Interview with Francis Collins...

JimiTime

iUseVi wrote: »

That's a very healthy attitude Jimi, compared to most Christians I know.:D

Seriously? With most Christians i know, we'd talk about these things, but would never be hung up on it. Looking at certain aspects of how the world is changing, does tend to build us up tbh. As I mentioned, it is something I would rejoice in, but it would not be boggin' me down or making me anxious, and that goes for alot of the Christians i know. Maybe the Christians you know are jehovahs Witnesses or something? They love a good Armageddon story, and have made their share of end of world predictions.

estebancambias

Things like energy conservation are a waste of time. I'm here now, so if I want to leave my laptop on all day downloading movies....legally(I actually do) then I'll do that. Anyway, they are talking about how 'our climate is getting worse'' what is worse? Worse for who? Was GTA around 13,000 years ago? Its nature, the climate will change by itself. We *might* speed up the process but it will happen anyway.

estebancambias

I think some of Boards Atheist think they are living in the Bible belt.:rolleyes:

JimiTime

iUseVi wrote: »

Since we are talking about armageddon, what distresses me is the fact that some christians are so convinced that it is coming soon. They think they are freed from responisbility and things like "recycling" and "clean energy" are pointless. After all God is just gonna create a new heaven and a new earth right!?
Of course Jimi you would never have disrespect for Gods creation in this way, but there are so many that do! I think it actually has a real impact on the environment! Of course there are atheists who also don't give a f*** about the planet, but the christians reasons are seriously f***ed up.

I appreciate the vote of confidence there iUseVi. I indeed think its not wise to have such an attitude. Unfortunately I've witnessed the attitude you mention.

2Scoops

estebancambias wrote: »

Things like energy conversation are a waste of time. I'm here now, so if I want to leave my laptop on all day downloading movies....legally(I actually do) then I'll do that. Anyway, they are talking about how 'our climate is getting worse'' what is worse? Worse for who? Was GTA around 13,000 years ago? Its nature, the climate will change by itself. We *might* speed up the process but it will happen anyway.

The 'selfish gene' in action - but Collins said it's bunk. :pac:

Ekancone

estebancambias wrote: »

Things like energy conversation are a waste of time.

What about prolonging finite resources? Saving money on the energy bills?

estebancambias

What? I cleary said conversation. Have you ever had a good chat about energy?

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

Seriously? With most Christians i know, we'd talk about these things, but would never be hung up on it. Looking at certain aspects of how the world is changing, does tend to build us up tbh. As I mentioned, it is something I would rejoice in, but it would not be boggin' me down or making me anxious, and that goes for alot of the Christians i know. Maybe the Christians you know are jehovahs Witnesses or something? They love a good Armageddon story, and have made their share of end of world predictions.

They would go under the name of Assemblies of God. Don't know if that means they believe anything particularly wacky compared to other denominations.

Jimi, I don't know if you are Catholic or something else? But like I say the Christians I have had contact with seem to be licking their lips everytime there is an earthquake or war.

Quote from Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation" (excellent book by the way)

Forty-four percent of the American population is convinced that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years. According to the most common interpretation of biblical prophecy, Jesus will return only after things have gone horribly awry here on earth. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen — the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves — socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency. The book you are about to read is my response to this emergency...

Yes I AM aware that we don't live in the bible belt of America, I just happen to know a of few of the wacky ones perhaps.
Still Christianity is a global thing. If so many Americans think this, I don't see why Irish Christians would think something entirely different.

Ekancone

estebancambias wrote: »

What? I cleary said conversation. Have you ever had a good chat about energy?

Oops, I thought you said conservation!

Who is Cleary?

Zombrex

estebancambias wrote: »

I think some of Boards Atheist think they are living in the Bible belt.:rolleyes:

What would ever give us that impression ....

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

estebancambias wrote: »

Things like energy conservation are a waste of time. I'm here now, so if I want to leave my laptop on all day downloading movies....legally(I actually do) then I'll do that. Anyway, they are talking about how 'our climate is getting worse'' what is worse? Worse for who? Was GTA around 13,000 years ago? Its nature, the climate will change by itself. We *might* speed up the process but it will happen anyway.

no.. you didn't

estebancambias

Oh Mordeth, I did.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

And people are still making predictions. Just misinformed, decievers, stupid or something else. It will be as a thief in the night is what we are told. Hardly makes sense if we knew the hour the thief was coming now would it! Showing what some profesing christians did/said etc, doesn't really prove anything to me.

They could be liars, lunatics or another lord!

