Cineaste pointed me to a very interesting article by TIME Magazine.
In God vs. Science, TIME brings in the heavyweights from both sides to argue the question of whether science can coexist with God.
Acidic atheist Richard Dawkins says, “no.” Convinced Christian Francis Collins says, “yes.” The dialogue between them is telling and interesting. As Cineaste said, it parallels much of the debates here. The following are some of my favorite parts of the joint interview.
Dawkins on evolution:
For centuries the most powerful argument for God’s existence from the physical world was the so-called argument from design: Living things are so beautiful and elegant and so apparently purposeful, they could only have been made by an intelligent designer. But Darwin provided a simpler explanation. His way is a gradual, incremental improvement starting from very simple beginnings and working up step by tiny incremental step to more complexity, more elegance, more adaptive perfection. … It should warn us against ever again assuming that because something is complicated, God must have done it.
‘
Collins on his view that God and evolution are compatible:
By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.
After Dawkins says that a unified theory or the multiverse theory can explain all of the anthropic constants, Collins responds:
This is an interesting choice. Barring a theoretical resolution, which I think is unlikely, you either have to say there are zillions of parallel universes out there that we can’t observe at present or you have to say there was a plan. I actually find the argument of the existence of a God who did the planning more compelling than the bubbling of all these multiverses. So Occam’s razor–Occam says you should choose the explanation that is most simple and straightforward–leads me more to believe in God than in the multiverse, which seems quite a stretch of the imagination.
A debater faux-pas happens when Dawkins chastises Collins for appealling to the improbability of some event occurring naturally equalling God, but then Dawkins says:
But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is vanishingly small–at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that’s the case.
I just found it odd that Dawkins wanted to make his point about the improbability of what he called “something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding” being the Christian God, while he refused to allow Collins the same tactic.
If Dawkins held himself to the same standards, he would be forced to defend the multiverse or unified theories and not simply toss it out as a possiblity with no real support behind it.
The debate enters the most testy, but it was hardly testy, stage when they were asked about miracles. Collins argues (which I will also do so later today) that they are do not conflict with science unless you start with the a priori assumption of no supernatural.
Dawkins says: “Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific–really scientific–credibility. I’m sorry to be so blunt.”
Collins responds: “I actually agree with the first part of what you said. But I would challenge the statement that my scientific instincts are any less rigorous than yours. The difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and yours is.”
I’m not sure how edited this “debate” was, but for the first part Dawkins seemed to be pretty much in control with Collins only occassionally denting his argument, but Dawkins was forced into grasping at straws when the discussion turned toward the development of our moral code.
It was interesting to see how Dawkins responded when Collins asked him if humans have a “different moral significance” than cows. Dawkins merely allowed for “more moral responsibility perhaps” because of our reasoning capabilities.
Both gave strong closing statements. Collins echoed something I have been trying to say for awhile:
I just would like to say that over more than a quarter-century as a scientist and a believer, I find absolutely nothing in conflict between agreeing with Richard in practically all of his conclusions about the natural world, and also saying that I am still able to accept and embrace the possibility that there are answers that science isn’t able to provide about the natural world–the questions about why instead of the questions about how. I’m interested in the whys. I find many of those answers in the spiritual realm. That in no way compromises my ability to think rigorously as a scientist.
Dawkins surprised me, as he backed away from his famed bulldog atheism to a soft, almost hopeful agnosticism:
My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. … But it [supernatural Creator] does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable–but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don’t see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.
As is the phrase, read the whole thing. It is very enlightening and illustrates how people can have a common ground in one area, a vast difference in another and have a cordial, even friendly discussion of their similarities and differences.
Dawkins was forced into grasping at straws when the discussion turned toward the development of our moral code.
Dawkins replies…
Humans have more moral responsibility perhaps, because they are capable of reasoning.
Aaron you missed Richard's point. He is saying humans have a greater moral significance than animals BECAUSE of their capacity to reason.
If you had to choose between saving the life of a chimpanzee or a rabbit, you would surly choose the chimpanzee. Why? Because the chimpanzee has greater moral significance than the rabbit. Why does it have greater moral significance than the rabbit? Because of the chimpanzees greater capacity for reason; it's the more advanced of the two species. Similarly, you would attribute greater moral significance to the rabbit as opposed to a crab.
