Noted Neuro-Buddhist Sam Harris has this to say about the President’s choice to head the NIH:
Dr. Collins has written that “science offers no answers to the most pressing questions of human existence” and that “the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted.”
One can only hope that these convictions will not affect his judgment at the institutes of health. After all, understanding human well-being at the level of the brain might very well offer some “answers to the most pressing questions of human existence” — questions like, Why do we suffer? Or, indeed, is it possible to love one’s neighbor as oneself? And wouldn’t any effort to explain human nature without reference to a soul, and to explain morality without reference to God, necessarily constitute “atheistic materialism”?
Francis Collins is an accomplished scientist and a man who is sincere in his beliefs. And that is precisely what makes me so uncomfortable about his nomination. Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?
As our more astute readers have doubtless already noticed, there’s some serious funny business going on with the changing meanings of the phrase “human nature” in this op-ed. That aside, let’s take a step back and recognize that the same kind of sophistry would imply that no believer in the ineffable is qualified to head up a cosmological research institute. Is it possible that a mere belief in the immaterial renders one unable to study the material? Well, some people think so, and they’re called “fideists”. I wonder if Dr. Collins is one? By Harris’ own account:
Dr. Collins’s credentials are impeccable: he is a physical chemist, a medical geneticist and the former head of the Human Genome Project. He is also, by his own account, living proof that there is no conflict between science and religion. In 2006, he published “The Language of God,” in which he claimed to demonstrate “a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony” between 21st-century science and evangelical Christianity.
Nope, not a fideist — and hardly a Siger of Brabant either. Rather he seems well placed within the mainstream of a long-standing tradition of men of faith and reason who have used the scientific method to study God’s creation while at the same time understanding the limitations of that method. Men who resisted the modern inclination to confuse epistemology with ontology, and so gave us a deeper and richer picture of the cosmos than we had ever had before.
Sam Harris may want to look them up.
July 30th, 2009 | 2:44 pm
Once UP on a Time, there were a group of cell gods. They were not whole so they decided to ask our so called Heavenly Father for help. The first group was let’s say, 3/7 and so after considerable praying and so called sacrificing, The God Father change them to 7/7. The next group was 7/11 and after more of what the 1st group did, The God Father changed them to 11/11. The last group was 3/8 but said that they needed no changing cause they had given themselves completely to Jesus and He would change them when He was Good and ready. To make a long story short, Our Heavenly Father changed them to 3/3.
Those who have ears to hear here, let’s try and use them please!
I hear ya! Give “IT” a rest sinner vic, you’re no Jesus and just because “IT” says Jesus, Victor, Lord and Redeemer won’t change that fact!
Hey! Come on guys and gals, don’t be too hard on him unless some of your cells have walked a mile in his moccasins cause maybe there’s really nothing wrong with him after all is said, “IT” could be the rest of the world! Go Figure!:)
July 30th, 2009 | 7:15 pm
As I recall Harris is one of the most extreme, and one of the least impressive in credentials, of the “New Atheists.” Unlike Hitchens or Dawkins I’d never heard of him until he started preaching atheism. His ideas on what to do about Islam are so violent that I’ve seen a good deal of criticism of him at places like “The Huffington Post”, which isn’t exactly a Religious-Right hub.
So his reaction/bigotry isn’t too surprising.
July 30th, 2009 | 9:51 pm
The arguments one sees from the “New Atheist” crowd tend to be shockingly immature, and their recent proliferation around the scientific community (as measured, of course, by the science blogosphere) is frightening.
Love,
The Atheist Scientist who thinks New Atheism is Destroying Science
July 31st, 2009 | 5:12 am
I need a gig. Like a traveling band I need a show. So must I be an atheist to do it? I can present the best atheist show ever–Harris, et al. got nothing on me. Unfortunately, I’m one of those weirdos who tries to make sense of his own faith–which happens to be Christian and even more happens to be Roman Catholic.
Strangely enough, all my friends are atheists. Is this a divine curse? Have I lived a life so pridefully and unrepentant that I must only know people who think faith is a sham? I must say, this loneliness makes me desperate. I tend to get over it, but I wish I knew at least one intelligent Christian around here. If I go to Mass this does not help–but there is still something worthwhile in going to Mass.
My friends read the bs that Harris–let alone Hitchens and Dawkins and Dennett–proffer, and it seems to make sense for their lives. Even if they admit that there is something else, they refuse–with a capital R–to recognize anything divine in their lives. My friends refuse Christianity, but they also refuse “spirituality.” My friends may be the worst of atheists, but so be it, they are what they are and I am stuck with them.
I’m no C.S. Lewis, and my friends don’t care for argument anyway (I wish they did). So I hang with heathens, and they tolerate me as some misguided soul who takes a guide for his soul. They laugh when I use the word soul. They apparently know better–human beings are chemical reactions–but usually I am able to disabuse them of this prejudice through simple C.S. Lewis type arguments. It is not hard to prove the soul–even to biochemists. Trying to speak of God as something greater than oneself tends to be a little tougher. So this thing called soul is simply a chemical reaction.
