1. Comment #68834 by Crazymalc on September 8, 2007 at 10:30 pm

I think his point about morality is a good one.

The gene perspective is a good one in describing alruism within ones own kin.

I am not aware of any good gene explanations of morality between distant relatives. That is not to say that there isn't one.

I think Mr. Collins is worshipping the gaps. "Why is their altruism between distant relatives? Hmmm... gene theory doesn't explain it. Therefore God."

I can't find Prof. Dawkins quote, but I am sure he says somewhere that we should delight in the unknown. Lets try and work out why their is altrusism between distant relatives and not delight in the intellecual cowardice of "God did it"

Other Comments by Crazymalc

2. Comment #68841 by Robert Maynard on September 8, 2007 at 11:04 pm

I thought it was a really really weak explanation, actually, especially coming from the former head of the Human Genome Project.
The argument begins by accepting the individual evolutionary advantage of behaving altruistically based on genetic proximity. Then it moves on to argue that species-level genetic similarity is too hazy to explain altruism. The argument completely avoids discussing how organisms recognise one another in the first place, and pretends that we have perfect, evolved apparatus for precisely measuring our genetic similarity to strangers. This is false. There is no magical "genetic sense", we have nothing to base our appraisals of genetic proximity on but our evolved perceptual equipment ("in the wild" at least).
It is not the case that your sense organs can exactingly discriminate genetic similarity. We can discriminate between humans and non-humans, and even sorta-almost-humans (like primates), but it doesn't seem to get much more precise beyond that. We can probably be genetically biased towards certain traits, but this must be pretty generalised.
For example, if a mother meets a daughter she gave up for adoption at birth as a stranger in the street, she will not recognise her as close kin without the aid of circumstance and records, and she has no more reason for acting altruistically to her then anyone else.

EDIT: and of course, as Ramirez pointed out, the genetic component of civil altruism doesn't hold a candle to the taming power of social contract theories. I think perhaps Collins would've been served better by reading something like Hobbes' Leviathan instead of Mere Christianity..

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

3. Comment #68844 by jaytee_555 on September 8, 2007 at 11:28 pm

Mr Collins specifically condems the 'God of the Gaps' brand of religious belief, but his own argument is based entirely on the claim that science remains silent on the existence of God because God is 'outside' of nature. Isn't this just the ultimate 'God of the Gaps' theory?

He seems to feel the weight of Dawkins' arguments, otherwise he'd not need to pretend that the God he personally believes in is a totally different one from the God Dawkins says is a delusion. It seems pretty clear from the 'bones of Jesus' comment that Collins believes in the bodily resurection of Jesus and mainstream Christianity, and surely that kind of God belief is precisely what Dawkins IS talking about.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

4. Comment #68847 by Bowdinium on September 8, 2007 at 11:34 pm

Point Of Inquiry is an excellent podcast but it can sometimes be a little infuriating. DJ Grothe is far too careful about offending his guests. There were a number of areas where Francis Collins was particularly weak but got a free pass. As Maynard pointed out, the evolutionary explanation of altruism is far more complex than Collins` caricature. In the small groups humans evolved in, it was a safe bet that a large proportion of these people would be related in some way. Thus, it makes sense to treat them decently.
Also, how on earth does he make the jump from this one point about morality to the belief that there is one specific Christian God as revealed in the Bible? Couldn`t it just as easily been Allah, or Odin or even Xenu who gave us our morality? What a coincidence that Collins happened to embrace the religious tradition which he was born into. Doesn`t sound very scientific to me.

Other Comments by Bowdinium

5. Comment #68851 by mdowe on September 8, 2007 at 11:51 pm

Maybe Dr. Collins is a good scientist, but I'm afraid with all the non-sense he spouts (and apparently believes) I can see only one gap that worries me, and it is one of credibility.

Other Comments by mdowe

6. Comment #68874 by Ricky Ramirez on September 9, 2007 at 2:06 am

Oh man, all Collins needs to do is read a book or take a class on basic cultural anthropology to get an idea on why human societies have a sense of what's "right" and "wrong" (which varies from culture to culture).

A good place for him to start would be to acknowledge the fact that for 99% of our history as a species (and probably before that), we have been social animals living by "hunter-gatherer" subsistence patterns in small egalitarian groups, or "bands." Members of these groups depended on each other for survival and companionship; someone may hunt game well, another may good at finding the tastiest plants, another may usually make the best decisions for the interests of the band, etc.

In short, given that humans didn't evolve to survive solo (we have almost always had a better chance at surviving in groups than all alone), it just wouldn't make any sense for social creatures like us to deliberately cause mischief among those we depends on! If it did, we might have evolved more like bears to survive solo and probably wouldn't be even discussing this. And this is just one of the probably many many natural explanations of human morality to say nothing of reciprocity, "big men," fear of societal punishment, or strict biological reasons...if science can explain why bees and ants can behave without invoking magic sky bugs, there's no reason it can't explain human morality without invoking magic sky people. Though I do applaud Collins for attempting to convince fundies of the fact of evolution.

Other Comments by Ricky Ramirez

7. Comment #68897 by scooternyc on September 9, 2007 at 3:26 am

I accept the idea that we are hard-wired for certain behaviors and thought patterns, one of which is "victimization" - the un-integrated past experiences which fuse us to a distorted view of the world.

The subtle nature of this distortion plays out in irresponsible actions of the individual, which replicates the meme; the more the meme replicates the higher the distortion over time, the greater the irresponsibility and victimization.

Somewhere Collins experienced this victimization, which lead to the distortion that thrusts a person into suspending reality for parental comfort (god) and thus delegates responsible action to others.

The encountering of death/dying, which is a profoundly intense emotional experience, will quite easily send someone into this fantasy. The search for answers and subjectively imposing ideas about the universe for which no answers are necessary; are not required nor desired.

This was the moment for Collins and one for which, unfortunately for him, he now is acting irresponsibly in this capacity by promoting it.

There is no meaning to the universe. There is no meaning to life. All meaning and value is subjective.



The Moral Sense:

This was a great study/article, which I accept, and RD wrote in The God Delusion, as being valid regarding our "nature" of goodness:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/05.03/15-hauser.html

"Another important building block in the evolution of a moral sense is cooperation, which takes three different forms in the animal world. The first is cooperation based on kinship. An animal that sacrifices to benefit its offspring, for example, helps to protect their shared genes. In the second type, both individuals receive some cost, but both benefit. Cooperative hunting behavior is an example of this type. The third and rarest type is reciprocity, where an individual gives something up with the expectation that it will receive benefit in the future. The Golden Rule, Hauser said, is a formulation in human terms of this adaptation."

Victor Stenger wrote God: The Failed Hypothesis and it was a tremendous effort that, scientifically, gave proof that god does not exist. His falsifiability was more than generous to the religious and all evidence came up empty.

Again, Collins is projecting a "moral sense" onto situations for which LIFE does not care nor does it have any interest for any moral/value.

Other Comments by scooternyc

8. Comment #68898 by scooternyc on September 9, 2007 at 3:30 am

The only distortion is that which is not rooted in reality

Reality can only be observed objectively.

Objective observation is through science alone.

Science has no interest in being "right" or "wrong" only a conclusion based on the evidence.

Other Comments by scooternyc

9. Comment #68913 by GBile on September 9, 2007 at 4:41 am

I always have the following problem with the 'supernatural'.
My reasoning goes like this: we live basically in a natural world, and we have, with scientific methods, discovered a lot of things. We can describe many phenomena with simple 'laws' which appear 'constant' through space and time. We found our 'stuff' to originate from a Big Bang, which occurred a long time ago. Life somehow started and evolved into many species, one of which are we.

Thinking about his existence, someone started to ask seemingly 'important' questions concerning 'meaning' and the like. The answer: a 'creator', necessarily being 'supernatural'. Why supernatural? Apparently because then it is outside the realm of our science, meaning that it cannot be proved (Collins admits this) or disproved. So nobody can make an objection against this.

Now my problem is, once you hypothesize that unprovable things 'exist', where do you end.
I can easily imagine a hypernatural realm, where the creator of 'our' creator resides, we could call her C2. Now C2 could very well be really nice and modest, so why not worship her rather than C ? But then again, what about C3 in its paranatural dwellings ....

Other Comments by GBile

10. Comment #68917 by aitchkay on September 9, 2007 at 5:21 am

I've been an atheist for years and years, but this morning, when I opened the freezer, the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. I saw a beautiful ice cube - tens of millimetres across. The search was over: I knelt on the dusty lino and surrendered to Jesus Christ.

