang ballshit. Exept that yaurs is aditive, and Lowis' is fals.
Posted by: Broke Spelchecker | April 5, 2007 11:26 AM
The problem of course is that arguments for the existence of god, and similarly for belief in god, do not need to meet any rational standard. Religious faith requires one to ignore some facet of reason and logic.
Furthermore, all logical arguments require some set of assumptions or axioms. One assumption amongst most scientists and philosophers is that "answers" obtained from rational thought hold the most value. However, while religious followers may get baited into trying to construct rational arguments (and will inevitably fail), ultimately their beliefs stem from a system which places minimal value in logic.
Believing to know god's will is a prime example. Assuming god exists, there's still no rational way to create the bible or any holy scripture. Love thy neighbour (i.e. do unto others..) makes sense on rational grounds - it's in the interest of self-preservation. But that gays are evil? That we should go to church once a week? That eating certain types of meat on certain days is bad?
For that matter, even if there is a god, how do you construct a rational argument that concludes that he (arbitrary choice of pronoun) wants to to believe in him? A person of faith doesn't need to do this thought because they start with the axiom that "god wants us to believe".
Posted by: LogicallySpeaking | April 5, 2007 11:33 AM
I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" ... "What happens after we die?"
There are deep existential questions that science may never answer. But why do you never hear religious people ask questions like, "why is nature so utterly cruel and indifferent?" Assuming an objective reality, the amount suffering and misery in nature, on any given day, is enormous. Is the "creator" of such a system worth praising? Or does such praise come from fear rather than love?
Posted by: dave | April 5, 2007 11:42 AM
This is my stock answer to Pascal's Wager. What if God is a rationalist -- what if God rewards, to paraphrase Jefferson, honest doubt and punishes unreasoning faith? Why should I think this less likely than the other way around?
In one way I have some respect for the fideist position -- they don't pretend to have reason on their side. More so if it is conceded that when evidence and faith are in direct conflict, faith must yield.
Posted by: Craig Pennington | April 5, 2007 11:51 AM
The only thing resembling a reason or logical argument in this essay was that it is impossible to disprove a negative. Well done, Francis, but if that's your most rational argument for the existence of god, does that not make your god-belief right on par with Descartes' Imp or classic brain-in-a-jar solipsism?
Why doesn't Francis Collins believe we are in The Matrix? Is Jesus that much more charismatic than Lawrence Fishburn?
In the end, it's a waste of time to break down these pseudo-arguments, as Collins comes right out and says that god-belief requires a leap of faith, i.e. irrationality.
Posted by: Evan | April 5, 2007 11:55 AM
Perhaps you should forgo commenting on Collins any more, perhaps he has reached the point where you can just say, "Look, the idiot is talking again" like Luskin or Egnor. It's really too bad that Collins has done good science and still believes the bullshit that comes out of his mouth. The cognitive dissonance must be killer.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | April 5, 2007 11:56 AM
What evidence would be acceptable? It seems that Collins provides "evidence" that is being rejected since the "evidence" does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is a God. The most common evidence that has been presented to me is that of revelation and miracles. For a believer, that evidence is quite compelling. For an atheist, that evidence is generally dismissed as fantasy or delusion (i.e. revelation and miracles don't actually occur, if you think they do then you haven't looked closely enough).
As an atheist, what evidence would convince you to believe in a God?
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | April 5, 2007 11:56 AM
dave writes:
This is actually a very common question asked by religious people. The problem of theodicy is ancient and included in the canonical texts of Judaism and Christianity. Where this becomes pernicious is when material benefits are associated with being in or out of God's favor. To help counter that tendency there is the book of Job.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | April 5, 2007 12:03 PM
If I looked through a telescope, and saw thousands of galaxies arranged to spell out "Yes, Tulse, I do indeed exist. Signed, God", then I would definitely revise my estimation of the likelihood of God's existence.
I challenge a believer to come up with any evidence that they say would cause them to disbelieve.
Posted by: Tulse | April 5, 2007 12:04 PM
If I see Francis Collins' pious, simpering facade one more time, I'm going to get really pissed of...
PZ, it can't be good for you to hold back like that. C'mon. How do you really feel?
Seriously, I think I'm developing the same thing. Heard him on the CBC's 'spirituality' program Tapestry a while back (radio was on, I was driving, no I didn't seek it out), and by a few minutes into the interview I was getting into the cringe pose. You know... that 'I know... any second he's going to say another maddeningly stupid, sanctimonious thing, and my black atheist's blood is simply gonna clot solid throughout my body' thing. Hands clenched on wheel. Finally just hadda turn it off.