I think of my friend Dave–PhD/MD–he freely quotes Machiavelli and Nietzsche like a fundamentalist Christian. He thinks all is chemical reactions–and BTW he is on the forefront of figuring out retro-viruses.
My friends recognize that questions regarding what I should do with my life given that I will die someday are important, but they already have cushioned jobs at clinics and labs and hospitals. For them, looking at the infinity of the microlevel of the cell is enough. I try to warn them that a life that is worthy is more than a job well done–even if it is on the forefront of biochemistry–but they are confident enough to disregard it. What amazes me is that they all have “serious” girlfriends–they live together, no need to marry–but I live alone.
I did not choose this life. I wish to be married with children, but all the women I know and meet are good secularists (I’ll let you read between the lines there).
So once again, I wonder why I am stuck with this situation.
Sorry to be a bitch, but I had to let it out and anonymous bloggers are as good as any to speak of my own grief.
So I intend to take my acoustic guitar and sing the truth of atheism in this country–Give the People What They Want would be the album title if it weren’t already taken by the Kinks.
July 31st, 2009 | 9:22 am
John, dude, get over it!
Stand up straight, quit whining!
Marry a Christian/Catholic/Orthodox, make babies, and defend the Chirst!
Read Voegelin, he’ll help.
July 31st, 2009 | 12:12 pm
John, there are pockets of militant atheists all over the place, but they aren’t everywhere. If you’re stuck in a such pocket, you have three choices:
(a) Fight, i.e. educate yourself on as many apologetics materials as you can and listen to the Veritas Forum, http://veritas.org/media/ .
(b) Run away, i.e. if you’re not wanted in that neighborhood, go where you’re wanted.
(c) Ignore them, i.e. live a Christian life but with the understanding that not everyone is a Christian. Pray for your enemies. Make Christ living in your heart obvious. And be a Good Samaritan to them when they are in trouble.
From your words (a) might not be a good idea. By all means, educate yourself in apologetics, but recognize that many militant atheists aren’t interested on logical correctness, they’re interested in winning and it’s possible to win simply through mocking. A gang, is extremely good at this and “if enough people mock, it must be true”.
If you’re burned out, option (b) might be your best option. You can still return when you’re recharged. But if you can hold out, this is not the best option.
Option (c) is by far the best choice. Is their approval really that important? Recognized that when you value their approval over God’s, you’re committing a form of Idolotry. What does God value? Read the Gospels and Acts. Disapproval from non-Christians is nothing compared to the persecution of early Christians. See how they managed. And don’t be surprised if, like Paul, some of your greatest antagonists become your greatest supporters, especially if they are able to see Christ reflected in you.
Finally, there’s no reason why you can’t do all the above in some form. But in the case of (a), do as Jesus did — ask questions but rarely provide answers. Let them reach their own conclusions. Do not argue or justify your position — simply the answers through your actions.
Here’s some questions to ask, for the Harris crowd:
(a) Is suffering really the most important thing? If we could surgically remove pain from a human being and permanently turn on pleasure, would that be a desirable goal for humanity? For instance, when you eventually drop dead, everyone surrounding you would break out laughing because they’re happy they’re still blessed with life and you’re a poor sap that is not.
(b) What about meaning? Would you rather live a hard meaningful life, our would you prefer to live a Paris Hilton meaningless pleasure life? Read Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s Search For Meaning.”
For the Dawkins crowd:
(a) If something is a meme, does it mean it is always wrong? If not then if Religion were a meme, that says nothing about the validity.
(b) Why is atheism not a meme that’s infected a small portion of the population?
(c) Is science the only method of truth? If so, do you try to scientifically prove that your girlfriend/wife trusts you? If you haven’t, why won’t you call professional fidelity investigators that know something about the scientific method to hire a set of double bind seducers to validate the truth claim that she is faithful.
(d) What is faith? If you say it’s believing things that you are no are false, then why do you have faith in your girlfriend/wife/mother/father? Do you believe in the Big Bang? Have you personally verified the Big Bang? Because a set of books told you? Because people you respect told you? Why do you have faith in them? Books lie. People lie. Science has been mistaken in the past — there was a huge amount of resistance to the Big Bang theory because some atheists thought it sounded too much like Genesis.
As Francis Schaeffer once pointed out, the atheist world view is built on illogical foundations. If you get people to see the foundations they are on, they’ll eventually look for firmer foundations on their own, which is what Anthony Flew did by becoming a Deist, and Harris did by embracing a materialist form of Buddhism has done but Dawkins has not. But the foundations are still weak as is pointed out by the above questions.
July 31st, 2009 | 12:59 pm
[...] asks in the New York Times. Harris’ column has received various replies, including a note from Will Wilson (who points out that Harris’ definition of science means belief in the immaterial renders one [...]
August 3rd, 2009 | 1:04 am
Mr Damon. Wise arguments all. I will take them with me. I think your first (c) will be the best as it is what I already do in my own way. Your arguments against Harris and then Dawkins are good.
Mr Cheeks. Amen. This is what I will do. Period. But give me some time, and it is not as easy as you make it sound–even if (or I should say especially if) one reads Voegelin.
August 6th, 2009 | 4:04 pm
There really should be some award given out to posts that drop Siger of Brabant references. Nice.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact