Science Is in the Details

[and-justice-for-all]

Op-Ed Contributor
Science Is in the Details

Article Tools Sponsored By
By SAM HARRIS
Published: July 26, 2009

PRESIDENT OBAMA has nominated Francis Collins to be the next director of the National Institutes of Health. It would seem a brilliant choice. Dr. Collins’s credentials are impeccable: he is a physical chemist, a medical geneticist and the former head of the Human Genome Project. He is also, by his own account, living proof that there is no conflict between science and religion. In 2006, he published “The Language of God,” in which he claimed to demonstrate “a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony” between 21st-century science and evangelical Christianity.

Dr. Collins is regularly praised by secular scientists for what he is not: he is not a “young earth creationist,” nor is he a proponent of “intelligent design.” Given the state of the evidence for evolution, these are both very good things for a scientist not to be...

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27harris.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

[trotsky]

1. Ooh, there was quite the flamewar on this in GD awhile back.

I dunno, I have to question the science creds of anyone who says such unscientific tripe as:

“Almighty God, who is not limited in space or time, created a universe 13.7 billion years ago with its parameters precisely tuned to allow the development of complexity over long periods of time.”

or

“If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?”

I guess this all goes back to, how can someone be so smart in one area but just so Koresh-damn stupid in others?

[Warpy]

3. "especially the strong atheists?" OK, he lost me there

After all, my ethics come from thinking things through. I don't want to live in a violent world where people steal from each other, rape, and assault. It starts with me because I have control over my own behavior--other people, not so much.

I think he needs to rethink a few things there. Religious people who think all the rules for living within an orderly and humane society came from a god might have been hoodwinked.

I wasn't.

[trotsky]

4. Same "argument" that's been advanced on DU.

If there isn't a god, then there is no source of morality, and that answer is simply unacceptable so therefore atheism is wrong.

And this guy is supposed to be rational enough to be a good scientist?

[and-justice-for-all]

6. People who think that without an invisible man in the sky

there is no morality, like the idea that something makes them do the things they do; its an excuse to do things that are actually immoral and to not be responsible for ones own actions.

There is morality without gawd, otherwise we would not be having this conversation. Morality is learned, not given.

[vixengrl]

7. And I would have to argue to them--then "What is morality?"

If morality only comes from God, who dictates what is and is not morally good--how does the limited intelligence of man sort out exactly what God ordained to be the good, the right, and the true?

Is the moral act chosen arbitrarily by Divine Fiat--calling, let's say, vegetables clean, but shrimp unclean, without reference to some standard of "cleanliness" we could measure? Are acts moral or immoral solely in the context of God's Divine Plan, where the casual murder of an Abel is sinful, but the slaughter of, say, a whole tribe of nomads in the Book of Joshua, fulfills a certain purpose? (Which leaves the narrative of what exactly God's plan is in whose hands, exactly?)

Or is it more likely that there is an innate quality to what we would call "good" or "bad" actions that resides in the intent and understood consequences of those actions, that a limited mortal could puzzle out without benefit of any deity? That people have developed laws by observing unfavorable consequences and sought to minimize them?

In the absence of a voice whispering in people's ears what they ought to do next, or the proverbial angel on one shoulder, devil on the other depicted in cartoons, I would hope people tended to act from good intentions, trying to minimize bad consequences.

[trotsky]

8. I think Einstein said it best.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

[ZombieHorde]

13. Well stated. nt

[laconicsax]

2. How can you even conduct research objectively if you believe there's a magic man

who could secretly fuck with your test results at any moment, especially when the whole premise of your work is proving that said magic man exists. And what the fuck does the whole, "given the state of evidence for evolution..." paragraph even mean?

Collins agitates me in ways that usually only fundamentalist agnostics do. At least you can trust theists to typically work against your better interests--that and multiply 3 and 4 and get the answer wrong by a factor of 100.

[and-justice-for-all]

5. This is where Mr. Collins fails..

"But when challenged with alternative accounts of these phenomena — or with evidence that suggests that God might be unloving, illogical, inconsistent or, indeed, absent — Dr. Collins will say that God stands outside of Nature, and thus science cannot address the question of his existence at all."

Did you get that last line: "Dr. Collins will say that God stands outside of Nature, and thus science cannot address the question of his existence at all." = FAIL. Why? because the major lack of empirical evidence.

A) If something is operating outside of nature, it therefore will have NO effect upon nature. Saying that there is a force that operates outside of nature is a fallacy and major error on their part for making such an absurd statement.

