As I note in my new review of Francis Collins’s new book, The Road to Wisdom: On Truth, Science, Faith, and Trust, he’s a very good scientist and science administrator, but also a pious evangelical Christian (remember the frozen waterfalls that brought him to Jesus?). Collins had previously written a book arguing that science and Christianity were not only compatible, but complementary ways of finding the truth, but now he’s produced another. As I say in my review of the new book in Quillette (click on screenshot below, or find my review archived here):
While much of the Road to Wisdom reprises the arguments of the earlier book, this new one takes things a bit further. Collins is deeply concerned about the divisions in American society highlighted by the last presidential election, by people’s inability to have constructive discussions with their opponents, and by our pervasive addiction to social media and its “fake news”; and he believes that accepting a harmony between religion and science will yield the wisdom that can mend America.
As the author of Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible, I wouldn’t be expected to laud Collins’s thesis, and I didn’t. You can read the review for yourself, but I spend a lot of time criticizing Collins’s claim that science combined with religion is the best way to find the “truths”to repair the deep divisions in America’s polity. Even if those divisions—Collins largely means Republicans vs. Democrats—can be repaired, saying that the way forward is combine the “truths” of science and religion is a deeply misguided claim.
I won’t go into details, but of course religion is simply not a way to discover truth, especially since Collins’s definition of “truth” is basically “facts about the world on which everyone agrees”: in other words, empirical truth. Religion can’t find such truths, as it lacks the methodology. Note that Collins does not espouse Gould’s “Non-Overlapping Magisteria” claim that science and religion are compatible because they deal with completely different issues, with science alone getting the ambit of empirical truth. Gould’s claim, described in his 1999 book Rocks of Ages, was also misguided, and you can read my old TLS critique of it here.) No, Collins asserts that religion can find empirical truths. Sadly, he gives no examples where religion can beat science–just a bunch of questions that religion can supposedly answer (e.g., “How should I live my life?”).
I’ll give one more quote from my review:
What are the truths that religion can produce but science can’t? Collins’s list is unconvincing. It includes the “fact” of Jesus’s resurrection and the author’s unshakable belief that “Jesus died for me and was then literally raised from the dead.” In support of this claim, Collins cites N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God as compelling evidence for the Resurrection, which Collins claims is “historically well documented.” But when I worked my way through the entirety of Wright’s 817-page behemoth, I found that the “historical documentation” consists solely of what’s in the New Testament, tricked out with some rationalisation and exegesis. Neither Collins nor Wright provide independent, extra-Biblical evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection, much less for the Biblical assertion that upon Jesus’s death the Temple split in twain and many dead saints left their tombs and walked about Jerusalem like zombies. Absent solid evidence for these claims, they are little more than wishful thinking.
Other “truths” that one finds in religion are “moral truths”: the confusing set of rules that Collins labels the “Moral Law.” To him, the fact that our species even has morality constitutes further evidence for God, for Collins sees no way that either evolution or secular rationality could yield a codified ethics. That claim is belied by the long tradition of secular ethics developed by people like Baruch Spinoza, Peter Singer, Immanuel Kant, and John Rawls. While many faiths and societies aspire to common goals like “love, beauty, goodness, freedom, faith, and family,” this does not suggest the existence of a supernatural being.
Click below (or here):
Although it seems obvious to me that religion and science are incompatible insofar as both make empirical claims (granted, some of faith’s claims are hard to test), it’s not obvious to the many Americans who blithely get their vaccinations but then head to Church and recite the “truths” of the Nicene Creed. Sam Harris pointed this out in a piece he wrote opposing Collins’s appointment as NIH director:
It is widely claimed that there can be no conflict, in principle, between science and religion because many scientists are themselves “religious,” and some even believe in the God of Abraham and in the truth of ancient miracles. Even religious extremists value some of the products of science—antibiotics, computers, bombs, etc.—and these seeds of inquisitiveness, we are told, can be patiently nurtured in a way that offers no insult to religious faith.
