Book review: “The language of god: a scientist presents evidence for belief.”

Written by Daniel in Educational, Opinion at June 14, 2010

I would like to propose an alternate (although wordy) title for this book. “The language of God: How a really good scientist can make many great discoveries and accept a changed version of a religion that is somewhat compatible with science.”

This book penned by Francis Collins spent many weeks on the NY Times bestseller list in 2006. Dr. Collins has done great things for humanity in his work on the human genome project. He is a medical doctor, the Director of the NIH and a member of the highly prestigious National Academy of Sciences. His goal in writing this book is to show that science and religion are compatible. In one sense this is true. Dr. Collins does not argue for a type Christianity that takes the bible literally, or even seriously. In fact, he mainly quotes the bible to show that if you read Genesis in a completely figurative sense it is compatible with science. From reading this book, it seems his Christianity is based more on the writings of C.S. Lewis than the words of the Bible or Jesus.

He seems to think that this book will forge a “middle path” between what he sees as fundamentalist religion and the “pitfalls” of atheism. From his perspective as a biologist, geneticist and medical doctor, he explains how creationism and intelligent design are not science. He rightly points out that creationism and intelligent design rely heavily on the “god of the gaps” argument, and also make god a “trickster” that made the earth look older than it actually is or uses unguided processes to make “irreducible complexity.” These sections of the book are very good. His simple popular level refutation of intelligent design is very powerful. However, in this section he also plants the idea that “evolution does not lead to atheism.” This is only partially true. Evolution explains how god is not necessary for biological life. To get to well-grounded philosophical atheism, you probably should examine and refute some of the common arguments for the existence of a god. When Dr. Collins the scientist talks about science, he is very, very good. However, when he takes his forays into philosophy, he is uses very sloppy, confusing, and emotion-laden language that only succeeds in obscuring exactly what he believes. At the end of the book Collins says “…of all the possible worldviews, atheism is the least rational.” This is very puzzling, based on the fact that he goes on for pages about how wrong young earth creationism and intelligent design are.

His arguments for the existence of god are basically twofold.

First, he tries the argument from the “Anthropic principle.” This argument basically postulates that there are a set of cosmological constants that had to exist for life to appear. Since these constants are highly improbable, they must be “fine tuned.” Only a “mind” can do the fine-tuning, ergo, the mind of god is the fine-tuner. This argument is basically an argument against improbable events. Do we assume that the lottery is fine tuned for a certain person to win, because it is improbable for any single person to win the lottery? No. At an even more basic level, which way does fine-tuning work? Since boat hulls are perfect places for barnacles to live, does that mean that boat hulls are fine-tuned for barnacle life? No. Life has adapted to survive within the cosmological constants, not the other way around.

Second, he tries the old “moral law” argument. I am at a loss on how to respond to this “argument” because he does such a poor job of explaining, what exactly the “moral law” is. He quotes C.S. Lewis at length, but nowhere does he define what and how such a being as his postulated god created and sustains the “moral law.” At times he calls the moral law “altruism.” At times he says that humans have a “god shaped hole in their hearts.” But these never really arrive at the point of being an actual argument for the existence of god. There are many naturalist accounts of human ethics. There are many evolutionary reasons for altruism. But saying that a supernatural being exists and wants a relationship with humans is a huge leap from the idea that people want to live in societies with rules that protect us from harm. Nowhere does he try to explain how the “moral law” explains moral evolution, which we have clearly seen in our lifetimes, or how his vague moral law is free from divine command theory which either makes god a random arbiter of morality or else a helpless enforcer of higher moral laws. In any case, he never specifically ties the moral law to his specific religion, in the sense that other contradictory religions might have the “right” god with the “right” moral law.

This gets to the heart of my problem with scientists that loudly preach “science is 100% compatible with religion!” Such a view privileges religion in a way that marginalizes and encourages discrimination against anyone who wants to talk about ethics without religious interference. If I woke up tomorrow and found that all fundamentalist religions had turned into the moderate religion that Collins espouses, I agree that the world would be a better place. In fact, in the appendix of the book, he seems to reject the traditional Catholic idea that souls magically enter zygotes the second that sperm and egg meet. He also accepts the idea that homosexuality is (at least partially) determined by heredity. But he still seems to espouse the simplistic worldview that people can’t be ethical and complete human beings without religion.

If I were to talk to Dr. Collins I would challenge him this way. I’ve read C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity.” Would you mind reading Richard Carrier’s “Sense and Goodness without God?” When people bring up the supposed “God shaped hole in the human heart” I want to get them to think about how atheists actually live. We are no different that you, Dr. Collins. We have the same desires to live good and ethical lives. We just have less credulity about religious claims and your “miracles” (improbable events). When he describes his conversion experience which involved viewing a frozen waterfall while hiking through the mountains, I felt a deep connection with it. I love nature too, Dr. Collins. But why is there something wrong with me because I don’t see a god behind nature? Collins’ religion is the “good” kind, in the sense that he understands that science discovers truths, and if religion contradicts these truths, then it is probably wrong. I think that his chosen worldview has led to a good life for him, even if it is incorrect about the whole “god” thing. I just wish he would give us atheists the same courtesy.

Related posts:

1. Accommodationists
2. Why atheism will replace religion/primitive atheism
3. Book Review: Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them)