Posted by: AJ MIlne | April 5, 2007 12:06 PM
There are deep existential questions that science may never answer.
Yeah. That pretty much answers why people turn to religion and philosophy. Somehow being called stupid and snapped at with "There is no meaning beyond what you give to it" when someone asks "What is the meaning of life?" has no more resonance with most people than a Chinese fortune cookie.
(not that I have anything against Chinese food...far from it)
Posted by: John Farrell | April 5, 2007 12:12 PM
And if religious people left the issue with finding meaning in their own life, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they also feel compelled to impose their world view on others, and in many cases (especially in the US) using the full armamentarium of the State to do so.
As soon as religious people stop worrying about whether others can: get an abortion, do stem-cell research, get married if they're gay, get educated about science, get HPV vaccinations, get useful information about AIDS prevention, etc. etc. etc., then I'd be happy to ignore them and not call them anything. If they want to address their personal existential questions through a belief in God, or Thor, or the Tooth Fairy, I have no problem with that, but when such beliefs become the basis of public policy decisions, your darned right I'm going to speak up and call them stupid.
Posted by: tulse | April 5, 2007 12:20 PM
My first thought upon reading this was "Surely Lewis did not write so badly?" Then I realized that it was Francis, not Lewis. How did this hash get by an editor? Awkward, stilted, lame. Perhaps a pastiche? "remarkably strong historical evidence of his life" sounds like a back-cover blurb.
Posted by: xebecs | April 5, 2007 12:26 PM
Glad to know how you feel about that, but what I said was "has no more resonance with most people", not "most religious people".
Posted by: John Farrell | April 5, 2007 12:31 PM
And the important difference that makes to the argument is...?
Posted by: Tulse | April 5, 2007 12:35 PM
Just to add to the set, should anyone be collecting data, There is no meaning beyond what you give to it has enormous resonance with me.
I like that. I find it positively inspiring, even.
No, you're not a rat in a divine maze created by Brahma or by Yahweh or by Loki, following arbitrary and bizarre rules, working toward reincarnation or salvation or forgiveness. You're a bit of starstuff that dragged itself up by its bootstraps over billions of years (or got tossed up by the waves of chance and held there by the sand of natural selection over billions of years... either way). You are alive to contemplate your own universe, your own fate, learn as best as your senses and reason allow how it is put together, where it's going from here. You may do with it as you will. Or, at least, as you can.
While the universe can be capricious, it is also neither malicious nor benevolent, and there is no divine will out there for you to appease, nor before which you should prostrate yourself, nor which will do you favours nor do you harm. You are, in a sense, a wildly lucky little bit of matter to get where you are, now, but what you do with that luck from here, that's up to you. There's no one to tell you what your life is about. You decide that.
What baffles me is what the hell is inspiring about any of the religious cosmologies I've ever encountered. Full of petty tyrants with pettier rules, deities concerned with whether women wear hats on Sundays or not, jealously demanding blind obeisance or they will their flock to Hell or an eternity of lives as a roach. And it seems to that even the fuzziest, least tyrannical still ultimately say: believe in me 'cos... well... 'cos I say so. Which, frankly, I think is nothing short of a disgusting way to treat a lucky bit of sentient matter occasionally possessed of the ability to work things out on its own.
I don't think that kind of ultimately authoritarian ugliness really resonates with anyone, except in an nasty, base, manipulative sense. I think that's just a rubber pacifier and gag stuck in folks' mouths and minds. Appeals to the part of the hindbrain that likes to be told what to do, is all.
Posted by: AJ Milne | April 5, 2007 12:44 PM
"As an atheist, what evidence would convince you to believe in a God?"
