Article on reconciling faith with science

[Arlos]

Found this interesting article from someone who's about as hardcore a scientist as you can get, as he's the head of the Human Genome project. I may not be of his faith, but I find his comments interesting for sure, especially his arguments about reconciling faith and science, which are somewhat similar to arguments I've used myself. I'll bold the relevant section, but the whole article is interesting.

By Dr. Francis Collins
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."

ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) -- I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?" (Watch Francis Collins discuss how he came to believe in God Video)

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.

Comments, especially from the resident uber-religious types?

-Arlos

[Harrison]

These are the types of people we need more of.

Not morons like we have here.

I personally enjoyed seeing another one of my views put into print:

My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

P.S. Mindia will mention something about CNN.

[Markarado]

Please... what evidence? The guy has a very clear agenda.

[10sun]

So did you go to school in Malaysia, Markarado?

[Arlos]

Um, he's only one of the foremost experts in genetic science and DNA in the entire world. Fuck, he's the head of the goddamn HUMAN GENOME PROJECT. You don't think he might have seen a BIT about how heredity andn genes work? Hmmm?

And agenda? What in hell agenda are you talking about?

Are you saying you're a more knowledgeable biblical scholar and theologian than St. Augustine? Is that what you're claiming?

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

Understanding of the nature of God, and interpretation of his command are related but two different things. Organized religion is usually pretty positive to the more subjective pursuit of gaining a deeper understanding of God, yet to one degree or another takes a dim view on changing interpretation. The reason for this is deeper Understanding is growth in a structured framework, interpretation leads to a change to that framework and hence is very susceptible to perversion (perceived or real). What you end up with is a huge resistance by most structured Christian religion toward interpretations of meaning. For most religions opening up the Bible to interpretation and not asserting a literal meaning opens up a can of worms that is difficult to deal with, and perceived (and rightfully so) as extremely dangerous.

This of course will all change once George Carlin reveals himself as the second coming and additional scripture is found that makes it clear that midgets were actually how God created man in his image, and the rest of us are imperfect mutations, and hence no non midget is acceptable as clergy. (this was for the amusement of those who actually took the time to read and to completely baffle those who skim, and those who didn't /shrug well they missed out on some brief insanity).

If a Churches greatest charge is to see it's people through to Heaven and it's first and most important job is to protect their soul, then interpretation is an unnecessary deviation from the tried and true as long as literal can still be asserted and have a majority acceptance. Most people aren't theological scholars and truly qualified to make a lot of interpretations, nor is it conducive to have open loose ends that are up to interpretation. If you think about it churches treat their people much like parents treat their children, give them a framework of absolutes to follow until such time as they are mature enough to deal with the areas where those absolutes break down and there is no definitive finite absolute.

[Markarado]

Are you saying you're a more knowledgeable biblical scholar and theologian than St. Augustine? Is that what you're claiming?

I wouldn't say that I'm more knowledgeable, but I can guarantee you that I have a much greater understanding of the Bible and Christianity than he ever did. I clearly do.

[Harrison]

He's a, get this one, SAINT.

[Markarado]

Yes, and? What exactly does a saint mean? A term the Catholic church gave to people that did good things? The Catholic church is far from understanding Christianity.

[10sun]

Sweet Jesus you are a retard.

[Arlos]

Oh my. Pardon me while I cackle with hysteria. You really don't have any idea who he was, do you.

Let me attempt to educate you, though your mind is so closed I despair of the possibility.

Aurelius Augustinus, Augustine of Hippo, or Saint Augustine (November 13, 354 – August 28, 430) is one of the most important figures in the development of Western Christianity. In Roman Catholicism and the Anglican Communion, he is a saint and pre-eminent Doctor of the Church, and the patron of the Augustinian religious order. Many Protestants, especially Calvinists, consider him to be one of the theological fountainheads of Reformation teaching on salvation and grace.

So, the man is actually one of the founders of modern western civilization and theological thought. He is viewed as one of the greatest biblical and theological minds not only by Catholics, but by basically all Protestants as well. The man lived only a few centuries after Christ himself, when there really WAS just one church, and the ideals it followed had yet to evolve much. Indeed, there is basically complete agreement among biblical scholars that he is THE most important figure, period, in the ancient Western Christian church.