Here's a link to the only surviving footage of the C.S. Lewis talks (beyond personality), later published in the 'Mere Cristianity' book mentioned by Francis Collins.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/people/cslewis_16.shtml

Other Comments by aitchkay

11. Comment #68927 by debaser71 on September 9, 2007 at 6:24 am

I'd almost feel sorry for Collins if he didn't attack people.

Other Comments by debaser71

12. Comment #68932 by Yorker on September 9, 2007 at 6:56 am

Before I listened, I suspected it would be a waste of time so I cooked a late breakfast first and listened while I ate. I was glad because I enjoyed the meal and didn't feel I'd lost much precious life-time. It was disappointing overall and of course contained nothing of much interest or value. I thought for a brief moment his condemnation of ID was a positive step but then realised that fundamentalist ID'ers would be no more likely to be swayed by Collins than by Dawkins, Dennett or Harris.

It did one good thing. It confirmed I shouldn't bother watching or listening to the rants of religites anymore. I'll just rely on posters here to let me know when God's existence has been proven; then I'll shoot myself, confident that a better life awaits in heaven.

Other Comments by Yorker

13. Comment #68935 by Yorker on September 9, 2007 at 7:06 am

6. Comment #68874 by Ricky Ramirez

"all Collins needs to do is read a book or take a class on basic cultural anthropology to get an idea on why human societies have a sense of what's "right" and "wrong" (which varies from culture to culture)."

Indeed, it could be fairly said that one person's "right" is another person's "wrong"; ask any Islamist beheading specialist!

Other Comments by Yorker

14. Comment #68941 by Pilot22A on September 9, 2007 at 7:33 am

It just goes to show that one can be really smart and still believe in the Magical Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

15. Comment #68944 by RickM on September 9, 2007 at 7:57 am

I simply do not understand this man. Collins seems to have mastered the art of making long loquacious statements that are filled with clear logic only to surround a distortion.

On the other hand, in his debate with RD he makes the following statement:

"Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation."

This is Collins' science. Need more be said?

Respecting altruism/morality, Collins hits a wall (see Robert Maynard's post #2, above). He seems to imply that science should predict that our genes should allow us to place one foot in front of the other, yet never slip and fall.

Interestingly, Collins selects Jesus as his religious avatar, rejecting Mithra, Osiris, Zeus, et al. As you know, this came about after having experienced a pastoral scene. Has Collins given up his life to J.C.? Has Collins been saved? I can't help but wonder if he prays.

Other Comments by RickM

16. Comment #68946 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 8:07 am

This argument about religion providing morality is sheer lunacy. I think Hitchens says it best: are we to believe that until Moses presented the 10 Commandments that everyone thought that murder, rape, and theft were ok? Further to the point, if we are to concede evolution, as Collins obviously does, how is he to explain the hundreds of thousands of years that humans existed before the Christian fairy ever allegedly demonstrated its existence? How did humans get on before that?

No, it seems inconceivable that any complex creature could evolve/exist successfully without being hardwired for behavior that makes co-existence possible. I truly wish that psychologists and/or ethologists who study morality would come forward and debunk these insane claims...only the solipsism of the religious would purport that our cooperative motives have ethereal origins. I think the work of Marc Hauser [e.g., Moral Minds] and Paul Bloom [http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom07/bloom07_index.html]
needs to be more widely read.

People are so ambivalent about crediting our species with our accomplishments. On the one hand, humans couldn't possibly have built the pyramids or completed brilliant works of art without supernatural guidance, and on the other hand, the universe was created with us in mind.

Animal studies show that other species [and babies] exhibit "proto" morality. Research has also shown that religious and non-religious people think about moral situations in the same way. How Collins can negate all this research [if he even knows about it] is beyond my ability to understand. For anyone out there who truly believes that religion and science are NOMA, this is a great example of how that is profoundly wrong. Religions make claims about the material world; many of these claims have proved false, and yet people retain these beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence.

Other Comments by oxytocin

17. Comment #68947 by roach on September 9, 2007 at 8:15 am

There's a commandemnt condemning rape?

Other Comments by roach

18. Comment #68952 by n0rr1s on September 9, 2007 at 8:36 am

There's something deeply disappointing about the religious scientist. It's like an olympic gymnast who can't catch, or a top chef who eats at McDonalds. They really ought to know better.