That's easy, a verifiable miracle that cannot be explained by any known laws of physics would be very strong evidence in favor of god(s). A demonstration of god(s) would be, in my estimation, no more difficult than a demonstration of Karma, or fate or luck or something to that effect. The physical manifestations such a thing should have are not ambiguous. It's the claims some make to experiencing them that are usually dubious, and/or perfectly explicable by mundane phenomena.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 5, 2007 12:46 PM
Is it only me that see's the parallel between some of those who "have faith" and the "loyal Bushies"? Legions of sheeple who follow their shephard. Why is critical thinking such a scarce commodity? A bi-product of a homogenus world??? (bi & homo in the same sentence... Bet that will ruffle some wool)
Posted by: AbleFable | April 5, 2007 12:51 PM
One very frustrating experience I imagine is common to those who teach in the humanities is that often you'll have a nice discussion going, ask as gently as possible for some explanation as to why someone might think some claim is true, and you're told 'For religious reasons'. To say 'for religious reasons' is like saying 'for personal reasons'. It is simply to refuse to specify the reasons while inviting the hearer to accept on faith that they're good. The trouble is that we've seen enough Seinfeld to know that these (putative) personal reasons are never any good, and the religious reasons I can only imagine are worse.
In response to Jeff, you are of course quite right that entire forests have been felled to address the problem of evil from a religious perspective. Unfortunately, none of the responses seem particularly good. Even if there is some lesson to be learned from the book of Job, I don't think that the lesson is that the God of the book of Job is a good guy (e.g., the good guys in movies don't traditionally kill someone's wife and kids in order to teach them an important lesson). If you do the charitable thing and focus on the God of the philosophers as Dawkins does, it does not seem that there is as of yet any good explanation as to why God would sit idly by while genocide occurs or while the lives of hundreds of thousands are threatened by a tsunami. I've read lots and lots and lots of them. All are terrible, and most are offensive insofar as they force us to think of the terrible suffering of others as wholly acceptable losses in the completion of some mysterious divine plan.
As for miracles, haven't you read your Hume?
Posted by: Clayton | April 5, 2007 1:02 PM
Mothers, teach your children: Ultimate truth can not be found in the pages of a science fiction book.
Although if Francis had discovered L-Ron before he did C-Lew, his rant might at least be less pedantic.
Posted by: melior | April 5, 2007 1:05 PM
AJ Milne (#26):
Preach it to 'em, freethinker! :-)
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 5, 2007 1:05 PM
Coleman raises an interesting point: Perhaps you should forgo(sic) commenting on Collins any more, perhaps he has reached the point where you can just say, "Look, the idiot is talking again" like Luskin or Egnor.
Really. WHY do you waste your time on this issue if it is so nonsensical to you?
I keep coming in here as it is the most popular ScienceBlog, and I keep coming up on posts not involving science, but rather screeds on the heathen Christianites.
Makes one wonder if I haven't instead stumbled upon a scientific analogy to the homophobic minister; one so terrified that he might be gay himself that he spends all of his time and rhetoric excoriating homosexuality.
Just a thought. And now, having seen the reaction commentators show to differing viewpoints, I will now batten down the hatches.
Posted by: House | April 5, 2007 1:07 PM
Oh, as an aside. As a personal favor to someone you've ever met, can I please ask the atheists and agnostics to STOP saying that belief in God is illogical, against logic, etc... Can I also request that you stop demanding a 'proof' for God's existence. You must realize that you're just tossing out red meat for the God squad.
There is simply no 'facet' in logic (whatever that is) violated by believing in God, unicorns, or Santa. The claim 'God exists' violates neither a logical rule, nor a grammatical rule. Try this instead: the belief is false, and its falsity is bloody obvious.
Similarly, when you ask for 'proof', you are just asking, begging, pleading for those with white belts in apologetics to ask you to 'prove' you have hands, that you're not dreaming, etc...
Posted by: Clayton | April 5, 2007 1:11 PM
Well, folks, there are a lot of great comments. I must admit, PZ's criticism is pretty much dead on.
But you know what? It's all irrelevant because as an evangelical Christian I really can't help myself. If I don't spew my bullshit beliefs, then Jesus won't like me. That's the deal. It's all in the Bible.
Posted by: Francis Collins, Dipshit | April 5, 2007 1:15 PM
A rather strong claim for someone who wonders what logic is.
Posted by: melior | April 5, 2007 1:17 PM
Similarly, when you ask for 'proof', you are just asking, begging, pleading for those with white belts in apologetics to ask you to 'prove' you have hands, that you're not dreaming, etc...
Hey, that's a good one. I'll be sure to pass that along to my attorney friends so they can try it in court.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 5, 2007 1:17 PM
I don't know, offhand, what sort of specific event would get me to believe in God. When someone asks "What evidence would get you believe in God?" I usually like to answer "God's supposed to be pretty smart, I'm sure he'll think of something." Why do I need to be the one to give advice to the all-knowing all-powerful super-being on the best way to convince me he exists?