Tim_Murphy

Francis Collins interview on Point of Inquiry:
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/dr_francis_collins_the_language_of_god/

I thought he'd have stronger arguments than he actually had. His book is called "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" but in his podcast at least his reasons for believe seem to be based on anything but science.

Fanny Cradock

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

his reasons for believe seem to be based on anything but science.

In his book he admits that logic and reason could only take him so far in his belief - or so I remember.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Isn't he the guy who decided God exists after he saw a frozen waterfall? I can't a person seriously who would change their entire world view because of something so explainable.

Depeche Mode, I do find it odd that an atheist feels let down by the manner of his epiphany. Would you have preferred a different method?

2Scoops wrote: »

What annoys me is that Collins' opinion is taken as somehow more significant than that of any other Christian simply because he is a scientist. I mean, seriously, why are Christians so fascinated and obsessed with claiming scientists among their adherents?

Obsessed, eh? You seem to be fond of hyperbole. It is glaringly obvious that atheist are also guilty guilty of presenting their own adherents as a type of proof. Your criticism is a non-objective generalisation.

kelly1

And I thought this thread had got no replies because I got no email notification. Will read the replies now.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In his book he admits that logic and reason could only take him so far in his belief - or so I remember.

This is quite common. Logic and reason often don't give the answers we want, and in that case some people prefer to embrace something comforting.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

And I thought this thread had got no replies because I got no email notification. Will read the replies now.

One of your threads? No replies? As if!

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Depeche Mode, I do find it odd that an atheist feels let down by the manner of his epiphany. Would you have preferred a different method?

What disappoints me is the banal manner of this conversion to Christianity. If this was the case that he saw a three branched waterfall and decided Christianity is true bacause of it seems to me to be bizaare reasoning. Why did he not decide that this was a sign that the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Siva and Vishnu was true? Why not the three stages of Ra? Maybe the trinity of Osiris, Isis and Horus? Perhaps it was the Babylonian trinity of Anu, Bel and Ea who decided to freeze the waterfall.

It strikes me as a man who was desperate to believe and inevitably found a reason, albiet a very weak one, to justify to himself why he should believe.

kelly1

adamd164 wrote: »

What I've always hated about Collins is the way he just declares god to be beyond science. I call that defeatest.

I call that realistic. Science is limited to the natural world and that's the great thing about religion. Science has no competence to go beyond the natural into the supernatural.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Isn't he the guy who decided God exists after he saw a frozen waterfall? I can't a person seriously who would change their entire world view because of something so explainable.

In the interviews I read and listened to, he never mentioned this. What would God have to do with a frozen waterfall anyway?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

As for his belief that because people do deeds which puts their life at risk this must mean there is more than genes at play but rather something devine, I would suggest he read The Selfish Gene where Dawkins easily explains the benefits for such actions.

Should have been called the Unselfish Gene in that case!

2Scoops wrote: »

What annoys me is that Collins' opinion is taken as somehow more significant than that of any other Christian simply because he is a scientist. I mean, seriously, why are Christians so fascinated and obsessed with claiming scientists among their adherents?

His belief in God is no more special than the belief of someone who's poor and ignorant. What I like about Collins is his argument that there isn't necessarily a conflict between science and religion as you would hear from Mr. Dawkins who calls faith a virus and the root of all evil. He also brings rationality to the debate, something you don't hear very much of from creationists.

adamd164 wrote: »

On a personal note, I'd like to thank noel also for reinforcing the notion that's been in my mind regarding the religious. They're absolutely running scared. Just look at the number of them on here trying to stir it up. Few decades back, they were controlling the country, no one would dare question them. They're reduced to trying to convince us of their arguments by linking interviews with scientists and using reductio ad absurdum logic to demonstrate that Darwinism = social tyranny.

I'm not running scared and I'm not forcing my opinion down anyone's neck. My main motive for debating here is my concern for the salvation of souls. I'm not stirring up anything, only encouraging people to look outside the box (i.e. look beyond the natural world).

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am shocked that a Scientist would have intellectual respect for CS Lewis.
Mere Christianity is full of sloppy logic and glaring fallacies.
There is strong data to suggest that Chimps have a moral framework similar to are own, based on empathy and altruism. There are also plenty of evolutionary reasons for morality, we don't need the G man to explain it.

Apart from his possibly weak argument about the source of morality, what other glaring falacies have you come across? I imagine that self-sacrifice for the good of another probably goes against the evolutionary trend?

Wicknight wrote: »

From the interview Collins strikes me as more of an agnostic who decided later in life that it would be nicer if God existed.

He made it clear that he became an atheist, just as you did.

