In the comments to my previous post, two interviews with religious scientists were posted by Ted and Bryan P. I find these people interesting, as I just find it difficult to grasp how one can hold such beliefs whilst entrenched in logic and science, with its rigorous evidential demands. One would expect much more convincing arguments to originate from such people as they are surely aware of the logical pitfalls other, less educated believers tend to fall into. Unfortunately, such expectations appear to be unfounded.

Before I delve into the silly statements in question, I’d like to first make it clear that the type of religion Collins expounds is what I would term ‘good religion,’ or at least as good as religion is ever likely to get. One can believe in God without ignoring scientific evidence; for example, one doesn’t have to take the Bible literally and doesn’t have to believe that Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark etc actually happened. Also, more rationally inclined people such as these are unlikely to hold bigoted views against certain groups simply because the Bible tells them to. In a comment, some time ago, I outlined a short list of what religious activities I regard as unacceptable:

“The problems arise when religious people try to force their beliefs on others, or use their beliefs as a rationale for legislation (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia), or use their beliefs as an excuse for bigotry (homosexuality, sexism, racism/slavery), or use their beliefs to rationalise violence (most of the wars in human history, terrorism, murder of abortion doctors), or cite those beliefs in an attempt to subvert the advancement of science (stem cells, evolution, the big bang), or when political parties flaunt those beliefs in order to get ignorant morons elected (George W. Bush).”

I don’t think the religion of people like Collins would have too much of a problem in these areas. Never the less, Collins, due to his standing as a scientist, is likely to be viewed by the public as a more credible authority, so let’s have a look at some of the things he has said:

Francis Collins:

Francis is director of the National Genome Human Research Centre, responsible for mapping the human genetic code. He recently appeared on the Charlie Rose show, flogging his new book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Good luck finding that evidence buddy – there isn’t any. You can watch the entire interview here (Collins comes on at about the 35 minute mark). By the way, PZ Myers has already taken Collins apart for this interview, so much of what I’m covering here has already been said here.

Collins begins with his conversion story, which begins as most of these things do: I used to be an evil atheist, but have now seen the light. Yeah, right, you may have been an atheist, but you obviously didn’t know a thing about why you were an atheist, or you’d still be one.

“I was very comfortable with that (atheism) because it meant I wasn’t really responsible to anyone but me, and I kind of liked that part too.”

Typical. Only a few sentences in and the guy is equating atheism with immorality. Next, he questions atheism when he sees how well his religious patients dealt with death: ‘they were serene in facing death’ as Rose puts it. This is an extremely simple logical error on his part: correlation does not prove causation. PZ Myers puts it very well:

“Meanwhile, all the dying atheists were running around in circles, screaming for their mommies, crapping their pants and making embarrassments of themselves. Oh, wait…that last bit? He didn't say it.”

Just because his religious patients dealt well with death, that does not mean that their religion gave them that ability. All these patients may have had blue eyes, too, but that doesn’t mean having blue eyes allowed them to deal with death better than brown eyed people. This is such a stunningly simple logical error that you have to wonder how good his science is, as these correlation/causation issues crop up all the time. Also, even assuming that it was religion that gifted them this ability, this fact would have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Christianity is actually true.

Whilst talking to a patient, Collins is flustered by a question of what he believes, saying:

“…my atheism suddenly seemed very thin…and I’d never really considered the evidence (for religion) because I didn’t know if there would be any.”

Remember what I said earlier about not knowing why he’s an atheist. Exactly. He then cites C.S. Lewis’ book, Mere Christianity, as the catalyst for his conversion. I haven’t read this book myself, but am very keen to, as it sounds like it would be good for a laugh. PZ has this to say about it:

"And dear gob, he was convinced by Mere Christianity? The "liar, lunatic, or lord" argument? Mere Christianity is a book that leaves atheists baffled at how anyone could find such drivel compelling—it's a set of exceedingly weak excuses that believers find congruent with their preconceptions, but as a recruiting tool…man, it might sway a lunatic, and a liar might find it a useful tool, but lords need not apply."

I have heard the liar, lunatic or Lord argument before. It’s just an incredibly, pathetically stupid argument. Liar and lunatic are perfectly acceptable options, but there are others, like, maybe he was delusional, or never existed in the first place.