Here's what the Anglican church has to say about him ( http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/50.html ):

Augustine (Aurelius Augustinus) was one of the greatest theologians of Western Christianity. (In his day the Mediterranean world consisted of an Eastern, Greek-speaking half and a Western, Latin-speaking half, with different ways of looking at things, and different habits of thought.) ... Augustine's written output was vast, and largely responsible for the fact that the entry for him in the index of the Encyc. Brit. is more than a column long. His surviving works (and it is assumed that the majority did not survive) include 113 books and treatises, over 200 letters, and over 500 sermons. His work greatly influenced Luther and Calvin, to the point where for a while Roman Catholic speakers and writers were wary of quoting him lest they be suspected of Protestant tendencies.

You can read the 17 page (17 page!) Encyclopedia Britannica entry on him here: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-91 ... -Augustine

Suffice it to say you are claiming greater biblical knowledge and scriptural understanding a man who is considered, worldwide and across effectively all christian sects, to be one of the 5 greatest theologians who has ever lived. You might as well claim to be a greater physicist than Steven Hawking or Albert Einstein. That you WOULD so such claim is so hysterically funny that even now I can't stop laughing in real life.

And, finally, here is what Augustine had to say about people adhering to a too-literal interpretation of Genesis:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he (the non-Christian) should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

-Arlos

[Markarado]

I never claimed to have more knowledge.

[Arlos]

I have a much greater understanding of the Bible and Christianity than he ever did. I clearly do.

Oh, really? You still think this? Understanding = Knowledge, you realize. Your semantics equate to saying: "I don't have more knowledge of Physics than Steven Hawking, but I understand Physics better than he ever did".... Uh, no.

You are claiming greater understanding of God and the Bible than a man who's thoughts and writings on those very issues form some of the foundations of western civilization and ALL of modern Christianity, regardless of sect. A man who is still famous TODAY, 1600 years after he lived, for his writings and philosophical and theological teachings about God and Scripture.

This is such an incredible level of self-ownage on your part that a measuring scale that could determine HOW badly you just owned yourself has yet to be invented.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

I never claimed to have more knowledge.

Except ye become as little children ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven

When Jesus said that I don't think he meant it for tactical use on internet message boards when you've made yourself look foolish because of assertions you've made that are glaringly egotistical and patently false.

Understanding to a great extent is a derivative of knowledge. What you are arguing is a kin to arguing that you have a better view of the picture of a puzzle when you have considerably less pieces of that puzzle then someone else.

[Markarado]

Understanding and knowledge are not the same thing.

[Trielelvan]

You have to have knowledge in order to have understanding.
They go hand in hand and are directly connected with one another.
You wtfpwned yourself all by yourself in that one sentence.
Just admit it already

[Arlos]

un·der·stand·ing /ˌʌndərˈstændɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-der-stan-ding]

knowledge of or familiarity with a particular thing; skill in dealing with or handling something

Even if you don't believe the dictionary, you are still claiming greater understanding of God, the Bible, Scripture, etc. than St Augustine, which is *JUST* as laughable as claiming greater knowledge.

-Arlos

[Trielelvan]

These are the types of people we need more of.

Excellent article Arlos.

[Arlos]

Thanks.

I mean, I don't even agree with the man; my own personal faith, as I've mentioned before, is decicedly non-christian. Despite my disagreement with the man's faith, I have nothing but respect for him and his position.

I think one of the greatest disservices man can inflict upon himself is to deny the evidence of his own senses and the use of his own brain. After all, if you believe God gave us a brain and intelligence, why then would He expect us not to USE it? And what is there of greater interest than understanding the fundamentals of creation itself?

As the writer of the original article says,

By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.

Even I agree with that, though I follow a different diety (or dieties, to be specific) than he does.

-Arlos

[Agrajag]

Excellent article Arlos.

I agree.

[KaiineTN]

I read quite a bit of Augustine's On Christian Doctrine for my ethics class. I thought I was going to be annoyed by it, thinking it would be overly religious and preachy, but I actually enjoyed the read. Not my favorite philosopher on the subject of morality, but he knew his stuff and made it fit well with his faith. He sure as hell put more thought into his faith than most Christians do.

Here's some interesting info on Augustine from my class if you're curious:

Augustine was born in 354 C.E. (A.D.) in a small town in northern Africa, son of a non-Christian Roman father and a devoutly Christian mother – Monica (St. Monica). Although his mother made sure he was raised within the Church, Augustine’s formal education was a classical Roman education, grounded in Greek learning and philosophy, taught by non-Christian Roman teachers. When he went away to continue his studies as a teen-ager, he became wrapped up in the pursuit of earthly pleasures, and by the age of 18 he had a mistress and a son. He continued his studies and became a successful teacher of rhetoric back in his home town.