Aaron,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you share your beliefs, in this case, with Dawkins? That it is either one or the other, but not both? Seems like you ought to be aiming your ire at the Christian who is capable of free thought, as opposed to the Christian incapable of free thought and the atheist incapable of free thought.
Somebody told me the other day that faith was once defined as the person who had the most doubt, but who continued to pursue answers. You should write about that some day.
Alfred, Lord Tennyson, wrote, "There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds."
I'm presently reading Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and, of course, find it compelling. I'm beginning to realize that being an atheist (that is, a non-theist) can be a lot more profound a choice that one would think. It's not just an alternate "faith," as many religionists would have us believe. Nor is it some evil, negative state which engenders despair. Rather, it is a radical search for Truth which is not content with simple (or complex, even) belief or just going along with the culture at large. And the best way of finding Truth is through reason and critical thinking because they produce results. When I observe the religious, they seem to have abandoned a search for Truth or, even, reality: they simply accept some dogma and merely repeat its views when questioned. Eventually, it comes down to some kind of statement like, "You simply have to believe, and then everything will become clear," or "Faith picks up where reason leaves off." Yes, reason and critical thinking often come up against the unknown, but that is no reason to abandon the quest and simply accept some religious dogma. Rather, it necessitates further inquiry and acceptance of the state of doubt and ignorance until more facts can come to light.
One of the things which bothers me about the god of the monotheists (and the polytheists, for that matter) is why it insists on hiding. Why not show itself, say, once a generation. Imagine the benefits of such a move. This insistence on faith is these matters of ultimate concern strikes me as strange, and convenient as well, in that it relieves believers from having to provide evidence for their views. And, of course, faith provides authoritarians of fool-proof means to silence dissent. Ever notice how critical thinking are discourage by both religion and authoritarian/fascist states? And why the two are so often found in concert?
Cineaste, Dawkins was clearly avoiding the question and his answers seemed uneasy during the entire portion on morality. Collins seemed (for some reason) equally uneasy early in the discussion.
As to the rabbit and the chimp, honestly, I'm not sure. They both are animals and carry similar weight for me.
Sam, I'm not sure what you are saying. I am not directing my "ire" at Dawkins or any one else in this post. I found the debate to be very interesting and was pleasantly surprised at how Dawkins responded to several questions (but from the reviews I have read this cordial attitude is not present in The God Delusion, which I would like to read.)
I would agree with Lord Tennyson and it is hard to say it better than he.
Louis, the thing about this debate that I was most disappointed with was how many times Collins left himself open to being called on a "cop-out" by Dawkins. While, there is no doubt about Collins mind as a scientist, his mind as a debater does not seem near as sharp as Dawkins, who has his rhetoric well-reheresed and can deliver it with quick wit.
Collins seemed to avoid giving much of a scientific defense of God, but merely saying God exists outside our understanding and you should accept it. Again, it may have been the editing, but going off what was printed alone, I would be leaning more toward Dawkins' agnosticism than Collin's Christianity.
Having said that, the reason I was disappointed was that Collins did not venture (or it was not printed) into the vast amount of scientific evidence for God and creation. He was more interested in putting forth a "can't we all get along" model, while Dawkins was busy dismantling his arguments and showing no need why atheists should cede any ground to theists.
He didn't give scientific evidence for God Aaron because he has none; he recognizes that evidence that might satisfy some Christians isn't actually evidence. And the point that I'm making is that it is you and Dawkins who share a position here, which I find to be very interesting.
There is plenty of evidence for God's existence, but I think it showed who is the more seasoned debater. Collins clearly does not spend his time traveling and dismantling the arguments of atheists – all Dawkins does now is attack theists.
What position is it that Dawkins and I share?
Cineaste, Dawkins was clearly avoiding the question and his answers seemed uneasy during the entire portion on morality.
Do you have a video of this or something?
As to the rabbit and the chimp, honestly, I'm not sure. They both are animals and carry similar weight for me.
Don't hand me that. Make it a chimp and an ant then.
Having said that, the reason I was disappointed was that Collins did not venture (or it was not printed) into the vast amount of scientific evidence for God and creation.
Here is why Aaron:
What you would call evidence (creationist fabrications), Collins would dismiss. He only has the argument from design left.
Dr. Francis Collins on the Colbert Report Colbert plays the role of a creationist.
No, I don't have a video. That's way I keep referencing how the interview may be edited. I may have it backwards. Collins may have been better early and then Dawkins, but the way it came across to me was that Collins did better later, specifically when discussing morality. Dawkins' answers seem contrived and forced.
