Is Francis Collins a Deist?

by leavingwt 15 Replies latest social current

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    Jerry Coyne asks, "Is Francis Collins a Deist?"

    At 'Big Think', there is a video of a recent interview with Francis Colllins, the respected American geneticist and Director of the NIH. (Collins is also the founder of the BioLogos Foundation.)

    Here is a transcript of the interview:

    Question: Why is it so difficult for scientists to believe in a higher power?
    Francis Collins: Science is about trying to get rigorous answers to questions about how nature works. And it’s a very important process that’s actually quite reliable if carried out correctly with generation of hypotheses and testing of those by accumulation of data and then drawing conclusions that are continually revisited to be sure they are right. So if you want to answer questions about how nature works, how biology works, for instance, science is the way to get there. Scientists believe in that they are very troubled by a suggestion that other kinds of approaches can be taken to derive truth about nature. And some I think have seen faith as therefore a threat to the scientific method and therefore it to be resisted.

    But faith in its perspective is really asking a different set of questions. And that’s why I don’t think there needs to be a conflict here. The kinds of questions that faith can help one address are more in the philosophical realm. Why are we all here? Why is there something instead of nothing? Is there a God? Isn’t it clear that those aren't scientific questions and that science doesn’t have much to say about them? But you either have to say, well those are inappropriate questions and we can’t discuss them or you have to say, we need something besides science to pursue some of the things that humans are curious about. For me, that makes perfect sense. But I think for many scientists, particularly for those who have seen the shrill pronouncements from extreme views that threaten what they’re doing scientifically and feel therefore they can’t really include those thoughts into their own worldview, faith can be seen as an enemy.

    And similarly, on the other side, some of my scientific colleagues who are of an atheist persuasion are sometimes using science as a club over the head of believers basically suggesting that anything that can’t be reduced to a scientific question isn’t important and just represents superstition that should be gotten rid of.

    Part of the problem is, I think the extremists have occupied the stage. Those voices are the ones we hear. I think most people are actually kind of comfortable with the idea that science is a reliable way to learn about nature, but it’s not the whole story and there’s a place also for religion, for faith, for theology, for philosophy. But that harmony perspective does not get as much attention, nobody’s as interested in harmony as they are in conflict, I’m afraid.
    Question: How has your study of genetics influenced your faith?
    Francis Collins: My study of genetics certainly tells me, incontrovertibly that Darwin was right about the nature of how living things have arrived on the scene, by descent from a common ancestor under the influence of natural selection over very long periods of time. Darwin was amazingly insightful given how limited the molecular information he had was; essentially it didn’t exist. And now with the digital code of the DNA, we have the best possible proof of Darwin’s theory that he could have imagined.

    So that certainly tells me something about the nature of living things. But it actually adds to my sense that this is an answer to a "how?" question and it leaves the "why?" question still hanging in the air.

    Other aspects of our universe I think also for me as for Einstein raised questions about the possibility of intelligence behind all of this. Why is it that, for instance, that the constance that determines the behavior of matter and energy, like the gravitational constant, for instance, have precisely the value that they have to in order for there to be any complexity at all in the Universe. That is fairly breathtaking in its lack of probability of ever having happened. And it does make you think that a mind might have been involved in setting the stage. At the same time that does not imply necessarily that that mind is controlling the specific manipulations of things that are going on in the natural world. In fact, I would very much resist that idea. I think the laws of nature potentially could be the product of a mind. I think that’s a defensible perspective. But once those laws are in place, then I think nature goes on and science has the chance to be able to perceive how that works and what its consequences are.

    http://bigthink.com/ideas/24154

    Here is some of what Coyne had to say about the interview. . .

    The strangest part of the interview is where Collins describes how he thinks God affects the universe. It verges on deism. Again, I’ve put one part in bold:

    Other aspects of our universe I think also for me as for Einstein raised questions about the possibility of intelligence behind all of this. Why is it that, for instance, that the constance that determines the behavior of matter and energy, like the gravitational constant, for instance, have precisely the value that they have to in order for there to be any complexity at all in the Universe. That is fairly breathtaking in its lack of probability of ever having happened. And it does make you think that a mind might have been involved in setting the stage. At the same time that does not imply necessarily that that mind is controlling the specific manipulations of things that are going on in the natural world. In fact, I would very much resist that idea. I think the laws of nature potentially could be the product of a mind. I think that’s a defensible perspective. But once those laws are in place, then I think nature goes on and science has the chance to be able to perceive how that works and what its consequences are.

