Sam Harris Upset with Francis Collins
by MikeGeneThere is an enormous difference between acquiring a picture of the world through dispassionate, scientific study and acquiring it through patent emotionality and wishful thinking. So says Sam Harris, who didn't like Francis Collins' new book, The Language of God.
It's not surprising that Harris would so despise Collins and his book. It was, after all, Sam Harris who complained that theistic evolutionists are doing lasting harm:
It is time that scientists and other public intellectuals observed that the contest between faith and reason is zero-sum. There is no question but that nominally religious scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller are doing lasting harm to our discourse by the accommodations they have made to religious irrationality.
Now, I have not read Collins' book, and I certainly do not trust someone like Harris to objectively convey the book's arguments and message. So I can't really comment on most of Harris' "review." Instead, we can simply highlight the irony of someone who is as emotional as Harris preaching about "the difference between acquiring a picture of the world through dispassionate, scientific study and acquiring it through patent emotionality and wishful thinking."
Consider some excerpts from his review:
"The Language of God" reads like a hoax text, and the knowledge that it is not a hoax should be disturbing to anyone who cares about the future of intellectual and political discourse in the United States"¦. Collins' sins against reasonableness do not end here"¦. he acquired the revolting habit of quoting eminent scientists"¦.rises to level of intellectual misconduct when perpetrated by a scientist like Collins"¦. Collins also makes the repellent claim"¦.Collins clearly approves of this sordid appropriation"¦. It is simply astonishing that a scientist has produced such a pious glossing of the centuries of religious barbarism that were visited upon generations of other scientists"¦.The only thing that mitigates the harm this book will do to the stature of science in the United States is that it will be mostly read by people for whom science has little stature already"¦.. We should be ashamed that this book was written in our own time.
Did you catch all those descriptors?
Hoax.
Disturbing.
Sins.
Revolting.
Intellectual misconduct.
Repellent.
Sordid.
Astonishing.
Barbarism.
Harm.
Ashamed.
Oh my.
Do those words reflect a picture of the world through dispassionate, scientific study? Of course not. Those are words that either evoke emotion or display emotion. Such frequent expressions of emotion also suggest that disconfirmation bias may be in play. Harris does, after all, set out to discredit someone whom he previously labeled as "doing lasting harm to our discourse." He came to Collins' book with an agenda.
Surprise! He hated it.
While Harris's emotion-based perspective on things is obviously quite polished, it causes him to blunder when it comes to some basic history of science.
Sam Harris:
In his role as Christian apologist, Collins also makes the repellent claim that "the traditional lore about Galileo's persecutions by the Church is overblown." Lest we forget: Galileo, the greatest scientist of his time, was forced to his knees under threat of torture and death, obliged to recant his understanding of the Earth's motion, and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life by steely-eyed religious maniacs. He worked at a time when every European intellectual lived in the grip of a Church that thought nothing of burning scholars alive for merely speculating about the nature of the stars"¦. It is simply astonishing that a scientist has produced such a pious glossing of the centuries of religious barbarism that were visited upon generations of other scientists.
While Harris may have frightened himself into a righteous state of outrage, let's see what a real scholar has to say.
MR. NUMBERS: Contrary to common myth, Galileo suffered very little abuse at the hands of the Catholic Church. He was never tortured, he never faced death. In fact, he was never imprisoned. His penalty was house arrest at a pleasant villa on the outskirts of Florence, Italy.
Galileo's problems with the church stemmed far less from his astronomical and physical views than from his lack of diplomacy, and from his impertinence in trying to instruct the church on how to interpret Scriptures, as some Protestants had attempted to do in the previous century. Furthermore, in writing his controversial book, Galileo had the impertinence to attribute the Pope's views to a simple-minded character named Simplicius. This Pope [Urban VIII] had once been a patron of Galileo's and had supported his scientific efforts, so such a lack of diplomacy turned even the Pope against his one-time friend.
QUESTION: When the trial actually happened, what could have been the result if Galileo had refused to recant his view that the earth revolved around the sun? Was he in danger of death?
MR. NUMBERS: Well, it's hard to write counter-factual history about what might have happened if, but there seems no reason to believe that Galileo at any point faced the threat of death. There was never any indication in the court records of death being a possible penalty, and no other scientists were put to death for their scientific views.
QUESTION: Is it the case then that there had been no scientists killed for their scientific views?
MR. NUMBERS: I can think of no scientist who ever lost his life for his scientific views.
As you can see, Collins was right and Harris was wrong. Like I said, I certainly do not trust someone like Harris to objectively convey Collins' arguments and message.
August 18th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Yep.. Irrational emotions underlie the reaction of Sam Harris. Atheists use science like believers do scripture. You simply cannot compromise on some metaphysical implications of scientific data. In the minds of atheists there is too much at stake.
Comment by Bradford — August 18, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
N I Vavilov comes to mind.
Comment by KC — August 18, 2006 @ 10:10 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
N I Vavilov comes to mind.
Vavilov was a victim of Stalinism. From the source cited:
Vavilov, the symbol of glory of the national science, is at the same time the symbol of its tragedy. As early as in the beginning of the 1930's his scientific programs were being deprived of governmental support. In the stifling atmosphere of a totalitarian state, the institute headed by Vavilov turned into a resistance point to the pseudo-scientific concepts of Trofim D.Lysenco. As a result of this controversy, Vavilov was arrested in August 1940, and his closest associates were also sacked and imprisoned.
Comment by Bradford — August 18, 2006 @ 10:20 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Hmm….
Lysenko, a teleologist who was virulently against genetic determinism (in his day, it was called Mendelism), someone with access to essentially limitless resources with which to "prove" his views.
There are reasons teleology is properly viewed as mistaken. Lysenko's biology is one of them.
Comment by Art — August 18, 2006 @ 10:28 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
He was a scientist who died for his scientific beliefs.
Comment by KC — August 18, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
KC,
From the context, it is clear Numbers has the Church in mind when making that observation. If we expand to include the atheistic communists, then yes, scientists have been killed for their views.
Comment by MikeGene — August 18, 2006 @ 10:37 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 8:21 am
If Lysenko's biology is a reason to view teleology as mistaken, then Democritus's atomism is a reason to view modern physics as mistaken. If A's beliefs partially intersect with B's, and if there are errors in the portion of A's beliefs that do not intersect with B's beliefs, that's no argument against B's beliefs.
Comment by TomG — August 19, 2006 @ 8:21 am
August 19th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Harris is most certainly on a rampage. He speaks of the "damage" done by writers like Collins without seeing his own contribution to the mess in the proverbial china shop. His End of Faith book ilustrates it well: he complains throughout that there is no evidence for religion; but when one looks for a sign of what he might consider to be evidence, this is what one finds (page 23): "no evidence is even conceivable." It's hard to see how he can take that stance–in which he rules out all evidence from the start–and call himself an advocate for rationality against faith.
Comment by TomG — August 19, 2006 @ 8:28 am
August 19th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Whenever there is something that Art doesn't like, or that has been discredited, he tends to label it "teleological", without bothering to justify his label. Those of us familiar with Art have gotten used to that by now.
Comment by Krauze — August 19, 2006 @ 8:31 am
August 19th, 2006 at 10:20 am
It's called Confirmation Bias.
Comment by MikeGene — August 19, 2006 @ 10:20 am
August 19th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Nice catch!
Comment by MikeGene — August 19, 2006 @ 10:21 am
August 19th, 2006 at 11:19 am
TomG: "If Lysenko's biology is a reason to view teleology as mistaken …"
Sure. But then, apparently you either: 1) are not equiped with a DarLogic(tm) module, or 2) have not properly activated/engaged it.
edit: One should keep this always in mind: "'Darwin' don't do logical deduction.'"
Comment by Ilion — August 19, 2006 @ 11:19 am
August 19th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
[...] Telic Thoughts discusses Sam Harris on Collins It is time that scientists and other public intellectuals observed that the contest between faith and reason is zero-sum. There is no question but that nominally religious scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller are doing lasting harm to our discourse by the accommodations they have made to religious irrationality. [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » Public deprived of evolution discourse — August 19, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
August 20th, 2006 at 7:23 am
TomG writes:
Tom, take another look at the page in question. Harris is not ruling out all evidence for religion; he is simply saying that every religion contains some beliefs for which there can be no conceivable evidence. Quite an important difference.
Sam Harris:
Comment by keiths — August 20, 2006 @ 7:23 am
August 20th, 2006 at 9:28 am
TomG:
This analogy isn't very apt. Democritus and modern physics are two very different things, and the accuracy of Democritus' vision speaks more to his abilities (and the knowledge available to him) than those of modern physicists.
There isn't much difference between Lysenko's approaches and philosophies and those of modern-day "teleologists" (quotes used because the only teleologists I know of are those associated with the Intelligent Design movement ). Lysenko and his following viewed biology in a broad functional context (function being, loosely, the social and political construct of socialism/communism or whatever one wishes to call the phenomenon) and insisted that teleology could and should drive biological change. While teleologists today are coy about the specifics of the function (its the design, not the designer), they cannot deny that teleology demands some sort of intent or function on the part of the designing entity.
Heck, the similarities go as far as the affinities of both for Lamarck and their shared antipathies for "genetic determinism".
The failure of Lysenko speaks to modern teleological thought, and the relevance of the latter, in ways that Democritus simply does not (when it comes to physics, that is).
The responses of others here is instructive. To deny that Lysenko was a teleologist is absurd. To set out to distinguish (philosophically or biologically) between Lysenko and the teleology espoused here would seem to make sense, but TTers aren't going to touch this subject with a ten-foot pole.