Secondly, it is said that God doesn't give undeniable proof of his existence to everyone because doing so would violate free will. In the Bible, at least as interpreted by modern Christians, it states that at Judgement Day, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. I assume that at that point God has managed to give everyone undeniable evidence of his existence. So, ask your local Christian: Will God violate free will on Judgement Day? If the answer is no, and God can prove himself to everyone without violating free will, you have to wonder why he doesn't just get it over with now and save everyone the trouble of sin and hell. If the answer is yes, you have to ask why God gives such a rat's ass about free will on Earth when he doesn't care about it in Heaven. I've asked that before, and have never really gotten an answer.
Posted by: Patrick | April 5, 2007 1:17 PM
To say 'for religious reasons' is like saying 'for personal reasons'. It is simply to refuse to specify the reasons while inviting the hearer to accept on faith that they're good.
What about "deeply religious reasons"? Surely that is 100 times more persuasive.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 5, 2007 1:19 PM
You are alive to contemplate your own universe, your own fate, learn as best as your senses and reason allow how it is put together, where it's going from here. You may do with it as you will. Or, at least, as you can.
I thought we were alive to reproduce. Where did this warmed over pseudo-Sagan fluff come from? The universe doesn't need to contemplate itself. Frankly neither do you. Why substitute one watered down faith for another?
Posted by: John Farrell | April 5, 2007 1:21 PM
I must agree with PZ on most counts except the first. His answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything - "There is no meaning beyond what you give to it" - is no less meaningless and unfounded than any answer the evangelical Collins would give you. What PZ fails to understand is that some questions will always lie beyond the purview of science because they will always be reformulated over time, because they are trying to get at the 'meaning' of everything (including science) and thus will necessarily always elude a clear and distinct answer - but will always require some attempt at an answer because the questions are important, because the questions are asking about the meaning of meaning.
There might be nothing that will forever lie beyond the explanatory grasp of science. But (1) science has not yet proven that proposition and (2) that certainly does not mean that there are not questions that at the moment remain completely beyond scientific understanding.
Atheists - uppity atheists that is - often forget that their atheism is on the same metaphysical playing field as religion - not one level above it. Atheism might be more coherent, but some the questions that religion asks require unscientific answers and if atheism tries to answer them anyway, it will have to come up with its own unproven claims.
Posted by: eenauk | April 5, 2007 1:22 PM
House,
Your retort is peculiar one. The very point of this post is that Collins' "reasons" for believing are utterly vapid from a scientific perspective, yet he presents them as if they were a valid means of reconciliation of inanity ("faith") and rationality (science). For you to imply that this is not a valid topic of discussion among scientists assumes the very deferential stance the Weinburgs, the Dawkins, the Stengers, etc. are vigorously fighting against.
If it is your position that those damned uppity heathen scientists should shut up and lay off religion, you're not going to get very far here. As scientists, prospective scientists and scientifically minded people, most of those frequenting this board are sick of that attitude. I see religion and science (as well as rationality in general) as deeply in conflict. If you do not, the devices of argument are always available to you. Shrill denunciations such as your are singularly meaningless to me and, I suspect, just about everyone here.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 5, 2007 1:29 PM
I thought we were alive to reproduce.
Well, man, if that's all your neurons happen to be up to, you feel free.
Where did this warmed over pseudo-Sagan fluff come from?
Cute. Didn't really want an answer, tho', did you?
The universe doesn't need to contemplate itself. Frankly neither do you.
Umm. Speak for yourself. I do. But, you know, you go run along and reproduce, if that's what works for you.
Why substitute one watered down faith for another?
Ah. Of course. If you actually try to establish a meaning on your own, that's a 'faith'. It's a delightfully malleable language for rhetoric, if you don't actually concern yourself with definitions terribly, isn't it?
Posted by: AJ Milne | April 5, 2007 1:32 PM
Pretty convenient for Collins that the religion he chose also happens to be the one he's immersed in. He wanted some sense of ultimate purpose, but he didn't want to put too much effort into finding that purpose. Collins appears to be an adherent of the "I'm not gonna pay a lot for this muffler" school of theological thought.
Posted by: Tukla in Iowa | April 5, 2007 1:32 PM
John Farrell:
Wow...someone's been brushing up on his creationist talking points...wanna accuse the darwinists here of eating babies too?