Augustine’s education and basic intellectual orientation was very much in the tradition of Plato – or more specifically, a Roman school of philosophy, based Plato’s philosophy, known as Neo-Platonism. In his early twenties, Augustine became somewhat obsessed with the question of what evil is and where it came from. In Plato’s philosophy, evil was seen basically as nothing more than the absence of good – just as darkness can be understood simply as the absence of light. On this Platonic view, only goodness actually exists and the kinds of things we regard as “evil” are actually simply the absence of – or the messing up of – the goodness of the cosmos.

But in his mid-twenties, Augustine became attracted to a school of thinking called “Manichaeism.” According to Mani, the Persian philosopher whose followers called themselves “Manicheans”, the evil is not just the absence of good, but rather it is a force at work in the world which is every bit as real and powerful as the force of goodness. The world, and our souls, are a kind of battleground for this cosmic struggle of good vs evil, and the outcome depends, in part, on the choices we make. Sound familiar? This should remind you of the images of having an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other shoulder, each trying to influence your choices for good or evil. It should also remind you of the phrase, “the devil made me do it.” Mani and his followers were by no means alone in picturing the cosmos and our lives this way.

This essentially dualistic way of understanding the nature of good and evil was prevalent in many religious and philosophical traditions throughout the Mediterranean and mid-eastern world. But it was, at its core, very different from the monistic view of good and evil central to Plato (and Aristotle’s) philosophy. But Augustine was won over to the dualistic Manichean way of thinking, in his twenties, in large part because he thought Manichaeism was better able to explain why there is evil in the world than either the Platonic or Christian world views.

Around the age of 30, while continuing his studies in Italy with a Christian teacher – Ambrose – Augustine had a conversion experience which involved praying in a garden, hearing a child’s voice from the house next door saying “Take up and read.” When he then picked up a book of the writings of St. Paul, he opened it to a passage about putting behind the evils of the past and taking up the faith, he felt God had spoken to him directly. From that time forward he devoted himself to studying and writing about the Christian faith, eventually becoming the Bishop of Hippo (in northern Africa) and, after his death, a saint.

Much of Augustine’s energy went into arguing against views which he saw as being ‘heretical’, opposed to the ‘straight way’ of orthodox faith. For example, he argued against the views of Pelagius, a teacher in England who rejected the idea of “Original Sin” and instead taught that all children are born good as creatures of God. Pelagius taught that the significance of baptism was largely symbolic of the commitment of the parents and their Christian community to love, care for, and raise the newborn child in accord with Christ’s teaching. Augustine, however, successfully argued that this view was heretical and that the ‘straight’ or orthodox Christian belief should be that human beings are born evil because of original sin and that only by baptism can they be cleansed of this original evilness and have a fresh chance at turning away from evil and seeking good. (By the way, it was Augustine’s view that the ‘disease’ or ‘contamination’ of original sin has been transmitted down through the ages since the time of Adam and Eve’s original sin in the Garden of Eden to the newest of newborn babies through parents’ lustful act of sexual intercourse.)

[Markarado]

ok ok I wtf owned myself.. I admit it =P

[Harrison]

Did we just have a religious debate where Arlos and I agreed, there was a mindia-style poster, AND everyone got along?

To boot...the mindia-style poster................ADMITTED BEING WRONG?!

My fucking head is going to explode, something is wrong.

[Lyion]

First, I have no issues with this article, espeically since it avoids the metascience of abiogenesis, I think it's done in the way most things should be done. Thoughtful. Respectful. Wise. I think most people agree with the points raised.

The problem is many scientists such as Richard Dawkins proselytize at the church of Atheism of Science, and use their position to make red herring attacks on people of faith. His actions, and those of many of his peers have transformed some of science into a warfare against organized religion based purely on personal agenda, and without proper regard to science or faith.

Since most of science are things we are theorizing about, and relies on educated great guesses that change as we gather more data, it defeats the purpose of science to cross over into the organized religion turf. Likewise, religion should stay away from science, unless it crosses over into moral quandaries. Unfortunately, both religion and science both suffer from an excess of politics in the 20th century, so I fear for the future of both..

[Evermore]

:wtf:

Did we just have a religious debate where Arlos and I agreed, there was a mindia-style poster, AND everyone got along?

To boot...the mindia-style poster................ADMITTED BEING WRONG?!

My fucking head is going to explode, something is wrong.

and to complete this thread.


I am in agreement with Harrison. no joke.