    In fact, this doesn’t verge on deism: it is deism. God set up the laws of physics and let things roll. But the curious thing is that if Collins really believes this, and “strongly resists” the idea that God manipulates what’s going on in the world by suspending natural laws, then he surely can’t believe in miracles. And yet, as an evangelical Christian, his faith rests squarely on miracles. The virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracle stories of the New Testament—all of those would have to go out the window.

    I doubt that Collins has undergone a profound shift of faith, but I’d love to ask him how this apparent deism comports with his evangelical Christianity. I’m sure these sentiments aren’t welcomed at BioLogos, the organization he founded.

    http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/is-francis-collins-a-deist/

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Since Francis calls himself a Christian and has Jesus Christ as his lord and saviour, then I guess that makes him a Christian.

    Reading Francis' book "Belief" or even "Language of God" makes it clear that he is a Christian.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    I found his comments about "extremists" to be of interest. Moreover, his BioLogos site seems geared toward education, rather than conflict.

    Part of the problem is, I think the extremists have occupied the stage. Those voices are the ones we hear. I think most people are actually kind of comfortable with the idea that science is a reliable way to learn about nature, but it’s not the whole story and there’s a place also for religion, for faith, for theology, for philosophy. But that harmony perspective does not get as much attention, nobody’s as interested in harmony as they are in conflict, I’m afraid.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    PSac -- I don't think Coyne meant the term "Deist" as an insult. Rather, he thinks that Collin's is God is "bigger" than the God of some of his fellow believers. Like you, I accept that he's a Christian, just as he says he is.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    I think that, perhaps, Coyne is seeing what he wants to see so that he can attach a label to it.

    And Francis is right on in his remarks about extremists.

    Fact is, being a moderate I get it from BOTH sides of the equation, LOL !

    People don't like harmony and as soon as you try to harmonise something like science and religion or the "contridictions" in the bible od the OT God with the NT God and things along thsoe lines, extremists from BOTH sides attack you because what you're doing is MAD, MAD I TELL YOU !!! MAD !!!

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt
    seeing what he wants to see

    Perhaps, a little. However, can we agree that Collins' view would be rejected OUTRIGHT by any number of mainstream Evangelical pastors.

    Here are his words:

    And it does make you think that a mind might have been involved in setting the stage. At the same time that does not imply necessarily that that mind is controlling the specific manipulations of things that are going on in the natural world. In fact, I would very much resist that idea. I think the laws of nature potentially could be the product of a mind. I think that’s a defensible perspective. But once those laws are in place, then I think nature goes on and science has the chance to be able to perceive how that works and what its consequences are.
  • VoidEater
    VoidEater

    I agree with some of Collins: Science answers how, philosophy engages with why. I like how he is open to possibility, rather than imposing dogma.

    Science and philosophy should not be confused.

    Religion

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    Perhaps, a little. However, can we agree that Collins' view would be rejected OUTRIGHT by any number of mainstream Evangelical pastors.

    Probabaly.

    While Collins is only putting forth A possible explanation or point of view, one of many, people that have something to lose when it comes to a view "attacking" their preconceived notions, tend to see only what is hostile to them, preceived hostile on heir part that is.

    There was nothing in what Francis said that can be viewed as a direct attack on the belief of an "active God" in our lives.

    Notice that he says that this "mind" is not controlling NATURE, what is going around in the natural world ( day-to-day events) and there is really nothing in the bible to imply that God is doing just that at every second of every moment, ot unless you REALLY want to stretch out a few verse to mean the extreme of what they COULD mean.

    In Francis' view, at least how it seems to me, he is saying that God created the universe and put into place these natural laws that put the naturla world's day-to-day events on a kind of "auto-pilot" ( And on the 7th day he rested), but notice that Francis is NOT saying that about God involving himself in OUR day-to-day lives.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt
    There was nothing in what Francis said that can be viewed as a direct attack on the belief of an "active God" in our lives.
    Francis is NOT saying that about God involving himself in OUR day-to-day lives.

    I disagree, totally. Hopefully he will revise and extend his comments, so that you and I will not have to guess.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    So, you are saying that Francis is implying that God is NOT active in OUR every day lives?

    Just making sure I understand your position.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit