Two scientists discuss why they became atheist, or why they became Christian

[Cypress]

Richard Dawkins, biologist, best-selling author - how I became an atheist

Francis Collins, geneticist, director of the human genome project - how I became a Christian

 

[Hume]

Really, who cares. Your obsession with Dawkins is creepy.

 

[Cypress]

Really, who cares.

Lots of people. Dawkins has sold millions of books, and is widely considered the world's leading public atheist intellectual. Dawkins has probably sold more books than Nietchze, Sartre, and Camus combined.

Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project, and a presidential science advisor.

Your obsession with Dawkins is creepy.

Does the fact you have two thousand threads about Trump qualify as creepy? I can't talk about Trump all the time, even if you can.

 

[Daylight63]

These are two really interesting stories from different sides. It would be fun if there was a way to rationally discuss these two positions without offending people.

Such is the gift of faith I suppose.

 

[Daylight63]

Really, who cares. Your obsession with Dawkins is creepy.

Dawkins is a good author. There are many other great atheist writers out there as well, so Dawkins isn't the only game in town. I really liked Sam Harris's "The End of Faith".

I liked Dawkins story because it showed a path to atheism that is perfectly rational and not the usual "mad at god" accusation which many critics of atheism use in order to downplay the seriousness of one's personal faith journey.

Collins is interesting because he came at it from the exact opposite route which I find quite interesting (especially since not all of CS Lewis' arguments for God are less than great). Of course he was working initially in the quantum world so he probably saw some incomprehensibly weird stuff. But really sounds like he came to Christianity from the same position that Dawkins started off at: wonder at the universe.

In my personal opinion, the route Dawkins took is far more "scientific" (pare out those explanatory variables that are not needed) than Collins. Not that I think Collins is a bad scientist or anything. Far from it. Collins came up against the wonder and felt there was a need for some other explanatory variable. It just so happened that he was able to find it, out of all the different conceptions of God, in Christianity. Even Murray Gell-Mann leveraged the 8-fold way of eastern religion to help him start the standard model in physics.

Religions seem to fill a very important need to the human brain: putting some "face" on the unknown. While the scientist waits for the explanatory variable to reveal itself the person of faith finds those things they cannot immediate understand and "explains" it with something that feels like it answers the questions (even if they cannot be shared by all observers).

 

[EdwinA]

Dawkins is a nutjob.

Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild' Pedophilia, Again and Again

Richard Dawkins defended "mild pedophilia" in an interview this weekend. It's not the first time.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Cypress]

These are two really interesting stories from different sides. It would be fun if there was a way to rationally discuss these two positions without offending people.

Such is the gift of faith I suppose.

I think Dawkins did a good job explaining how evolutionary biology was so influential to him, and how satisfactory it is to him.

I think where Dawkins fell flat is that he based his whole presentation on biology. In the grand scheme of things, biology actually explains very little. Dawkins is basically a zoologist, and I don't think he really knows much about biochemistry, theoretical physics, cosmology, genetics, or even philosophy and theology.

Collins gave a compelling and rational explanation about his journey from mathematics and quantum physics to spiritually, purpose and meaning in life.

I think where he came up short is that he didn't explain how his metaphysical journey led him specifically to the Christian life (as opposed to other forms of belief), though he did seem to be influenced by the writings of CS Lewis.

 

[EdwinA]

Dawkins isn't any good at logic; he loses debates all the time. It goes unnoticed by his fans because they agree with what he says.

 

[Daylight63]

Dawkins isn't any good at logic; he loses debates all the time. It goes unnoticed by his fans because they agree with what he says.

How does he "lose debates all the time"?

 

[Daylight63]

Dawkins is a nutjob.

Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild' Pedophilia, Again and Again

Richard Dawkins defended "mild pedophilia" in an interview this weekend. It's not the first time.

www.theatlantic.com

Doesn't really feel like he's DEFENDING it so much as saying that it didn't negatively impact him at the level he was exposed to. It's not great what he said, but by the same token it's not like he's advertising for some nasty organization that is pro-p.

He definitely would seem to be blowing off the possibility that what he experienced would greatly negatively impact someone else. And that's not helpful.

