PZ Myers Attacks Francis Collins
by MikeGeneFrancis Collins has a new book coming out entitled, The Language of God : A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. PZ Myers is not happy. On his blog, Myers criticizes Collins on many levels. Let's have a look.
Collins recounts his own past as follows:
Collins was an atheist until the age of 27, when as a young doctor he was impressed by the strength that faith gave to some of his most critical patients.
"They had terrible diseases from which they were probably not going to escape, and yet instead of railing at God they seemed to lean on their faith as a source of great comfort and reassurance," he said. "That was interesting, puzzling and unsettling."He decided to visit a Methodist minister and was given a copy of C S Lewis's Mere Christianity, which argues that God is a rational possibility. The book transformed his life. "It was an argument I was not prepared to hear," he said. "I was very happy with the idea that God didn't exist, and had no interest in me. And yet at the same time, I could not turn away."
Myers then replies as follows:
Ho hum. Why do so many evangelicals begin their tales with a conversion story in which they were once one of the unwashed ungodly?
Actually, the conversion story does not appear until later in the story and maybe it appears because the The Sunday Times reporter asked Collins about it. Nevertheless, I guess Collins (who never said anything about being among the "unwashed ungodly") was supposed to hide the fact that he was an atheist who was once impressed by other people's faith. After all, it does contradict the notion that people are religious only because their mommy and daddy indoctrinated them in religion. Those who subscribe to this notion could very well be threatened by the story of a famous scientist/doctor who was once an atheist and then became religious after all that education.
Myers continues:
I sometimes get the impression that everyone under the age of 30 must be an atheist, just so that when they're 40 they can make remorseful testimonials and affirm their new faith, which, of course, they had never had before. Nope, never heard of Christianity until they were wise old men, and then poof, they discovered this overwhelmingly convincing evidence.
At this point, it is hard to tell if Myers has simply gone off on some tangential diatribe or whether this is supposed to speak to Collins. Let's hope it is the former, as Collins did not say he had never heard of Christianity before.
Okay. So Collins provides a little background information about himself and Myers, out of an act of lovable kindness, decides to give him "the benefit of the doubt."
But OK, let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and trust that he really was an atheist, once upon a time. Why is his conversion story so pathetic and unconvincing, and based on such a lack of critical thinking?
But alas, the "benefit of the doubt" lasts for about twenty seconds:
Most of his patients were probably religious (it's a common affliction in America). So why is it "puzzling" that many were using their faith as a crutch, and why is he impressed that they weren't railing against god? Did he also have a crop of atheist patients who died feebly, cussing out Jesus all the way down? That's rather improbable, and I'm afraid I don't believe him.
Is Myers implying that Francis Collins' conversion story is somehow dishonest?
Myers then has a problem with CS Lewis:
And dear gob, he was convinced by Mere Christianity? The "liar, lunatic, or lord" argument? Mere Christianity is a book that leaves atheists baffled at how anyone could find such drivel compelling"”it's a set of exceedingly weak excuses that believers find congruent with their preconceptions, but as a recruiting tool"¦man, it might sway a lunatic, and a liar might find it a useful tool, but lords need not apply.
Actually, Mere Christianity is much more than the "liar, lunatic, or lord" argument (and one has to wonder if Myers understands what Lewis was saying). Nevertheless, I think Myers misses the whole point here. Collins merely notes "It was an argument I was not prepared to hear." In other words, Collins comes across as one who became completely intrigued as a result of reading Lewis' book, not necessarily as one who immediately became convinced.
Look at it this way. There is no shortage of Atheists who employ excessive rhetoric and bully tactics to convince others that religion is Stupid and Dangerous. Religious people are therefore either stupid, deluded, or dishonest as a consequence of embracing religious faith and people like Myers will happily cherry pick among the religious for examples. But what if Collins, the atheist, bought into this meme"¦"¦hook, line and sinker? Then one day, he reads CS Lewis, who does not come across as stupid, deluded, or dishonest. The religious guy wasn't as he was supposed to be. Suddenly, Collins begins to wonder if there is more to religion that what he had previously thought. He becomes intrigued.
Back to Collins:
His epiphany came when he went hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. He said: "It was a beautiful afternoon and suddenly the remarkable beauty of creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, 'I cannot resist this another moment'."
Myers replies:
I've been hiking in the Cascades, too, and I also find it overwhelmingly beautiful, but I see it as evidence of the power of nature and time and material forces, and my shared origin in the same forces that formed rock and cedar and mountain streams. His is an emotional argument; it has no logical force, and his conclusion is not a necessary product of his experience, since my interpretation is just as valid.