Other Comments by n0rr1s

19. Comment #68956 by aitchkay on September 9, 2007 at 9:10 am

Ants manage to co-operate perfectly well without supernatural beliefs. Good evidence, I think, for the early evolution of cooperation. Although I can't *prove* that ants don't believe in god, it's reasonable to assume so (I call this the 'antological argument')

Other Comments by aitchkay

20. Comment #68958 by Aaron on September 9, 2007 at 9:14 am

Is Collins the best representative of a scientist with faith? He actually makes me more of an athiest.

Other Comments by Aaron

21. Comment #68961 by scooternyc on September 9, 2007 at 9:32 am

"There's a commandemnt condemning rape?"

LOL! :) So funny! LOL!

Other Comments by scooternyc

22. Comment #68964 by Ewan D on September 9, 2007 at 9:58 am

Re Comment #68958 by Aaron

"Is Collins the best representative of a scientist with faith?"

He's not alone, but in professing a faith, he's certainly in a tiny minority among elite scientists.

I'm not sure if the word 'elite' applies to this whole list, (though certainly to parts of it) but other scientists with notions of a 'creator consciousness' of some sort would include
Freeman Dyson, physicist
Owen Gingerich, astronomer
Andrew Newberg, biologist
Athur Peacocke, (former) biochemist
John Polkinghorne, (former) physicist
Robert Pollack, biologist
Brian Swimme, cosmologist

These are among the interviewees on www.meaningoflife.tv

which also includes a good smattering of atheists as well. Dennett, Pinker, Maynard Smith, E.O. Wilson...

Other Comments by Ewan D

23. Comment #68972 by windfall on September 9, 2007 at 10:56 am

I'm only at the beginning of this interview, but I wanted to comment on Collins' remark that the human genome project was an 'altruistic' effort.

Uh, I don't think so. The people involved certainly were paid researchers (maybe not highly paid, but paid all the same). Also, everyone involved knew of the potential accolades of the success of such a project (Nobel prizes, patents, etc.).

I would hardly describe their effort as altruistic. That doesn't in the least imply that they were bad, or greedy or anything - far from it. But, 'altruistic'? That's a little silly.

He seems to be saying this because the work was put onto the internet for free. That still does not make it altruistic. Again, they were paid researchers whose names will go down in history.

Other Comments by windfall

24. Comment #68973 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 11:03 am

Franicis Collins' view that morality must come from our religion holds true.

This is where Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. stumble. They deny god but affirm morality.

The truth is: morality is also a delusion. There is no morality, only behaviour. This is the real atheist conclusion. One shouldn't take the existence of good and evil (e.g. that altruism is 'good', aggression is 'evil') for granted; this is the monotheistic mindset.

This is exactly what Nietzsche argued. There is no 'good' and 'evil', only power structures. Morality is a power structure (an elite telling one what to do).

So Collins is still wrong: without religion there can be no morality – but there is no morality anyway, thus no god!

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

25. Comment #68977 by windfall on September 9, 2007 at 11:28 am

Ok, I've listened to a bit more now: the atheist position is arrogant because it doesn't allow for the possibility of anything outside of nature. This demonstrates great hubris on the part of atheists.

No, atheists DO acknowledge this possibility; we merely discard it as unlikely in the extreme, based on the available evidence. It is theists of all stripes who are arrogant, because they claim to know things that cannot be know and to know the will of an unseen being. The vast majority of believers with whom I've argued refuse to admit the possibility that they are wrong. This is arrogance, Francis.

Further, I've heard him claim before that he has 'evidence' for believing, and that he used to assume before converting that belief was strictly based on an emotional experience. His own book pivots on his EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE at the waterfall. His 'evidence' is DNA.

I respect his scientific achievements, but this claim reminds me of Kirk Cameron's recent claim of 'evidence' which (as if there was any doubt beforehand) proved entirely hollow.

Other Comments by windfall

26. Comment #68980 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on September 9, 2007 at 11:34 am

Henri, I'd like to get my head around the basics of morality, are there any books you could recomend for a novice?
(and I mean complete novice ... give me two bits of wire and a battery and I can get a fleet of planes in the sky, but what goes on in a persons head is plain wierd to me)
Ta.

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

27. Comment #68982 by windfall on September 9, 2007 at 11:49 am

Then he asks: if atheists want to say that good and evil is an illusion, then why do they care at all about good and evil? In other words, why would an atheist bother to be good?

This is an interesting question which is being investigated from many angles in many disciplines, but I think it's enough to reflect on the fact that for at least a few hundreds of thousands of years before the 'history' recorded in the old testament, there were people around who, it seems likely had a moral sense. There are so many societies that the OT knew nothing about, and which were already ancient. Does Collins want to say that these were completely immoral people, who had no idea that indiscriminate killing was a bad idea?