Wicknight wrote: »

He seemed to have a level of self loathing that I think often brings people towards "spirituality", as a way of correcting and bringing back into control areas of their lives they are not happy with.

He began to loath his arrogance and I find that quite healthy.

Wicknight wrote: »

His interview is rather telling. He claims he didn't believe in God, but also claims that this made him a not very nice fellow. He claims he didn't want to go searching for God, but for some reason he was talking to priests and reading C.S Lewis

He claims he wanted to reject all this, but those claims ring rather hollow. He seems to have had no intellectual bases for atheism at all (which is why agnostic is probably more appropriate) and he seemed to have had a large hole in his life that religion offered to fill.

Collins wrote:

As I began to ask a few questions of those people, I realized something very fundamental: I had made a decision to reject any faith view of the world without ever really knowing what it was that I had rejected. And that worried me. As a scientist, you're not supposed to make decisions without the data. It was pretty clear I hadn't done any data collecting here about what these faiths stood for.

I happen to believe that much of atheism is based on ignorance and misunderstandings. It's quite understandable that someone could become an atheist when they see the kinds of things that are done in the name of religion and God. Extremism and fundamentalism only drives people away from God.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

I happen to believe that much of atheism is based on ignorance and misunderstandings.

Ignorance of what, though?

I was really hoping from more from that particular scientist than an differing opinion on morality. Do you understand what people here are saying when they can't see how he took the leap from thinking there may a god, to believing lock stock in the Christian God?

Ekancone

I can only speak for myself here, but the reason I stopped believing in god/s as a young adolescent was because I found the idea that the universe was created by an all-powerful being to be completely ridiculous. Nothing to do with any churches/cult/sects actions in the past or present.

I find the whole premise of their being a god-like entity to be false.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

He made it clear that he became an atheist, just as you did.

What, he got the certificate and all ...

Seriously though, his description isn't what I would call an atheist, and he certainly didn't seem to have formed a rational decision that god didn't exist.

kelly1 wrote: »

He began to loath his arrogance and I find that quite healthy.

Well that would suggest to me that he wasn't an atheist. It sounds like a part of him, possibly a large part, was very rationally open to the concept of "god" existing.

kelly1 wrote: »

I happen to believe that much of atheism is based on ignorance and misunderstandings.

Well, your wrong

Atheists often understand religion better than the followers themselves, and this is why they reject it.

Atheism isn't about being mad at religion (of course a lot of atheists are mad at religion), and I would have doubts about anyone who said they were an "atheist" because they were mad at religion. This does seem to be the reason though given by a lot of these atheist who in later life have a miraculous conversion back to Christianity, and then go on about how they hated themselves when they were atheists.

kelly1

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Francis Collins interview on Point of Inquiry:
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/dr_francis_collins_the_language_of_god/

I thought he'd have stronger arguments than he actually had. His book is called "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" but in his podcast at least his reasons for believe seem to be based on anything but science.

I think he basically started to ask himself questions such as what's the meaning of life and from there started to question the rationality of atheism. He found the arguments for theism rationally compelling and more so than the arguments for atheism. He open doors that he had previously nailed shut. He also makes the point that atheism is arrogant because it assumes that God can't exist just because He can't be detected as though the atheist had sufficent information to come to this conclusion.

I think it fair to say that there is a certain fear among atheists when it comes to asking the big questions such as what is the meaning of life and what happens when we die and does God exist? Atheist don't seriously debate these matters an instead choose rather conveniently to file these questions away under religion i.e. are not worthy of further consideration.

Scientists are prepared to spend billions and billions on space travel and particle accelerators but don't want to face questions such as could God have caused the big bang.

Ekancone

kelly1 wrote: »

He also makes the point that atheism is arrogant because it assumes that God can't exist just because He can't be detected as though the atheist had sufficent information to come to this conclusion.

Is that the reason I'm an atheist? Wow, I never knew that.

kelly1 wrote: »

I think it fair to say that there is a certain fear among atheists when it comes to asking the big questions such as what is the meaning of life

Define what you mean by 'meaning of life'.

kelly1 wrote: »

and what happens when we die and does God exist?

Nothing happens when we die, just like when grass dies. We think that God doesn't exist. There is no fear.

kelly1 wrote: »

Atheist don't seriously debate these matters an instead choose rather conveniently to file these questions away under religion i.e. are not worthy of further consideration

Of course we debate these issues, what the **** do you think we are doing on these boards?

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

This is quite common. Logic and reason often don't give the answers we want, and in that case some people prefer to embrace something comforting.