Collins is not arguing that Myers should have likewise had the same experience. Collins is simply reporting that he had this experience and it transformed him. A complaint that it has no "logical force" is misplaced given that Collins did not intend it as a logical argument.
Myers complains that "his is an emotional argument." Sure, and it is also a thoroughly human argument, as this type of experience is very common among those who have become, or are, religious. Unfortunately for the atheist like Myers, the "power of nature and time and material forces" has wired the human brain to trigger this emotion in certain contexts, perhaps contributing to the fact that Myers finds himself in a minority of his fellow humans.
Okay, this blog is getting a little long, so let's skip to the really juicy part. Myers lets it all out:
Collins is in the pseudo-rationalist branch of liberal Christianity. That's fine, he's welcome to dither about in there"¦but seriously, it has no credibility and no greater rational foundation than the raving mad branches of fundamentalism. I oppose it. I think the only purpose of this kind of crap is to provide a smiling mask of benign ineffectuality to insanity, a sympathetic cover to allow the religious to excuse any inspection of their premises.
This is a timely quote, as Denyse O'Leary is criticizing another theistic evolutionist, Simon Conway Morris:
Neither Conway Morris nor Consolmagno has any moral right to use the ID guys as human shields to protect himself from yay-hoos and poseurs. And that, I fear, is exactly what they are doing. They hope that by joining in on the attacks on the guys that the materialist hate and fear the most, they can somehow escape the inevitable round-up of non-materialists.
But they can't. If they could round up the ID guys, the materialists would promptly turn on the other non-mats, because they know they can't trust them.
It looks like Myers has confirmed O'Leary's observations. Want more? Myers speaks:
I know, a Collins and a Phelps are diametric opposites in how they use their faith, but ultimately, they are building on the same frothy, shifting foundation of lies and fantasy, and perhaps the only real difference is in how solidly consistent their views are"¦and Francis Collins has the most rickety, flighty, and contradictory construction.
In the World of PZ Myers, there is really not much difference between a Francis Collins and a Fred Phelps.
June 17th, 2006 at 2:13 am
Hi Mike,
"There is no shortage of Atheists who employ excessive rhetoric and bully tactics to convince others that religion is Stupid and Dangerous. Religious people are therefore either stupid, deluded, or dishonest …"
Also known as the "Loser, Liar, or Lunatic" trilemma: You are either too weak to live without religion, a con-man just in it for the money, or a poor deluded fool who doesn't know any better.
Also, does anyone else remember how PZ, almost a year ago, was talking about how he distinguished between bad and good religions, the latter of which "can abide alongside science reasonably", and that we "should cheer on those kinds of religious believers" So, if even Francis Collins is one of those "bad believers", right next to Fred Phelps, one has to wonder which faith PZ regards as a "good belief".
Comment by Krauze — June 17, 2006 @ 2:13 am
June 17th, 2006 at 7:59 am
This column has a certain ring of threatiness to it.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 17, 2006 @ 7:59 am
June 17th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Myers, of course, makes no emotional arguments, and is known for the cool-headed rationality he displays at all times.
Comment by Deuce — June 17, 2006 @ 10:01 am
June 17th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Yes, I suppose O'Leary's "round-up" hyperbole carries is whiff of threatiness. But I think there is truth behind the hyperbole "“ take away the ID people and Collins et al. become the new strain of "creationism." I'll remind you of the words of yet another scientist:
Do you agree with this? What about PZ Myers? Do you share in his "doubt" about Collins' conversion story? Do you think Collins is providing "a smiling mask of benign ineffectuality to insanity?" Do you think Myers is relying on hyperbole when he labels religion as "insanity?" What do you think about the way Myers so quickly associated Francis Collins with Fred Phelps?
Comment by MikeGene — June 17, 2006 @ 10:02 am
June 17th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Collins talks more about his faith here, for anybody that's interested (or even if you're not).
Comment by macht — June 17, 2006 @ 10:13 am
June 17th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Why again do we care what PZ Myers has to say?
His propaganda is not worth parsing.
Comment by David — June 17, 2006 @ 11:22 am
June 17th, 2006 at 11:32 am
A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument. I suppose that Myers must think that because he can argue about Collins' experience, Collins' experience has no value. I wonder how Myers can even explain experiences. I would think for him they cannot really exist, and certainly one cannot reflect upon them.
