Home > News > NIH Director Francis Collins Takes the Lead in Reconciling Science and Religion

NIH Director Francis Collins Takes the Lead in Reconciling Science and Religion

Reader Comments
Back to article

The combination of science and religion is not intellectual suicide as some would think. In fact, to profess a faith in a deity or some type of theism is not the same as to say that there is no law of gravity, light doesn't travel at 186000 mps, or that according to the second law of thermodynamics energy is becoming less and less useable.
The problem many have is that theists use a possibility to explain certain things (like what caused the universe to exist) which others are simply not willing to acknowledge. Why? Because doing so would undermine their faith in atheism. This problem reveals that some have a philosophical mind-set and have accepted it to be true. This problem, yes, can be seen in theists as well. However, whenever someone mentions intelligent design or creationism, those with large and media present control cry-bloody murder. Why? Because such alternatives offer a possibility they are simply not willing to consider because it contradicts their world-view. Also, I believe science as let the best credible idea win and not let those with the best media coverage win.

Patrick of KY 10:33AM February 06, 2010

Half of your rants are laughable and should be classified as conspiracy theories on the same level as those concerning JFK's death. Then there is the one about suicide.
You would rather people kill themselve? "Oh, but they are in pain (depression, physical, mental, etc)!" So what?!? Why aren't you helping these people? Isn't that the moral thing to do? No, you feel you must attack a religious organization rather than helping your fellow human being. After all, if there is no soul, then death mean obliteration of existance. Is that what you want for these people?
Yeah, dead people and unborn children can't tithe. But they can't support or listen to atheists either.

Patrick of KY 10:27PM February 02, 2010

Roman Catholics tithe ten per cent of lifetime income to support the church and pope. It became the richest church. To protect church income, the Code of Canon Law bans abortion, suicide & attempted self-destruction. It became the largest church. In l973, the Court stopped our civil government from enforcing church law banning abortion but it still enforces the Church ban on suicide and attempted self-destruction, as when it jailed Dr. Kevorkian. Millions of Americans suffer pain so bad that they yearn to die, but have no access to Dr. K's humane course of drugs. Instead, they hang, shoot or stab themselves, dying in horrible ways. If people
mercifully kill relatives, they go to jail. This in intolerable. Americans suffer so the Church can make its own membership keep tithing. Aborted conceptions and corpses do not tithe. For that terrible monetary reason, merciful death is denied to all. This must change, starting with deposing the Catholics who now have the majority vote on the Court. There is no way to reconcile science and religion because religion is a moneymaking scheme based on fiction.

auradawn veirs of CA 11:56AM January 30, 2010

Dear Mr Dawkins,
I think Ben Stein let you off easily. I would have asked you the following;
1. You said you felt there was a 1% chance that there was a "designer" or God. I note that most scientists agree that a self creating universe, with life spontaneously arising, and then auto organizing time, space and matter has a probability of one in trillions... Looks like the odds are in God's favor...wouldn't you say?
2. You mentioned that you became an atheist after accepting evolution. What does evolution have to do with denying a creator? As a natural process evolution would necessarily be part of a creator's plan in a dynamic universe. The two are not mutually exclusive in any way.
3. If one believes that, in the beginning there was an eternally existing or self created matter, that blew itself up, self animated and created all the laws of nature, matter and energy and the dimension time and space - All through happenstance - then that person is considered a sophisticated, enlightened, intellectual. Even though there is not one shred of evidence to support that position. However, if one believes in a creator as a “first cause” he is a religious, simple minded dolt. It seems to me that one can logically conclude there is a creator - But it requires a huge leap of faith to believe in a self creating/eternal, auto detonating, coincidentally organizing, spontaneously animating rock, turning into the universe - and ultimately you and I...
4. You often beat up on the bible. Again, what has that to do with God?
5. You mention a quote something about, "Why does God hide from man?" Judging from the number of religious people I would conclude that He isn't exactly "hiding" - Rather you are denying Him - In order to deny you must have first considered Him. If by "hiding" you mean, why doesn't he appear to all and make his will known? The answer to that is fairly obvious... The preeminence of His will, would eliminate our "free" will and hence it would be an imperfect universe...Which would be impossible for God. In fact, our world, indeed the entire universe is perfect. And not through trick of chance.
An open mind, reason and logic will lead you far. perhaps even to God - Not the opposite, as you believe. The road you travel can only lead to nihilism as its final destination.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 8:48PM January 18, 2010

Alpha - Omega Rock?
Why is it that some “professional thinkers” find evolution incompatible with God or, conversely, God incompatible with evolution? It’s seems obvious to me that the “Great Designer” would design a system that would incorporate the evolutionary process. We might view evolution as a tool or device, not only in the creation of, but also necessary in sustaining the universe. A static universe would be about as viable and dynamic as a wall painting, and couldn’t possibly achieve the sublime balance of perfection it has.
However, the issue of evolution or intelligent design have, at their foundation, one thing in common, the necessity of a “first cause”. In order for something to evolve, it must first exist. In public schools this ” first cause” is taught as the “Big Bang” of eternally existing, or self creating energy and matter.
If we were to examine closely the “Genesis” of the “Big Bang” theory what would we find at it’s heart? Upon what foundation does the physical universe rest? In simple terms the secularist’s belief system might be described this way;
“In the beginning there was a self - created or eternal “clump of matter matter - we’ll just call it a “rock” for simplicity’s sake. The rock, for some unknown reason, exploded with, “The Big Bang”. As the bits of rock hurtled through the void of space the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, physics and time itself were spontaneously created. After a while, parts of the rock, through happenstance, became alive, and again through trick of chance, created an ever more complex and difficult environment in which to survive. Still later, the more evolved, animated rocks decided to create a “deity” to explain their existence since the idea that they came from an eternal, self - animating rock never occurred to them. Later still, the more “intellectual” descendants of the eternally existing or self-created, auto - animating rock finally realized they were, in fact , descendants of the “Alpha” rock and so decided there was no further need to believe in an eternal, creator. They then decided to pass laws so that all must accept and believe in the “Universal, Alpha - Omega Rock”.
What then is the alternative to a universe born through the happenstance of a self created or eternally existing, auto animating, spontaneously organizing, clump of matter and energy? Perhaps an eternal, creative consciousness - existing outside the dimension of time and space?
Which option seems to be the greater “leap of faith”? Sorry, there’s no third choice.
No scientist can ever answer the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” - Even though this question rests at the foundation of all their theorys.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 8:47PM January 14, 2010