Comment by Art — August 20, 2006 @ 9:28 am
August 20th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Art, your arguments are tired and lame. I would explain it to you, but you have a history of not listening. What I will note is that you were previously trying to get Krauze to pick a fight with Joy. Then, you failed to express any concern or outrage about what happened to Dario Ringach. Now you have derailed this thread, as Lysenko had nothing to do with my blog. You are a merely a guest here at Telic Thoughts, Art. I would suggest you start acting like one.
Comment by MikeGene — August 20, 2006 @ 10:54 am
August 20th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
I didn't know that. Of what "propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable" does Christianity preach the truth?
Comment by Douglas — August 20, 2006 @ 5:55 pm
August 20th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
"I didn't know that. Of what "propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable" does Christianity preach the truth?"
For starters: "God IS."
Of course, this is a "proposition[] for which no evidence is even conceivable" only because it denies the proposition that "there is no god."
Also, remember that when 'materialists' get going like this, "evidence" can never mean the result of logical/rational reasoning; rather "evidence" can be only some physical fact (i.e. a 'brute fact') which "speaks for itself."
Ironically, the thing about "brutes" is that they do not speak.
Comment by Ilion — August 20, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 11:14 am
Keiths said:
That's not just true of religion, but of any belief system whatsoever. The failure, after all, of the verifiability criterion to satisfy its own standards is what sank the positivists. Harris is making a pretty pedestrian point, and it certainly doesn't get anywhere near entailing the "end of faith."
Comment by jrw — August 21, 2006 @ 11:14 am
August 21st, 2006 at 11:32 am
When it comes to talk about evidence, why would anyone care what Harris thinks? His emotion-based perspective to the topic of religion tells us it is not about "evidence" for him. The guy can't even get some basic history correct. I like this one:
"and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life by steely-eyed religious maniacs."
We'll overlook the "maniac" outburst and instead focused on the adjective "steely-eyed." What is Harris' "evidence" that those eyes were steely? His imagination? A movie he watched? Stereotypes?
This is the guy who wants to preach to Francis Collins about "evidence" and a "reality-based" approach? LOL
Comment by MikeGene — August 21, 2006 @ 11:32 am
August 21st, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Citing Ron Numbers as a 'real scholar' is a weak argument from authority. Galileo was not tortured, but, as Harris says and Numbers neglects to mention, he was threatened with torture. His Dialogue was banned. His other work was proscibed (albeit the proscription was never implemented.)
I find it amusing that at a time when many Christians react to any minor criticism of their religion as akin to persecution, you are shrugging off a man being shown the instruments of tiorture by the Inquisition.
Comment by Gerard Harbison — August 21, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 12:45 pm
I find it amusing that at a time when many Christians react to any minor criticism of their religion as akin to persecution, you are shrugging off a man being shown the instruments of tiorture by the Inquisition.
The overly emotional reactions can be traced to Harris as evidenced by his remarks. The comments about them in this blog have been calm, reasoned and humorous by comparison. What is it that you would have us do or say about a historic event that took place centuries ago?
Comment by Bradford — August 21, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 12:56 pm
I would have you admit the clear, unchallenged facts of the case, rather than attempt to gloss them over.
Harris is undoubtedly given to hyperbole; it is, unfortunately, the spirit of the times to embrace tendentiousness. Nonetheless, I find his criticism of Collins' book for the most part sound. Collins quote-mines and misrepresents people; he paints a distorted picture of, for example, the evolutionary biology of altruism, in order to try to pretend that altruism must have a supernatural explanation. It's really an awful book. You should read it
Comment by Gerard Harbison — August 21, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 1:26 pm
I would have you admit the clear, unchallenged facts of the case, rather than attempt to gloss them over.
I do not want to gloss over anything but would note that when the incident is brought up it generally is meant to convey implications that are alleged to be valid about the present and they are rarely unchallenged facts.
Harris is undoubtedly given to hyperbole;
Harris has very hostile convictions. Since I have not read Collin's book I'm not in a position to evaluate your comments. I should read an awful book huh? That explains your smile?
Comment by Bradford — August 21, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 2:42 pm
"What is it that you would have us do or say about a historic event that took place centuries ago?"
And which is constantly misunderstood and/or misrepresented … including by Gerard Harbison. (as, for instance: "… you are shrugging off a man being shown the instruments of tiorture by the Inquisition.")
Comment by Ilion — August 21, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 5:18 pm
I picked up Collins' book at a bookstore, and skimmed over the chapter on Intelligent Design. He adds nothing new to the debate, and I would conclude — from his using Darwin's argument for the evolution of the eye — that Collins has never bothered to read Behe's DBB.
I think Collins was influenced by C.S.Lewis's Mere Christianity in coming to religious faith from atheism. But I didn't read that part.
Comment by Bilbo — August 21, 2006 @ 5:18 pm