Comment by Mung — June 17, 2006 @ 11:32 am
June 17th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
That's not fair. Myers didn't say that. He might be said to be making a camel's nose argument — but the camel's nose is not the camel.
MG said:
Is it fair to call Sam Harris a scientist? He's trained as a philosopher, and he writes newspaper columns.
Should we not maintain some skepticism toward the atheist-to-Christian conversion story? By my count, if just the stories I've heard on the 700 Club and PTL were accurate, the United States was a nation of chiefly athiests as late as 1962, with at least 100 million Americans card-carrying members of the American Atheist Anonymity League. If one were to grant credence to all such claims, one might be accused of more than being misinformed an unable to count.
Comment by edarrell — June 17, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 4:19 am
edarrell:
Bio: Sam Harris
Comment by Analyysi — June 18, 2006 @ 4:19 am
June 18th, 2006 at 7:49 am
Why would a blog about teleology give a flying fig about one scientist taking another to task about their beliefs?
Just wondering, like.
Comment by Odd Digit — June 18, 2006 @ 7:49 am
June 18th, 2006 at 10:09 am
"…frothy, shifting foundation of lies and fantasy…"
I take it this means that Myers subscribes to both the "Liar" and "Lunatic" schools of thought.
Comment by Douglas — June 18, 2006 @ 10:09 am
June 18th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Good question. You ought to ask Myers, the blogger who attacked Collins' religion on a blog about science.
Comment by Deuce — June 18, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Deuce says:
The question is - why should a teleology blog community care either way about religious infighting between a couple of scientists?
I'm just interested as to why this story has appeared on here, that's all.
Comment by Odd Digit — June 18, 2006 @ 1:11 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
PZ Myers has a well-visited blog at Seed's "Science Blogs", frequently gives interviews to magazines and radio programs, and participated in YearlyKos' science panel along with the Democrat Wesley Clark, who ran for president in 2004. IOW, this isn't just some random scientist criticizing another random scientist. Furthermore, Myers give the impression of speaking "for science", and clearly has the ears of many scientists - also known as peer reviewers.
Since Myers equate ID with religion, it's relevant to look at his attitude towards that subject. If Myers is incapable of rationally dealing with Francis Collins writing a book about his Christianity, what makes you think that he can deal with intelligent design in an objective manner?
Comment by Krauze — June 18, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Krauze says:
I see. So is this piece going to dispel Myers' notion that ID in general and this ID blog in particular has nothing to do with religion?
Comment by Odd Digit — June 18, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Hi Odd Digit,
"So is this piece going to dispel Myers' notion that ID in general and this ID blog in particular has nothing to do with religion?"
We've never claimed that this blog "has nothing to do with religion". According to our About US page (which was also the very first post on the blog), "we will explore intelligent design and the issues surrounding it", and in case you haven't noticed it, religion tends to pop up rather frequently in discussions over intelligent design.
Comment by Krauze — June 18, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Hi Krauze,
I am beginning to understand.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Comment by Odd Digit — June 18, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
By the by, the answer to the question, "why do so many evangelicals begin their tales with a conversion story in which they were once one of the unwashed ungodly," is that in evangelicalism, everyone starts out as one of the unwashed ungodly. Every evangelical's story begins with that state of affairs.
I think there is definitely a certain dissonance between the lack of awareness belied by that question and the subsequent supercilious rhetoric re C.S. Lewis.
Comment by Marty — June 18, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Hi Mike,
I disagree. If, as I am assuming, Collins is a mainstream scientist, then there is no difference between his science and Myers; they only have a difference in regards to religious beliefs. The notion that atheists, a tiny minority in this country, are going to start purging theists from science is as silly as the notion that this country is on the verge of becoming a theocracy.
No.
I don't agree with him, either.
I have no reason to doubt it.
No.
From his pov, religious beliefs probably do look nuts.
He noted that they are "diametric opposites"; I would be happy to be called the diametric opposite of Fred Phelps.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 19, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
So, Analyysi: What is "neuroscience," and is it fair to call a practictioner a scientist? Please distinguish: Do you think it's fair to call a Christian Scientist a scientist?
Comment by edarrell — June 19, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Aagcobb:
I agree. Yet over the years, I have heard many say something like this "“ "If only the IDers (and creationists) would give up their "˜attacks on science,' science and religion could finally co-exist in peace." Those sentiments are smacked down by the behavior of the likes of Myers. Along comes a respected evolutionary biologist who dares to write a book entitled, "A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief," and someone like Myers will come along and imply the evolutionary biologist is dishonest, insane, and then lump him with Fred Phelps. Sound familiar?