RJS says I'm programmed. But look at Scr[pture & structure of "worship" that tells believers to read the Bible every day, study it, and be sure they all buy one or more copies of Holy Writ. Scripture is labeled so believers can easily find various topics to be argued to defend the faith. Turn to Chapter such and such, and read Verse such and such. It is a definite program of expected and compulsory behavior. I present ideas taken from not a single source like the Bible, but from a lifetime of exposure to countless sources of information about belief and disbelief. My defense of freethought is based on respect for the Constitution & its amendments. My mother's family was related to Founder James Wilson, who signed the Declaration of Independence. Like others, he pledged his assets to the cause, and it cost him a lot. He lost friendship of Tory friends who supported the English. He lost all his real estate investments. Male Scripture writers invented a motherless male god. But he had a navel he copied in the bodies of mythic Adam & Eve. To have that reproducible belly-button, mythic God needed a mom. Where is she? Religion is myth. Science deals with fact. They can't be reconciled.

auradawn veirs of CA 7:10PM January 14, 2010

Scripture has many descriptions of hallucinations & visions--of voices from unseen sources, etc. I may have a partial explanation. I was in Saudi Arabia 4 years, the Middle East part of the Bible World. My husband drove very far from a city & parked for lunch. It was desert, horizon to horizon, & nothing but a few bushes & light breeze. The windows were open. Suddenly, we both heard sounds as if voices of several people were talking in a nearby room. Then they stopped as if a door closed. Then they came again. We looked all around & saw nobody. They died away. Maybe it was due to the wind moving in the bushes or maybe it was some kind of echo. In the Civil War, a battle was fought nearby and the noise was not heard by troops in a nearby area. Maybe Bible writers had this kind of peculiar auditory phenomenon. When we heard the noises, it was not in a language we knew. If it happened to Bible writers and they recognized a language, maybe they thought they were listening to "the voice of God" or his agents?

auradawn veirs of CA 2:44AM January 12, 2010

Believers are commanded to go to the ends of the earth to convert everyone, so here they are on screen. I can't be converted, so here comes the "solicitous" insult. As an atheist, I draw attention to the fact that it is bad money management to invest in "Afterlife Real Estate." Read Scripture about lazy days in Heaven, paid for on the installment plan here on Earth --the ten per cent tithe & other payments to church employees. Then read about endless torture in Hell for people who refuse to subsidize preachers & their families. We're talking about ENDLESS TORTURE, with the soul being made flesh there, to burn again. That's a miracle, isn't it? The bodiless soul goes to Hell and somehow God endlessly resurrects its flesh so it can feel pain. How would that work? The topic is to reconcile religion with science. It can't be done. There can't be fossils millions of years old on a planet that was "created by God less than l0,000 years ago." Tar to caulk the Ark, in the same "young world? It takes millions of years for petroleum products to form under pressure from plants & animals dead a very long time ago. Comments here prove there is no way to make religion fit with scientific knowledge.

auradawn veirs of CA 2:31AM January 12, 2010

Don't waste your time, Aura is totally programed - no logic or reason, just twisted, intolerant dogma. Note, she called my post a "sermon" after I called her on her insane comment that, "authentic scientists can't believe in religion..."
"Why don't you speak to Sir Martin Rees, probably the top astrophysicist on the planet or Stephen Hawking the best theoretical physicist - both Christians. I could list a hundred more - but just start there."
And she called my attempt at solicitude an "insult"....I'm so hurt - I feel I may lose the will to live.
"Your bulb is soooo dim - I fear it must soon wink out completely."

R.L. Schaefer of CA 9:06PM January 11, 2010

Again, you missed the point entirely of what the verse was saying. God let's us experience well-being and suffering. It is not saying He creates wickedness. So once again you are twisting Scripture to meet your worldview.
According to science, things just don't cease to exist. However according to you, when a person dies whatever was making them live ceases to exist. You haven't proved there isn't a soul.
If money is there reason that Christianity is false, then so atheism. There many atheistic groups selling products on evolution and Darwinism. Also, charities claim giving money is great way to show your concern for the poor. Is that a lie because they ask for money?
Your claims about being both a scientist and a Christian are unfounded. Science does not exclude Christianity because it only describes natural events that can be repeated. Christianity does not deny gravity, the laws of motion, or the laws of thermodynamics. In fact as I mentioned earlier, several scientists who laid the groundwork for modern science were Christians. However do not concede this because your heart is so stubborn that it will deny basic fact.

Patrick of KY 11:35AM January 10, 2010