I don't really like bugs so I would take the chimp, but the animal I choose to rescue has no bearing on them or their worth. If I was forced to choose between rescuing a total stranger or my wife, I would choose my wife. Now the total stranger has no less value as a human life than my wife does, but I value my wife more than the stranger.
Dawkins danced around the question of whether we humans have a different moral significance. He would not answer yes or no, but rather stated that we are more morally responsible. That was not the question asked. That is why I said Dawkins struggled in that part.
Also when I talked about the evidence for God I was not refering to the evidence for a young earth. Those are seperate things. They can be connected, but I am merely speaking of evidence for God – such as the one from morality that Collins made. He knows much of it – he wrote a book about it.
I don't really like bugs so I would take the chimp, but the animal I choose to rescue has no bearing on them or their worth. If I was forced to choose between rescuing a total stranger or my wife, I would choose my wife. Now the total stranger has no less value as a human life than my wife does, but I value my wife more than the stranger.
This is nonsense! So if the ant was a pet in your ant farm, a personal relationship with the ant, you would choose the ant over the chimp? Just concede the point for once instead of arguing for the sake of argument. You would choose the chimp because it is a higher form of life not because you know it like your wife or it was a stranger to you. Don't be a fanatic.
Dawkins danced around the question of whether we humans have a different moral significance. He would not answer yes or no, but rather stated that we are more morally responsible.
Richard answered Yes: "Humans have more moral responsibility perhaps, because they are capable of reasoning." This is what makes humans more morally significant than a cow or a chimp more more morally significant than an ant. It means humans have more moral responsibility because they can reason more.
You also evaded Francis' quarrel with creationists.
I'm not being a fanatic. I was merely saying that me saving a chimp would say more about my personal feelings than the chimps real worth.
Dawkins talked about moral responsibility not moral significance. Those are different concepts, perhaps related, but different.
If I have more significance, then I have more intrinsic value. If I have more responsibility that means I should work more for others. In this sense, Dawkins is saying that humans should not harm animals because he have higher reasoning, but we should not hold animals to that same standard. All the while, he apparently is not willing to allow that humans are worth more, have more significance morally, than animals.
I'm not sure how I evaded Collins' disagreement with YEC (not creationists, since I think he would describe himself as a "creationist" meaning that God created).
Christianity has room for those who accept evolution and those who do not. I have no problem with Collins belief in evolution as the mechanism that God used to develop life on Earth. I may disagree with it, but that doesn't mean I can't respect him and accept him as a fellow Christian.
In this sense, Christianity is much more open and a much larger tent than materialism, which will not allow any one in who does not accept pure Darwinian dogma.
You say "Darwinian dogma" yet all the best minds, including Collins and Dawkins, who are giants in their fields, accept evolution as fact. It is actually "dogma" to reject evolution especially since there is so much hard evidence for it.
I'm not being a fanatic. I was merely saying that me saving a chimp would say more about my personal feelings than the chimps real worth.
Be clear. Why would you save a chimp over an ant? Don't you attach greater moral significance to a chimp than an ant? Don't you have a moral responsibility to save the chimp over the ant?
Dawkins is saying that humans should not harm animals because we have higher reasoning, but we should not hold animals to that same standard.
Where does he say this? He doesn't.
I would choose the chimp any day – they are more nutritious.
Don't you and Dawkins share the idea that you either believe in God, or you don't, and there's no in between? Which is what Collins is advocating?
all the best minds Really? All the best minds? Everyone who knows about the subject matter is an evolutionist? I don't find that to be the case. The vast majority? Yes, but not everyone.
Even if it was everyone that does not prove or disprove the truth of evolution. All the best minds in science have been wrong before. Everyone follows the trend and believe the popular theories until someone points out the holes and further work is done and a new theory becomes the popular one.
Dawkins said humans have "more moral responsibility." Maybe, it's just me but when I hear someone has more responsibility that means I am holding them to a higher standard. I place more responsibility on my four-year-old than my 20-month-old. I hold him to a higher standard of behavior.
I mean logically, you can't hold animals to the same standard to which we are held. We don't mind animals tearing one another apart – that's nature – but we would be repulsed by a human who attacked and ripped an animal to pieces. We don't place an animal on trial for murder if they kill another animal or even a person – they don't know any better. How is that debateable?