Religion can be comforting but even that is a bit selfish. Any one who comes to Christianity looking for comfort will end up very disappointed. Challenging would be far more accurate.

kelly1

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

What disappoints me is the banal manner of this conversion to Christianity. If this was the case that he saw a three branched waterfall and decided Christianity is true bacause of it seems to me to be bizaare reasoning. It strikes me as a man who was desperate to believe and inevitably found a reason, albiet a very weak one, to justify to himself why he should believe.

Where did you get this story from? Sounds very belittling/simplistic if you ask me. I think he just started looking outside the box as I said earlier. You don't *know* the reasons for his conversion. He's a rational man and I'm sure he debated it with himself rationally and I doubt very much if a waterfall had anything to do with it.

Dades wrote: »

Ignorance of what, though?

Primarily ignorance of the love of God. In the past 4 years since my conversion, I have been amazed again and again about just how much God loves us and frequently unrequited love at that. I am quite sure that there's no end to God's love and mercy and that he cares for each of us individually. It has often been said that God loves us to the point of folly. Despite the unbelief, blashphemy, insults, indifference, irreverence, unfaithfulness etc, God continues to love us and wants nothing more that our happiness. I've seen too many people who view God as cold and uncaring and it's just so far from the truth.

There is also much ignorance about the person of Jesus Christ who is frequently reduced to the status of a mere man albeit a wise one. There are attacks on His divinity (da Vinci Code, liasons with Mary Magdalene, claims about bones of Jesus found in an ossary, Jesus being one of many enlightened masters). There is ignorance caused by false relgions and spiritualities which paint a false picture of God and what He wants from us. The world of religion is a real minefield, full of traps and deception many of which begin in the minds of men under the influence of satanic suggestions/influences.

Dades wrote: »

I was really hoping from more from that particular scientist than an differing opinion on morality. Do you understand what people here are saying when they can't see how he took the leap from thinking there may a god, to believing lock stock in the Christian God?

Yes I can understand the difficulty. It will always be a leap of faith and it's only after one makes the leap that God starts to make sense. Of course many see this as self-delusion which I find just a little patronising.

daithifleming wrote: »

I can only speak for myself here, but the reason I stopped believing in god/s as a young adolescent was because I found the idea that the universe was created by an all-powerful being to be completely ridiculous. Nothing to do with any churches/cult/sects actions in the past or present.

Do you have so much faith in science that you think it will someday come up with an explanation for the cause behind the big-bang? How matter and energy came out of nothing, not even space.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Seriously though, his description isn't what I would call an atheist, and he certainly didn't seem to have formed a rational decision that god didn't exist.

Isn't it in fact irrational to decide that God doesn't exist despite having no evidence to show that he doesn't exist? It's like deciding that dark matter doesn't exist. And don't start on about the FSM again. There no good reason to suggest that it exits. The same can't be said about God.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that would suggest to me that he wasn't an atheist. It sounds like a part of him, possibly a large part, was very rationally open to the concept of "god" existing.

He claims he was an atheist and I have no reason to doubt his word. Of coure there are soft-boiled and hard-boiled atheists.

Wicknight wrote: »

Atheists often understand religion better than the followers themselves, and this is why they reject it.

A fine example of arrogance. If you really understood Christianity, you would have to be evil to reject it.

Ekancone

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you have so much faith in science that you think it will someday come up with an explanation for the cause behind the big-bang? How matter and energy came out of nothing, not even space.

Define 'faith in science' and contrast this faith with your faith in God.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

I think it fair to say that there is a certain fear among atheists when it comes to asking the big questions such as what is the meaning of life and what happens when we die and does God exist? Atheist don't seriously debate these matters an instead choose rather conveniently to file these questions away under religion i.e. are not worthy of further consideration.

Excuse me? Atheists don't debate these matters? On the very first page of this forum is this thread debating the subject. Perhaps you missed it.

Instead I believe it is fair to say that the "fear" is amongst those who must find a meaning for life in religion because they cannot handle life without one. Instead they "conveniently file" the question away as answered without ever really asking the question.

kelly1 wrote: »

He also makes the point that atheism is arrogant because it assumes that God can't exist just because He can't be detected as though the atheist had sufficent information to come to this conclusion.

I've said it before and I'll say it again (as you keep using the label) - which is more arrogant:

Believing the entire cosmos was made for you by a God whose chosen people you belong to, and you will live on in a magical afterlife while the non-believers burn eternally for not being chosen.

Or believing we are carbon-based lifeforms on one of billions of planets, whose entire history will blink in and out of existence leaving no trace.