This prayer of reconciliation goes by many names and now has many advocates. But it is based on a fallacy. The fact that some scientists do not detect any problem with religious faith merely proves that a juxtaposition of good ideas/methods and bad ones is possible. Is there a conflict between marriage and infidelity? The two regularly coincide. The fact that intellectual honesty can be confined to a ghetto—in a single brain, in an institution, in a culture—does not mean that there isn’t a perfect contradiction between reason and faith, or between the worldview of science taken as a whole and those advanced by the world’s “great,” and greatly discrepant, religions.
While I wouldn’t have opposed Collins’s appointment on the basis of his faith, I would have if he had shown any signs that his faith would affect his science. As it turned out, it didn’t: Collins left his religion at the door of the NIH. But he continues to proselytize for both Christianity as the “true” faith and for a perfect harmony between science and religion.
In a patronizing New Yorker article (is that redundant?) about Collins and his book that I just discovered, I was sad to see another pal soften his views about Collins, science, and faith:
Steven Pinker, the Harvard psychologist who fiercely criticized Collins’s nomination on account of his “primitive, shamanistic, superstitious” religious views, told me in an e-mail that he had changed his mind about Collins, for two reasons. “One is the sheer competence and skill with which he’s directed the Institutes, blending scientific judgment with political acumen,” Pinker wrote. “The other is a newly appreciated imperative, in an age of increasing political polarization, toward making institutions of science trustworthy to a broad swath of the public, of diverse political orientations.” In a way, I thought, Pinker was saying that representation matters: science has an audience, and the right speaker can persuade all of that audience to listen. “A spokesperson for science who is not branded as a left-wing partisan is an asset for the wider acceptance of science across the political spectrum,” Pinker said. But Collins is more than a spokesperson for science. He is also a kind of representative, within the scientific community, of American communities that his peers sometimes fail to reach.
Pinker’s first point is right, and, as I said, I wouldn’t—and didn’t—oppose Collins’s nomination as NIH director.But the author then interprets Pinker as making the “Little People” argument: science will be accepted more broadly if scientists accept religion, even if those scientists don’t practice it. In other words, we have to avoid criticizing superstition if America is to fully embrace science.
But while there’s no need for scientists to bang on about religion when we’re teaching about or promoting science, no scientist should ever approve of a belief in unevidenced superstition, or of any system of such supterstition. Yet that’s exactly what Collins does in his book, and it’s why the book is misguided, flatly wrong about accommodationism, and unenlightening.
Thanks for this review. Sadly, Collins isn’t budging, is he.
Collins’ thought takes more of a Gnostic angle, in that there is some way to Transform the world – or even society – into a better version suited for human life (as recognized through gnosis – above and beyond God’s Providence (by Christian mythos) – which humans just have to “tough it out” in.
The blending of scientific – that is, any flavor of Enlightenment – epistemology with its inverse to sublate a newer form fits a dialectical pattern of development (interestingly, from Kant, who is noted).
As such, the patterns of thought fit that of Gnostic religious sects which the United States – aka Fantasyland (Kurt Andersen, 2017) – excels at producing, but have ancient roots – from ancient Greece, through Bohme, Hegel, Kant, and so on.
Oh, I’ve got a Collins story for you. Back in 2012, when I was a fellow at the NIH, I met him for a brief moment—one of those awkward post-talk mingles where everyone’s balancing a coffee cup and their imposter syndrome. I introduced myself, mentioned that I had a divinity school degree and was now training as a scientist. Without missing a beat, Collins smiled and said, “Good for you for integrating both sides of your brain.”
Classic. Collins views belief and science together as a sort of neurological parlor trick. In his mind, those who juggle both science and faith are simply blessed with an exceptionally functional corpus callosum. Apparently, the secret to reconciling God and genome lies in smooth inter-hemispheric communication–or something like this.
Even if he truly believes Jesus speaks to him, it would seem Collins sees faith as innate–as a God instinct. Those who don’t tap into it have that God-shaped hole that so many speculate leaves atheists devoid of meaning and wokelets positioned for moral superiority.