Collins isn't advocating an in between of belief in God or not. He is saying that there is room in Christianity for science and I agree with him on that. He is also saying that the Darwinian theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity. I agree there is room inside of Christianity for those who believe in evolution, I'm not convinced its right, but they are still welcomed inside of the faith.
I'm also not sure how you can have an in between of believing in God or not, unless you say that a belief in the possibility of a God would be the in between.
The vast majority? Yes, but not everyone.
Point taken. I'll amend my statement to the vast majority.
Everyone follows the trend and believe the popular theories until someone points out the holes and further work is done and a new theory becomes the popular one.
Evolution is not a trend. It is as proven a theory as the theory of gravity and heliocentric theory. This is fact. Anyone who denies these theories are doing so for faith reasons not empirical reasons.
Dawkins said humans have "more moral responsibility."
Aaron,
Why would you save a chimp over an ant?
Don't you attach greater moral significance to a chimp than an ant?
Don't you have a moral responsibility to save the chimp over the ant?
Collins isn't advocating an in between of belief in God or not. He is saying that there is room in Christianity for science and I agree with him on that. He is also saying that the Darwinian theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity. I agree there is room inside of Christianity for those who believe in evolution…
I agree with Aaron on this Sam but I am on the flip side of the coin. I think there is room for religion in science as long as it does not interfere with the scientific method and science ethics. So, I disagree with Richard Dawkin's call to remove religion completely from science. I am very glad Christians like Francis Collins are working with Atheists like Richard Dawkins and former Zoroasterist Mahzarin Banaji (One of my favorites from the Beyond Belief Conference 2006). This conference dealt with the issue of religion in science. I have never seen so many "smart" people in one place. It was a treat to watch them do verbal battle. Believe it or not Dawkins was even cowed for a bit after soundly being chastised. he even used the "F" word which shocked me. Here is the clip. I must admit, though I agree with him so much, it was nice to see his human side. He can be humbled.
Aaron wrote:
I mean logically, you can't hold animals to the same standard to which we are held. We don't mind animals tearing one another apart – that's nature – but we would be repulsed by a human who attacked and ripped an animal to pieces. We don't place an animal on trial for murder if they kill another animal or even a person – they don't know any better. How is that debatable?
from Wikipedia:
Animals and insects faced the possibility of criminal charges for several centuries across many parts of Europe. The earliest records of such trials date from the twelfth century, and they remained part of several legal systems until the eighteenth. They appeared before both church and secular courts, and the offences alleged against them ranged from murder to criminal damage. Human witnesses were often heard and in church courts they were routinely provided with lawyers (this was not the case in secular courts, but for most of the period concerned, neither were human defendants). If convicted, it was usual for them to be executed, or exiled or excommunicated by the local priest(s). The type of animals put on trial were almost invariably either domesticated ones (most often pigs, but also bulls, horses, and cows) or pests such as rats and weevils. Alleged werewolves were also put on trial on several occasions, particularly in sixteenth-century France, though the allegation in such cases was levelled against defendants who were human (to the naked eye, at least). Creatures that were suspected of being familiar spirits or complicit in acts of bestiality were also subjected to judicial punishment, such as burning at the stake, though few if any ever faced trial.
***
Louis: Note that some of these trials appeared before CHURCH courts and punishments included excommunication. They also didn't end until the Enlightenment era.
btw: What kind of religion would you envision having a part in science, cineaste? Seems unlikely to me.
btw: What kind of religion would you envision having a part in science, cineaste? Seems unlikely to me.
I just don’t believe that you need to be a card carrying atheist or agnostic to be a good scientist. I think it’s unrealistic to remove personal religious belief from science. That is what some like Dawkins propose, unless I misinterpreted. Having said that, I think if religious scientists let their personal beliefs impinge upon the scientific method and scientific ethics (kind of like an unspoken Hippocratic Oath but for scientists) then they are not good scientists. So, to answer directly, people of all religions can play a part in science but no religion can be “part” of science. I can see where I wasn’t being clear above.
Louis, well those people are just morons. I didn’t say it hadn’t been done. Humans have done (will do) a lot of strange things, but we do not hold animals to the same standard of behavior to which we hold humans.
Why would you save a chimp over an ant?
Most likely the chimp
Don’t you attach greater moral significance to a chimp than an ant?
I suppose I would see a chimp as having more value than an ant. But again I cotend that this is more due to personal feelings than anything else.
Don’t you have a moral responsibility to save the chimp over the ant?