Comment by MikeGene — June 19, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
June 20th, 2006 at 8:51 am
The point you missed, MG, is that no creationist has stopped attacks on science — and now the creationists swell with a few misled "ID" advocates, who have stepped up the attacks, making them more shrill, more irritating, and more frequent.
Meet PZ halfway. See what happens then.
Comment by edarrell — June 20, 2006 @ 8:51 am
June 20th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Edarrell,
We've already seen what happens at the halfway point. No sane person could accuse Francis Collins of attacking science. He is a mainstream biologist who led the initiative to sequence the human genome. He embraces evolution and has no use for ID. I'd say this is more than halfway.
So what happens? Myers implies Collins is dishonest and insane and lumps him with Fred Phelps.
Comment by MikeGene — June 20, 2006 @ 10:17 am
June 20th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Mike,
A theist shouldn't expect anything from an atheist except criticism for promoting his religious beliefs. If Collins wants to respond, he can point out that Myers is blind to God because he's lost and leave it at that.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 20, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
June 20th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
What if it's worse than that? People can be not blind to God and still be lost, don't you think? What if PZ is blind because he chooses to be blind?
Comment by Mung — June 20, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
June 20th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Hi Mung,
That's PZ's problem, don't you think? Collins could try to witness to him, but I doubt Myers would appreciate it.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 20, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
June 21st, 2006 at 11:31 am
Aagcobb,
Criticism? When you imply that Collins is dishonest and insane and lump him with Fred Phelps, that goes beyond criticism. But you are right. These type of personal attacks are something we should expect from someone like Myers.
Comment by MikeGene — June 21, 2006 @ 11:31 am
June 21st, 2006 at 5:26 pm
PZ Myers is… well, an archetype of sorts. A crude and petty little man with an envy streak a mile wide. When he complains about Collins thus:
…he neglects to mention that he evangelizes his own faith [Atheism] in exactly the same way. For the most part, the choir PZ preaches to is incapable of rational thought on the subject of religious beliefs, so won't notice the blatant hypocrisy of his screed.
Collins has nothing to worry about from PZ's juvenile attempt at character assassination. But if it's true that you can judge a man by the caliber of his enemies, he might want to make some better ones.
Comment by Joy — June 21, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
June 21st, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Well, then he'd be a creationist, so that's not the case.
Comment by edarrell — June 21, 2006 @ 11:45 pm
June 21st, 2006 at 11:54 pm
MG said:
Myers doesn't accuse Collins of attacking science anywhere. What in th world are you talking about?
On the other hand, you just accused Myers of saying rather nasty stuff he didn't say. You're rather making his point.
That's nutty, MG. Myers said nothing of the sort.
Read it again. He says that Collins' brand of thought is likely to be overwhelmed by the true lunatics in Christianity like Phelps. That's pretty much borne out in the headlines every day.
Don't know quite what set you off this time, but I'd urge you to go to Myers' post and reread it. He doesn't say what you claim.
So what happens? Myers implies Collins is dishonest and insane and lumps him with Fred Phelps.
Comment by edarrell — June 21, 2006 @ 11:54 pm
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:01 am
EDarrell, I read the article again for myself. I found clear support for Mike Gene's statement.
Let's see:
MikeGene:
Meyers:
MikeGene:
Meyers:
Now to your logical drivel:
Are you really suggesting that the only people who are blind because they choose to be blind are creationists? (I will give you that some creationists, especially of the YEC ilk, are blind because they choose to be blind.)
Comment by bFast — June 22, 2006 @ 10:01 am
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Well, bfast, "diametric opposites" doesn't mean "lumped with." I don't know how one could make such an error.
Comment by edarrell — June 22, 2006 @ 6:17 pm
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:36 pm
ederrell, please read the entire quote from Meyers. He said, "but ultimately, they are building on the same frothy, shifting foundation of lies and fantasy" That's "lumped in with"!
Comment by bFast — June 22, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
September 11th, 2006 at 8:54 am
NATURALISM'S FATAL FLAW…
The Christian should care for the environment not simply because it is the wise thing to do, but because it honors God.
The Naturalist, someone who believes the late Carl Sagan's line about the universe being all there is, was, and ever will be, …
Trackback by RedBlueChristian — September 11, 2006 @ 8:54 am