Collins then talks at length about Moral Law and where it came from, and that evolution explains the how of natural diversity, but not the why, as if they are different things. Collins seems to disregard the fact that we are thinking beings and are capable of making our own decisions on what is right and wrong, based on what behaviour we find acceptable to have done unto us. He seems to want to lump us in with unthinking animals when he asks “Why would you save a drowning man?” He states that such behaviour has no explanation in evolutionary theory. So what? We (some of us anyway) have empathy with our fellow human beings, as well as an ability to think and reason which does not enter into the behavioural routines followed by animals. I’m afraid he is just plain wrong anyway, as evolution does contain explanations for altruistic behaviours, as those animals working in teams for the good of all are more likely to survive than loners. He also seems to regard this ‘moral law’ as absolute, as if what is considered moral has not changed substantially throughout the centuries. If he’s going to argue that morality comes from religion, in the form of the Bible, then that is also complete bullshit, as the Bible contains some of the most immoral, nasty crap you’re ever likely to come across.

This next bit nearly made me fall out of my chair. I just cannot believe this crap is coming out of the mouth of a scientist:

“…I think this notion that faith is somehow the antithesis of reason is completely wrong. Faith is, in fact, the most rational of all choices when you look at the spectrum between atheism and belief. Imagine this table represents all of the knowledge that ever has existed or will exist in the universe. Ask any individual, where is your own personal knowledge right now? Even the most confident of us will draw a tiny little circle. Now suppose the knowledge of the existence of God is outside your tiny little circle.”

This is just beyond stunning; it looks like Collins has been chatting to renowned moron, Ray Comfort, and has decided to borrow one of his stupidest arguments. I covered this in a previous post:

“Oh, so we should believe in God because there may be evidence that we are unaware of. According to this insane illogic, not only would we have to believe in God, but every single thing that we can possibly conceive of.”

Note the first couple of sentences of his quote: faith is not the antithesis of reason and, faith is the most rational of choices. He then uses the next few sentences to give one of the stupidest arguments ever made. What an idiot.

Most of the rest of the interview contains similar drivel, but there was one point of interest: Rose showed a clip from the appearance of Richard Dawkins on his show and asked Collins to comment. Richard said this in response to the question, what’s the best thing you can say about faith?

“Not a lot. I think faith is pernicious because it teaches people, especially children, that believing something without evidence is a virtue… Faith teaches you not to ask for the evidence. It teaches you: this is true, because it’s true, because it’s true. You just have faith and you don’t have to justify it.”

Spot on Richard; you rule buddy. Collins says:

“I would agree with what he said, that we should teach young people to seek the evidence before drawing a conclusion. That’s what drew me to become a believer after I had been an atheist; when I went and looked at the evidence, it was more convincing to believe in God than not to. The mistake that I think Dawkins makes is he only accepts scientific evidence as any criterion for making a decision. If God exists, God is outside of nature. Science is the way we investigate nature. It does not help us with this question.”

What a load of bullshit. Yes, we should teach kids to evaluate evidence, as well as furnish them with all the tools of skeptical enquiry and logic. But these are tools that even Collins, a prominent scientist, obviously lacks woefully. He says “only scientific evidence.” What the hell other kinds of evidence are there? There are only two types of evidence I can think of that are non-scientific: non-existent evidence and anecdotal evidence (both equally useless). Collins waffles on and on about how it was the evidence that convinced him, yet he offers no explanation as to what, exactly, he is referring to, and he’s effectively just said that it is not possible that any such evidence could even exist, at all. Saying that God exists outside nature renders its existence completely irrelevant, and is just as meaningless as saying: ‘fairies exist outside nature, but we should believe in them anyway.’ It’s just a pathetic exercise in rationalising the nonsensical.

So, what the hell is going on here? Why are such intelligent, educated people saying such incredibly stupid things? Well, they have no choice; there is not one argument for religious belief that comes within miles of standing up to logical scrutiny. If they’re going to attempt to explain their religious beliefs, they therefore have no other recourse than to use tired, stupid arguments that have been shot down in flames ad infinitum. Religious scientists, such as Collins here, seem to have compartmentalized their brains; one part for scientific work, and the other walled of against all logic, rational argument and evidence (probably fully furnished with warning signs, guards with machine-guns and sniffer dogs – logic must be a real bastard to keep out). I’ve often said that religion is a stupidity factory; it suck up kids and spews out irrational, ignorant adults by the thousand. If it can have this kind of effect on an intelligent scientist, just imagine what it can do to your ‘Average Joe.’ Actually, we don’t need to imagine; we see the disastrous effects of religion all over the world, and every damn day.