So you're saying just because something isn't *needed*, it shouldn't be done?
Posted by: raiko | April 5, 2007 1:33 PM
Preach it to 'em, freethinker
Thanks, man. Seems the internets were down a few rants. Was just doing my part.
Posted by: AJ MIlne | April 5, 2007 1:35 PM
My long quest to actually find a living strawman atheist has come to an end. It is the younger Francis Colins. At last!
Posted by: The Science Pundit | April 5, 2007 1:36 PM
I've also read Lewis (specifically Mere Christianity) and a person would have to be desperate to believe to find it even remotely convincing
Posted by: G. Shelley | April 5, 2007 1:54 PM
You might as well ask, what evidence would convince you to believe in unicorns?
For me, as with everything else, the specific evidence doesn't matter, as long as it is empirical, repeatable, objectively corroborated -- and, most importantly, stronger than the amount of evidence supporting any other alternative.
There could be verified unicorn sightings, there could be biological discoveries that show horses' abilities to grow horns ...
What evidence would convince you that the miracles you mention are true accounts? What evidence would convince you that God is partial to people who do not believe those miracles (perhaps he's just trying to weed out the gullible and send them to hell -- or Kansas)?
What evidence would convince you that Apollo pulls the sun? Or that walking under a ladder is unlucky? Or that you should create a rhyme in honor of my third cousin's left big toe, which, according to my belief, is the creator of the universe -- and enjoys poetry.
Posted by: itchy | April 5, 2007 1:55 PM
PZ says:
... when he should have said:
Collins says:
... thereby reinforcing the stereotype that the religious cling to their religion because they just can't bear to admit to themselves that there's something they don't know.
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | April 5, 2007 2:06 PM
The Science Pundit:
Wait, doesn't this quote suggest that Francis Collins' method of arriving at conclusions hasn't changed after all these years?
Younger Collins: "I know there is no God"
Present day Collins: I know there is no real conflict between science and faith, particularly *my* faith
The latter really isn't a quote from Collins. It's just a trimmed-down version of Collins' "scientific" arguments. "I know..."
Posted by: raiko | April 5, 2007 2:22 PM
Wow...someone's been brushing up on his creationist talking points...wanna accuse the darwinists here of eating babies too?
Oh, brother. Yeah, whatever you say. That's certainly me all right.
Posted by: John Farrell | April 5, 2007 2:51 PM
itchy writes:
Since I don't believe in miracles, I can't think of anything that would convince me that a miracle occurred. If it is repeatable then it isn't a miracle. If it can't be repeated then it seems more likely to me that there is a misinterpretation of the event (or experimental error).
I ask the question about evidence because it has been my experience that the same evidence that leads someone away from faith can strengthen the faith of someone else.
Clayton writes:
Yes and I loved this response. Thanks.
I find the book of Job interesting partly because the description of God is so appalling that I'm amazed that the book was included in the Christian and Jewish canon. I think it may have been included because it is patently obvious that the world does not act in accordance with Deuteronomic justice. The book of Job partly addresses that disconnect.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | April 5, 2007 2:55 PM
" There is simply no 'facet' in logic (whatever that is) violated by believing in God, unicorns, or Santa.
A rather strong claim for someone who wonders what logic is."
I don't wonder what logic is, I've taught it. There is no such thing as a 'facet' in logic, just as there is no such thing as a 'widget' in the law. Saying that religious belief violates a logical 'facet' is akin to saying it violates a legal 'widget'. You're just asking for a snarky reply from apologists who knows this much (and not much else).
Posted by: Clayton | April 5, 2007 2:59 PM
PZ wrote:
"Some of those questions are nonsense ("What is the meaning of life?" There is no meaning beyond what you give to it)"
Imagine my surprise at seeing such a comment on a science blog of such repute. This has nothing to do with science; its philosophy. Nevertheless, can anybody help with a sound philosophical (sans ridicule) argument to support the answer given?
Posted by: David | April 5, 2007 3:14 PM
1: calling "what is a the meaning of life?" a nonsense question misses the mark. People are interested in that question. If you think that the question has a particular answer, i.e. that people create meaning (through their societal roles, families, accomplishments, etc.) well that's fine. I agree that the meaning of our lives is created, but it doesn't follow that the question is "nonsense," i.e. that there is no sense in asking it.
2: regarding the historicity of Jesus, you demonstrate your lack of training in historical inquiry.