That aside: we find ourselves facing someone who occasionally says questionable things AND occasionally says reasonable things. Usually they are in no way related and as such it is still possible to read his opinion on religion and understand the reasoning without all the other stuff that may or may not be packed away in the backpack.

And, again, I can't stress this enough: Dawkins isn't the "high priest" of atheism. He's just another scientist who writes about his opinions of religion. There is no "holy writ" in the atheist world. Which is why most atheists tend to have read broadly among many different atheist writers.

 

[Cypress]

Dawkins is a good author. There are many other great atheist writers out there as well, so Dawkins isn't the only game in town. I really liked Sam Harris's "The End of Faith".

I liked Dawkins story because it showed a path to atheism that is perfectly rational and not the usual "mad at god" accusation which many critics of atheism use in order to downplay the seriousness of one's personal faith journey.

Collins is interesting because he came at it from the exact opposite route which I find quite interesting (especially since not all of CS Lewis' arguments for God are less than great). Of course he was working initially in the quantum world so he probably saw some incomprehensibly weird stuff. But really sounds like he came to Christianity from the same position that Dawkins started off at: wonder at the universe.

In my personal opinion, the route Dawkins took is far more "scientific" (pare out those explanatory variables that are not needed) than Collins. Not that I think Collins is a bad scientist or anything. Far from it. Collins came up against the wonder and felt there was a need for some other explanatory variable. It just so happened that he was able to find it, out of all the different conceptions of God, in Christianity. Even Murray Gell-Mann leveraged the 8-fold way of eastern religion to help him start the standard model in physics.

Religions seem to fill a very important need to the human brain: putting some "face" on the unknown. While the scientist waits for the explanatory variable to reveal itself the person of faith finds those things they cannot immediate understand and "explains" it with something that feels like it answers the questions (even if they cannot be shared by all observers).

It's two very different approaches to life.

Dawkins seems to believe all knowledge is scientific knowledge.

Upon careful reflection, Collins took the path that not all knowledge and meaning is scientific.

 

[Daylight63]

It's two very different approaches to life.

Dawkins seems to believe all knowledge is scientific knowledge.

Collins took the path that not all knowledge is scientific.

But both are scientists which makes the divide very interesting.

There is not a role for religious belief in the actual lab, though. Collins' expressions are only useful OUTSIDE of the lab.

Collins would never run an experiment and find something strange going on and say "This is probably a signal that God made this go in a different way than was expected". That's because the rules of science forbid simply making up an explanatory variable without any real objective existence other than the "lack of an explanation for this event".

In this case the "absence of evidence" seems to be "evidence of presence of God". Which isn't a great approach, scientifically.

So this makes the religious "revelation" that Collins experienced quite useful in areas outside of science (philosophically, emotionally, etc.), it really doesn't have a role in the science he does. And of course he knows this. As do we all.

If anything Collins is pursuing something OUTSIDE of science and Dawkins is keeping it scientific.

As you say; both are simply different approaches to reality. But only one is nominally in alignment with the point of comparing two SCIENTISTS' views.

 

[Cypress]

But both are scientists which makes the divide very interesting.

There is not a role for religious belief in the actual lab, though. Collins' expressions are only useful OUTSIDE of the lab.

Collins would never run an experiment and find something strange going on and say "This is probably a signal that God made this go in a different way than was expected". That's because the rules of science forbid simply making up an explanatory variable without any real objective existence other than the "lack of an explanation for this event".

In this case the "absence of evidence" seems to be "evidence of presence of God". Which isn't a great approach, scientifically.

So this makes the religious "revelation" that Collins experienced quite useful in areas outside of science (philosophically, emotionally, etc.), it really doesn't have a role in the science he does. And of course he knows this. As do we all.

If anything Collins is pursuing something OUTSIDE of science and Dawkins is keeping it scientific.

As you say; both are simply different approaches to reality. But only one is nominally in alignment with the point of comparing two SCIENTISTS' views.

Collins has never claimed Christianity plays a role in the laboratory. He is a world famous geneticist and a presidential science advisor to Barack Obama who would never say anything that stupid. He is a public opponent of creation science.

Scientists are humans.
Some of them are public intellectuals.
Einstein was routinely asked his opinion on philosophical and religious topics outside of science.