B) When Mr. Collins states that since gawd stands outside of nature and cannot be proven, this ambiguity trick is dead by its own flawed (il)logic. He, along with the rest who subscribe to Mr. Collins fantasy, should no longer address their ridiculous idea as a valid concept and we should call them out on their nonsense; nonsense that has NO place in the field of Science of any kind.

[trotsky]

9. I just noticed that Pharyngula (of course) had an excellent blurb on Collins.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/monday_must_be_pick_on_francis.php

Curiosity is a fine thing and I have to encourage any wellspring for it. However, the defining feature of Collins' faith, and that part of it that makes it objectionable, is that he uses it to wall off parts of the human world from curiosity. The human genome project was a technological exercise, a sustained, disciplined effort to apply developing tools to a specific, narrow problem. It opens up new avenues for science, but in itself was not a demonstration of scientific competence. His administrative ability led the work to a conclusion, not his scientific skill set.

And what has he done with it afterwards? Declared the genome a divine artifact, decreed that certain domains, such as human behavior and morality, are exempt from scientific scrutiny, and proposed a succession of freakish Christian dogmas as substitutes for reasoned analysis. At this point, where the real science takes over, his faith only gets in the way.

...

The situation is this: the White House has picked for high office a well-known scientist with a good track record in management who wears clown shoes. Worse, this scientist likes to stroll about with his clown shoes going squeak-squeak-squeak, pointing them out to everyone, and bragging about how red and shiny and gosh-darned big his shoes are, and tut-tutting at the apparent lack of fine fashion sense exhibited by his peers who wear rather less flamboyant footwear.

Yup, that pretty much nails it.

[charlie]

10. Have you looked at his biologos site?

I have, Jeebus knows it's been dragged in here often enough. You'll find that underneath its genteel "fair-minded" trappings, it's a garden variety apologist site, little different than others, save its indulgence of evolution.

He makes much of the fact that morality from an atheist view is relative, without firm underpinning, what the thumpers call lacking "an objective standard." He also uses the same feint as the fundies, saying that our innate sense of compassion and fair play are indications of a "loving" god. Or as the fundies put it, morality was "written on our hearts." So, it's self-serving circularity for the win -- we lack true morality, but point out that it might be inherent in our biology, God put it there. Way to go, Frances.

He's enamored with the fine-tuning argument and references it often, like all the nutters. I can see why, they can't lose. If the universe was ridiculously fecund, sprouting life from any old slap-dash configuration, the same arguments for God would apply. Every state between knife edge precision to splattershot laxity is a sign of God, if you're trying to shoehorn Him in there.

And yes, he's an evolutionary stalwart, as any good scientist would be. But wait... he points out that an omniscient, omnipotent god could make directed mutations seem random. Yes, guided evolution. But not really, he's just sayin', you know. And like a kid thinking up new powers for Superman, he has a Things That Make You Go Hmmm section where he argues for the evolutionary inevitability of humans. Not necessarily today's humans, but creatures intelligent and sophisticated enough to worship God. Targetted evolution, IOW. Because I'm sure he's noticed that evolution can actually putter along until the earth croaks without producing anything more complex than a cockroach. Which makes God a wanker, and that will never do.

It's a sad business when you can get more skepticism and calling out supernatural bullshit from BISHOP SPONG than from the goddamned NIH head.

[trotsky]

11. And that's perhaps the most bizarre aspect here.

So, it's self-serving circularity for the win -- we lack true morality, but point out that it might be inherent in our biology, God put it there. Way to go, Frances.

No doubt he's perfectly logical and rational in just about everything else in his life. And if you put THIS argument into non-religious terms, he'd certainly reject it outright. But since it concerns his magical sky pixie, it's A-OK. Because, of course it's the answer he WANTS. And that's the most important thing we have to guard against in science - hell, in the pursuit of ANY knowledge. We might not like the truth, but we must accept it anyway.

[charlie]

12. Exactly. He knows better

HE knows when he's bullshitting. WE, religionists and nonreligionists alike, know when he's bullshitting. EVERYBODY knows. Yet largely, this Kabuki dance of pretending otherwise goes on, because riding his ass about some "deeply held" tenet of his religion would be unseemly. I'm not averse to polite discretion, but he's the idiot who dragged his religion into science, and "nuh-uh", "you're just close-minded", or "it's God's truth" are not acceptable responses to peer review.