"...nothing he wrote survived, all the accounts are second hand, there is no contemporary documentation of his existence"
We have no idea whether he created documents or not, so saying nothing he wrote survives is nonsense. Do we have documents written by (insert name of ancient historical figure here, e.g. Hannibal)? No. Well, I suppose he/she didn't exist either. CDNF-conclusion does not follow. Moreover, the claim that there is only second hand documentation of him, i.e. no contemporary documents, is also largely irrelevant. First of all, you seem to be unaware that ancient writers had access to written records that we do not have anymore (e.g. they often reference so and so's work on such and such, and we don't have it, it's not extant anymore; stupid scribes and library fires), so even if *we* only have second hand sources about Hannibal, that doesn't mean everything we have is BS. Second of all, the earliest gospel that we know of, Mark, was probably (based upon text critical analysis) written about a generation or so after Jesus' crucifixion. That is not that far removed, with the result that it's not really tenable to say "we don't know shit."
You know, I'm an agnostic. I don't think Jesus is/was divine, or Odin, or whatever. I think the idea of a virgin birth back then is rediculous, and there were lots of claimants to that back then. But it makes atheists look dumb when they start down the road of "he didn't even exist."
Posted by: Matt | April 5, 2007 3:18 PM
I agree that the meaning of our lives is created, but it doesn't follow that the question is "nonsense," i.e. that there is no sense in asking it.
Actually, it does follow, in the same way that there is no sense asking "What is the meaning of my turd?"
The answer is the same as the "deep" question posed by allegedly "great thinkers."
It doesn't matter that "some people are interested." Some people like to eat human shit for sexual excitement. So what?
The fact is that many humans -- PZ, myself, and countless others -- grew up and realized that questions such as "why are we here" are the sorts of things pondered by people who have either run out of useful things to consider or who are simply confused.
When your brain fails to get oxygen for a certain period of time, your shit is over. That's the "meaning" of life. Now go in the corner and cry for a few minutes, ask your mommy to wipe your ass, and go weed my garden.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 5, 2007 3:26 PM
But it makes atheists look dumb when they start down the road of "he didn't even exist."
Bullshit. There is no proof for his existence. Just because you're not sure, doesn't mean that reality isn't sure, either. Jesus, for all intents and purposes, did not exist. Believing he did doesn't make it so. Believing he might doesn't make it so. Knowing that there is an utter lack of contemporaneous evidence for "his" existence... priceless.
Posted by: Chris Gruber | April 5, 2007 3:38 PM
How do you decide what is "useful?"
The confusion comes not in asking such a question, but in asking it of science, or in not parsing it properly.
Why as in "for what purpose?" Well who in the world could have a purpose which would be addressed by our presence? (By asking this question you've already pretty much assumed that there is a figure for whom "we" serve some sort of deep purpose, ie God).
It seems to me that most of these "big questions" are nothing but a way of sneaking in the assumption of a God.
On the other hand the pervasiveness of this question says something important about people. Collins is symptomatic, and it would seem to me that what we ought to be wondering is not "How can we disparage Collins?"--like a lot of scientists, he's a rather bad philosopher. So what?--but "What, precisely, is Collins symptomatic of?
Posted by: Oran Kelley | April 5, 2007 3:42 PM
How do you decide what is "useful?"
The same you decide.
On the other hand the pervasiveness of this question says something important about people.
It says that we have too much time on our hands and it says that brains as big as ours are somewhat extraneous. Is that important? I don't think so. What is important is that people who thought that the question was important and who thought they had the answer to that question used my money to kill a lot of innocent people on the other side of the world.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 5, 2007 4:07 PM
So what?--but "What, precisely, is Collins symptomatic of?
Religion-induced psychosis.
Christianity is a really really fucked up pile of crap and all over the world it is getting shoved into the brains of children.
Reap the whirlwind.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 5, 2007 4:08 PM
The Cascades? Aw, why you want to send him out here, PZ? There are plenty of waterfalls, in, say, Papua New Guinea.
Posted by: Tlazolteotl | April 5, 2007 4:13 PM
Sort of weird that for as long as we have records the majority of people in the world have been psychotic. Because, Christianity isn't really uniquely screwy, at least as far as I can tell.
Judging by your posts, it may be wroth considering that you are suffering from some sort of delusional psychosis. Particularly the part where you imagine you know what I think is useful and that it serendipitously happens to coincide with your own approach to that problem.