Whatever the case, Collins was warm except for a blast of a second when I sensed he may have sensed I didn’t believe. Quiet impudent of me to convey that and approach him at all. Whatever the case, there are others out there, such as Iain McGilchrist, who seem to share this view. Or maybe I’m projecting McGilchrist onto Collins.
Also, I’ll add that the NIH was the most emotionally satisfying science environment I’ve experienced. I don’t know if that reflects Collins’ leadership. But I can’t rule that out.
By all accounts Collins is a really nice guy, and I don’t doubt that. What I object to is his misguided claim that faith comports perfectly with science.
Yeah, the problem with being (erstwhilely) the world’s leader of all-things HEALTH mixed with an anthropology that proclaims humans damned without God is that science and faith are completely compatible in that view. To be whole, one would need both. Period.
Thanks for “neurological parlour trick”!
Great story – where does the impulse to unify categories come from? Clearly this is the subject of dialectics – but when we see opposites combined into one, neither function properly comes through – though it might be amusing for a moment or two as a “hybrid”.
“one of those awkward post-talk mingles where everyone’s balancing a coffee cup and their imposter syndrome.”
-Love this, Roz.
best,
D.A.
NYC
And the stuff in the NT is by authors who nobody knows who they were and who don’t even claim to have witnessed a resurrected Jesus themselves, and nor do they even claim to have talked to anyone who claims to have witnessed a resurrected Jesus, and they could well have been writing two or three generations after the supposed events.
And the earliest account (“Mark”) doesn’t even have anything about a resurrected Jesus. The other accounts are all based on “Mark” and are embellishments of “Mark”, with stories added for theological reasons.
And this is supposed to be “… historically well documented …”?
Good piece—yours, that is. Collins’s claims appear to be same-old, same-old. I’m not surprised. Religionists have been trying for hundreds of years to claim either that religion and science are compatible or that religion can magically answer such ”great” questions as “Why are we here?” whereas science cannot.* Regarding the first, they are not compatible on either empirical or methodological grounds. And on the second, they offer no solutions that can be tested or validated except through their own mumbo jumbo. (A methodological failing.)
*I question the widespread belief that such questions are “great,” yet apologists of religion seem to like to go there—probably because their answers are unfalsifiable and thus beyond the range of scientific criticism.
All I can say is that I’m glad that Collins left his religion outside the halls of the NIH.
I recently asked a Christian friend about the relationship between his faith and science, and I think that his response is typical of a very large number of believers – compartmentalization: “Intriguing thought for sure! My low bar response has been I look to the Bible as my guide for faith questions, and to my science book . . . for science questions. Simple answers for simple minds ya know. :-D”
I just ordered Dr. Collins new book…
HEY! You should have ordered my book, too!
I already have “Why Evolution is True”, but have not read it yet.
Wrong book! And read the first one! OY!
I’ve always think it strange when people offer up religion as a way of repairing secular rifts. Think of any acrimonious political or social divide, one which has proponents on both sides throwing out arguments and evidence against the other.
Now imagine two situations: in one, the convictions are based on how people have selected and interpreted the facts of the matter; in the other, at least one side is certain that their view is the inspired will of God.
Which rift is more likely to be mended?
Religion can and will support any view — and entrench it by demonizing the other side.
The Federalist reviewed this book a while back from a substantially different perspective: “Francis Collins’ Latest Book Doubles Down On His Massive Abuses Of Power”.
The article has links for the accusations in this excerpt:
Lol. I had to look. The author of this piece is a Discovery Institute shill, and the links he provides are to the Discovery Institute “science” site, “Evolution News.” He seems to be mad at Collins for not being a creationist.
I also already have “Faith vs. Fact”, and still need to read that one too, OY, Any other books I need?
Finding Time to Read Books by Seymour Titles.
😀
Hmmm … What section is that in?
One of the problems that afflicts the various “secondary” miracles (the resurrection of Jesus being the primary one) is the problem of “and then what happened?”
If indeed all of the dead saints left their tombs and walked about Jerusalem…then what happened? After a bit of walkabout, did they go back to their tombs and tuck themselves in for the rest of eternity? Did they go back to their homes and freak out their families, or live long, happy lives fathering eight more kids? What happened next?