No. I don’t have a moral responsibility to save an animal. A human? Yes, but I do not have a “responsibility” to risk my life for an animal. I would be a nice thing to do, but it is not my responsibility.
It is as proven a theory as the theory of gravity and heliocentric theory.
We’ve went round and round on this one. I think it is an absurd position whether you believe in evolution or not to equate it with gravity.
To you evolution has overwhelming amounts of evidence, but all evidence can be interpreted differently because we do not observe macroevolution in the lab. We can see small changes within animal kinds, but we do not see animals change to different kinds of animals.
It may be a smart inference based on what we have available now to say those small changes build up to larger ones and produce different kinds of animals. I’m not getting into that now. But you are making an assumption about what many think the evidence shows what happened in the past and what will happen in the future based on incomplete present evidence.
With gravity we can test that in a lab right now. You can drop a test tube and it will fall. I can see gravity impact things every day. There is no need for inferences about the past or future because we can observe it presently.
You may believe that the theory of evolution is true, but you denegrate things such as gravity by equating the two.
No. I don't have a moral responsibility to save an animal. A human? Yes, but I do not have a "responsibility" to risk my life for an animal. I would be a nice thing to do, but it is not my responsibility.
It's obvious how disingenuous you are being with this. Where were you ever asked to risk you life? No. You simply choose chimp or ant. Answer Chimp. Why? Personal feelings? What do you mean? You need to be attached to the ant personally to save it instead of the chimp. I'm just going to chalk this one up as you pleading the 5th on this question. Moving on…
I think it is an absurd position whether you believe in evolution or not to equate it with gravity.
This is your Genesis induced faith view. In science, gravity and evolution are facts. To creationists, obviously they can't stomach evolution, so science goes bye bye in favor of religion.
With gravity we can test that in a lab right now. You can drop a test tube and it will fall. I can see gravity impact things every day. There is no need for inferences about the past or future because we can observe it presently.
How do you know that gravity does that? You can't see gravity just like you can't see macro evolution. You have to make an inference for both. How do you know God didn't make the test tube fall? Don't worry Aaron. I have confidence I'll be able to get through to you someday.
I'll give you one thing Cineaste – you are persistent.
I'll give you one thing Cineaste – you are persistent.
Ironic, but maybe I would have made a decent Evangelist in another life.
You know who's persistent around here? seeker. He really has a bee in his bonnet over evolution. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
You know who's persistent around here? seeker.
I get into the groove on different issues for periods of time. I haven't discussed homosexuality for a while. It has nothing with protesting too much out of doubt. Just whatever is hot in the news or what I feel like pursuing.
What I meant was that you seem to be desperately marshaling arguments against something that you know is overwhelming. Kind of like the kid who keeps plugging holes in the dike to keep the water out. Of course, I suppose that's a reasonable activity considering just how devastating the Theory of Evolution is to your religion and its claims. And we see an excellent example of how you utilize the "gap" strategy here: find something which evolutionary theory hasn't yet explained and – voila! – Creationism is true! Or, look! There's a scientist over behind that tree who doesn't find evolution compelling, or has problems, or whatever, and -voila!- Creationism is true!
Why don't you just admit that your are a true, fanatical believer in xianity and NOTHING science says will move you? why don't you just admit that religion is different from science, is not science, and has nothing to say about science? Why don't you just leave science alone and go to church?
Louis, should Francis Collins have done the same?
What I meant was that you seem to be desperately marshaling arguments against something that you know is overwhelming.
Kind of like you do with homosexuality? ;)
Seriously, I don't feel like evolution is overwhelming, except in its influence. I am convinced, and like to try to convince others because it is fun to be a contrarian ;)
I don't think I am using a gap argument. I am merely pointing out that evolution is not some proven fact, as many would have us believe. In fact, there is plenty of evidence, like the two pieces of genetic information I recently discussed, that do not fit neatly into evolution, and may contradict it. That's all.
A little sand in the gears is all – these two cases don't make some overwhelming case against evolution.
Real science welcomes sand in the gears. It is only the so-called gaps which are interesting and which attract the attention of the truth-seeking, skeptical mind. Religion is exactly the opposite. It detests contrarians and demands (often by force) conformity. Science thrives on contrariety and, though it will often resist new ideas, will come around if enough evidence is amassed to convince. I've been trying to think of how many people who have been burned at the stake for thinking outside the box scientifically. None, as far as I know.