Did God tell you these things?
Posted by: Oran Kelley | April 5, 2007 4:15 PM
Oran the Moran,
Judging by your posts, it may be wroth considering that you are suffering from some sort of delusional psychosis.
Likewise. The difference is that I'm not telling five year old kids that if they don't share my delusions they risk spending eternity being tortured by a monster in hell.
I think that is an "important" difference. What do you think, Oran? Actually, just go fuck yourself.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 5, 2007 4:28 PM
Tukla in Iowa (comment #42) wrote:
Nice one; now there is Diet Coke on my keyboard :)
As for whether science can answer whether or not there is a "meaning" to Life, or a purpose for our existence, I think that depends on what sort of meaning or purpose people are talking about.
Imagine two teenager boys, A and B. A's parents conceived him by accident. They don't care what he chooses to do with his life. Whatever he wants, is up to him.
B's parents had their son for a purpose. They needed an accountant. They deliberately conceived him with the specific goal of his someday becoming a CPA, that he might be able to help them with their taxes. His sex was specifically selected, because they wanted their accountant to be male. They have a plan for his life.
By examining empirical evidence, you could indeed discover that teenager B has a meaning for his life, and a purpose. Teenager A's life, on the other hand, has no meaning. He was not created for any purpose.
I think asking if there is a "meaning for life" or whether we have a "purpose for living" is only an empirical question which science can address if this is the sort of meaning and purpose you're talking about.
Posted by: Sastra | April 5, 2007 4:38 PM
While I am not necessarily averse to your suggestion, I suspect my physiological limitations make it impossible.
As to hell and demons, I've never met anyone who was particularly frightened at the prospect. Most of the believers I know either blithely assume they're going to some other place or they believe that God will prove merciful in the final event.
I have fairly good memories of my childhood, when I was a believer and I don't recall wasting much time worrying about hell. I don't recall my friends doing so either. I think it's probably true, that like a lot of terrifying stories that have been told to youngsters over the years (see for instance, fairy tales), hell only gets a limited amount of traction.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | April 5, 2007 4:43 PM
Take it back a notch, GWW.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 5, 2007 4:47 PM
Y'know what would get me to believe? Pat Robertson being killed by lightning.
Seriously. Pat Robertson regularly invokes God's wrath on some hotbed of teh gay or another, and God's wrath never actually smites said hotbed. That's false prophecy.
Deutoronomy 18:22:
If God exists, He seems awfully apathetic about those who falsely claim to speak in His name. If He lets Pat Robertson blaspheme unscathed, surely He'll cut me some slack. He damn well didn't let people get away with that shit in Moses' time, I tell you what.
Posted by: Mithrandir | April 5, 2007 4:49 PM
Sort of weird that for as long as we have records the majority of people in the world have been psychotic.
For as long as we have records, people communed with their "gods" by ingesting drugs and/or alcohol. And "priests" have appointed themselves to control who gets to possess and consume the "holy" substances and when.
Yes, it is "sort of weird."
But indoctrinating little kids by scaring them with stories about monsters sending them to hell forever and forever, without mommy and daddy, if they don't believe in bloody Jesus the white zombie who rose from the grave? That's about as fucked and wrong as the shit gets on this planet.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 5, 2007 4:50 PM
Take it back a notch, GWW.
Sorry, boss. I was on the other side of the barn.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 5, 2007 4:51 PM
See, *other* historical figures all have evidence in the form of documents from "multiple" sources, evidence that things *actually* happened in the places they are supposed to have been, etc. With Jesus you get the equivalent of a Wag the Dog story. He did X here, Y there, Z at the next place, but no one *in* any of those places mentions him, claims to have seen him, has physical evidence that any such person where ever there, etc. Its a con job. Real history has multiple sources of verification, ranging from artifacts (we have none), to secondary accounts (we have none of those either), to prior documents (also none). Could all of that lack of evidence be overturned by *one* scrap of real evidence, well.. maybe, but only as long as its real evidence, and not the BS kind that churches come up with all the time, like fake blood, fake shrouds, crying statues, or the most recent idiocy where they found that the remains of Joan of Arc are part of Egyptian mummies:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2050361,00.html
For some of us, constantly reading about how damn near everything and everyone one that historical data implies "might have" existed eventually produces conclusive evidence they did (or that they are entirely made up legends), Jesus, for which we have no conclusive proof just looks way more likely