Similarly, in Acts 1, Jesus is taken up into the sky until a cloud hides him from view. And then what? Did he keep going, slowly suffocating from the lack of oxygen and eventually freezing solid? Or did he stop somewhere up there and hover, or eventually fall back to earth like one of Elon’s less-successful rockets? If he did keep going—how far, and how fast? Even if he accelerated to close to the speed of light, right this minute he’d still be only a few percent of the way across the Milky Way. (And probably both bored and uncomfortable.)
Wonderful – thanks!
Excellent Quillette article!
Collins’ statement: “I have never encountered a situation where I found my scientific and spiritual views in serious conflict.”- shows that he completely suspends scientific reasoning when it comes to religion.
Beggars belief that after so many centuries of his grinning droning we still take Collins seriously as an intellectual. The “waterfall” did it for me, then his yay yay puberty blockers stance. How many things can a man get wrong?
I’ve noticed in the business world (only finance) and a little in law that the people who rise to the top often are glad handers or narcissists. Not necessarily very bright and often impervious to evidence. Which is terrible in science of all things, as you’ll know. I’m no scientist, just an armchair observer but his head-in-the sand attitude is obviously bad for finding the objective truth.
D.A.
NYC
Oh wow. Quilette – color me impressed Professor.
I submitted an article of mine to them once (I rarely shop my stuff but I love Quilette) and they rejected it as “too polemic and extreme”. And they were totally right objectively – I was fired up with Zionist rage about the topic. (hehehe) – It appeared later in my regular column which has more latitude for my personal berserk manias. https://democracychronicles.org/author/david-anderson/
Since the ladies there in Sydney like you you should do a podcast there on science v woke like some of your others. Quilette’s appeal is all the best people read it. 🙂
D.A.
NYC
btw – the team/writers there have very entertaining individual twitter/x feeds. Zoe, Iona, Jon Kay, Claire, etc. A fine team.
I often hear it said that “science is just another belief system – who’s to say its any better than any other belief system”.
In fact, science is a system of disbelief. Its incompatible with every belief system.
“[S]cience is a system of disbelief. It’s incompatible with every belief system.”
Damn. I need to get that on a T-shirt. With credit to the author, of course.
All this talk by Collins about the “correct” or “true” religion reminds me of the movie “Heretic” (starring Hugh Grant), which I finally got around to seeing a few days ago.
The movie is good (I give it three stars out of five), and Mr. Reed (Grant) does a great job explaining to his two young missionaries who stop by his home why all religions are false. The movie takes a somewhat preposterous turn in the final act (common, I guess, for horror movies), but kudos to the screenwriters who did a fantastic job explaining, through their character Mr. Reed, why all religions are nothing but stories. (Reed never discusses the truth claims of religions, only the fact—yes, a fact—that they are stories that have been passed down through the years in a variety of permutations and iterations).
Anyway, all of this is to say that the explanations made by the fictional Mr. Reed have got to be better than anything that the real-life Mr. Collins has to say! And I should note that Mr. Reed does reveal that there is One True Religion (hint: broadly construed). Sorry, no spoiler from me. I’m not going to say what it is except to say that Reed is correct!
Oh, and Hugh Grant is great playing a villain. It’s easily one of his best roles ever. By the way, for those who have seen the movie or intend to see it, is it accurate to call “Heretic” a “horror” movie? I ask because I’m inclined to think of horror movies as having monsters or ghosts or demons or some kind of supernatural element. “Heretic,” by contrast, is utterly secular, so I guess it’s probably best to refer to it as a suspenseful thriller.
One thing that is true of religions is they all have A book, real enough but so is a marshmallow, I know what I’d rather have.
To many I can see why science is scary it certainly does not do the comfort thing for enquiring “souls”. Imo this is Collins, a smart man and nice by all accounts but strangely lost to the subservient behaviour to a BOOK of fantasy.
I wish Quillette commenters had to follow Da Roolz!