Dawkins and Collins are public intellectuals and since scientists, unlike accountants and bartenders, are involved in asking the deep existential questions, some people want to hear their opinion on topics outside their narrow research focus

 

[Daylight63]

Collins has never claimed Christianity plays a role in the laboratory. He is a world famous geneticist and a presidential science advisor to Barack Obama who would never say anything that stupid. He is a public opponent of creation science.

Agreed. But that isn't my point. My point is that these two scientists are taking positions that are not the same in regards to science. As such Collins isn't really speaking as a SCIENTIST. Dawkins, on the other hand is.

Regardless of what one prefers or believes they are talking about the concept from two opposite directions.

Dawkins and Collins are public intellectuals and since scientists, unlike accountants and bartenders, are involved in asking the deep existential questions, some people want to hear their opinion on topics outside their narrow research focus

Oh I agree. Not to put too fine a point on it: this isn't a discussion between two scientists. This is a discussion by two people one of which is approaching the topic from a more pure scientific position than the other. Not that either approach is correct...just that they are in opposition, not just different variants.

 

[Into the Night]

Richard Dawkins, biologist, best-selling author - how I became an atheist

Francis Collins, geneticist, director of the human genome project - how I became a Christian

Neither is atheist.

 

[Into the Night]

Lots of people. Dawkins has sold millions of books, and is widely considered the world's leading public atheist intellectual. Dawkins has probably sold more books than Nietchze, Sartre, and Camus combined.

Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project, and a presidential science advisor.


Does the fact you have two thousand threads about Trump qualify as creepy? I can't talk about Trump all the time, even if you can.

Dawkins is not atheist.

 

[Into the Night]

But both are scientists which makes the divide very interesting.

There is not a role for religious belief in the actual lab, though. Collins' expressions are only useful OUTSIDE of the lab.

Collins would never run an experiment and find something strange going on and say "This is probably a signal that God made this go in a different way than was expected". That's because the rules of science forbid simply making up an explanatory variable without any real objective existence other than the "lack of an explanation for this event".

In this case the "absence of evidence" seems to be "evidence of presence of God". Which isn't a great approach, scientifically.

So this makes the religious "revelation" that Collins experienced quite useful in areas outside of science (philosophically, emotionally, etc.), it really doesn't have a role in the science he does. And of course he knows this. As do we all.

If anything Collins is pursuing something OUTSIDE of science and Dawkins is keeping it scientific.

As you say; both are simply different approaches to reality. But only one is nominally in alignment with the point of comparing two SCIENTISTS' views.

Dawkins is not an atheist.

Science is atheistic. It doesn't care whether a god or gods exist or not. It simply doesn't go there.

 

[Into the Night]

Collins has never claimed Christianity plays a role in the laboratory. He is a world famous geneticist and a presidential science advisor to Barack Obama who would never say anything that stupid. He is a public opponent of creation science.

Scientists are humans.
Some of them are public intellectuals.
Einstein was routinely asked his opinion on philosophical and religious topics outside of science.

Dawkins and Collins are public intellectuals and since scientists, unlike accountants and bartenders, are involved in asking the deep existential questions, some people want to hear their opinion on topics outside their narrow research focus

Science is not 'deep existential questions'.

 

[Into the Night]

Agreed. But that isn't my point. My point is that these two scientists are taking positions that are not the same in regards to science. As such Collins isn't really speaking as a SCIENTIST. Dawkins, on the other hand is.

Regardless of what one prefers or believes they are talking about the concept from two opposite directions.



Oh I agree. Not to put too fine a point on it: this isn't a discussion between two scientists. This is a discussion by two people one of which is approaching the topic from a more pure scientific position than the other. Not that either approach is correct...just that they are in opposition, not just different variants.

Dawkins is not a scientist or an atheist.

 

[Into the Night]

Agreed. But that isn't my point. My point is that these two scientists are taking positions that are not the same in regards to science. As such Collins isn't really speaking as a SCIENTIST. Dawkins, on the other hand is.

Regardless of what one prefers or believes they are talking about the concept from two opposite directions.



Oh I agree. Not to put too fine a point on it: this isn't a discussion between two scientists. This is a discussion by two people one of which is approaching the topic from a more pure scientific position than the other. Not that either approach is correct...just that they are in opposition, not just different variants.

Religion is not science.