A far more persuasive argument I think is the expanding circle argument where the first groups of humans were mainly closely-related individuals and Collins agrees that natural selection would dictate that these other gene-carriers are worth more than strangers. From there as groups get larger and individuals have to deal more and more with less closely-related individuals on a daily basis, the Zeitgeist changes and the brain evolves to include these others in the 'circle' (including through meme exchange). The circle is still expanding today.

Occam's Razor favors this argument over his.

Other Comments by windfall

28. Comment #68983 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 11:53 am

Henri Bergson:
Ok, that's a wee bit on the extreme side. The research does not support your comments...although we might agree that absolutes of "evil" and "good" are entirely dependent on context and POV, there is a high probability that specific behaviors are hardwired into our species. The set of behavior that facilitates cooperation and feelings of connectedness and mutual support [for example] is something that we label "morality". Let's not fall into the trap of believing that we are entirely free of innate drives and tendencies. If you want to debate this point, perhaps you could take it up with Steven Pinker [see, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature"].

Other Comments by oxytocin

29. Comment #68984 by Ewan D on September 9, 2007 at 11:55 am

Re Comment #68980 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

May I jump in and recommend "The Happiness Hypothesis" by Johnathan Haight, psychologist. Though it's not specifically an exploration of morality, it is a damn fine introduction to what goes on in a person's head, and does go into depth on morality and related questions in several places. (I got the recommendation from the frequent contributor to this site, Johnathan, or 'J' and if you've read any of his posts, you'll know he's worth heeding.)

Other Comments by Ewan D

30. Comment #68985 by 42nd on September 9, 2007 at 11:56 am

I think his point about morality is a good one.

The gene perspective is a good one in describing alruism within ones own kin.

I am not aware of any good gene explanations of morality between distant relatives. That is not to say that there isn't one.

I think Mr. Collins is worshipping the gaps. "Why is their altruism between distant relatives? Hmmm... gene theory doesn't explain it. Therefore God."

I can't find Prof. Dawkins quote, but I am sure he says somewhere that we should delight in the unknown. Lets try and work out why their is altrusism between distant relatives and not delight in the intellecual cowardice of "God did it"

You need to look up game theory. It explains origin of morality quite nicely, especially among radically different individuals. Prisoner's Dilemma shows how harmful can uncooperative and treacherous behavior be in the long run.

Other Comments by 42nd

31. Comment #68987 by windfall on September 9, 2007 at 11:58 am

He says that science should remain silent on the question of the existence of god and that science can not contribute to this debate (except by providing 'clues'), but then goes on to say it's appropriate for a scientific journal to give a (positive) review of his book.

Uh, come again?

Other Comments by windfall

32. Comment #68988 by windfall on September 9, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Miracles: OCCASSIONALLY the laws of nature are suspended. An atheist would reject this outright, but a believer would consider the evidence.

What evidence? There has never been any credible evidence. If there had been, it would have been devoured by the scientific community.

Presumably he's referring to miracles of the distant past. How does Hitch refer to it? A rumor of a rumor of hearsay of an illusion surrounding some non-events - or something like that. How does Collins evaluate Sathya Sai Baba? Presumably he considers these miracles fakes. Why, I wonder?

Other Comments by windfall

33. Comment #68989 by windfall on September 9, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Again, the arrogance: the scientist's net is big, yes, but it's not EVERYTHING. How pray-tell do you know this? Scientists do not assume they know everything, that would defeat the purpose of science. You, however, do propose to know something that science does not (and you say CANNOT know). Collins wants us to allow as a 'first principle' the idea that there is more there than we see. This is an a priori line of argument that can be used to prove anything:

My claim: my invisible friend cannot be detected by your 'scientific' instruments.

Your rebuttal: how do YOU detect your invisible friend?! Who is playing with logic now, Francis?

Other Comments by windfall

34. Comment #68992 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 12:24 pm

HAVNB,

I would recommend Nietzsche's 'On the Genealogy of Morality' and 'Beyond Good & Evil'; and A.J. Ayer's 'Language, Truth and Logic'.

Oxytocin,

I wrote 'behaviour'. Behaviour may be hardwired; the behaviour we value in the west is predominantly decided by religion (subconsciously). Some cultures, for example, considered compassion a weakness of character. Do not conflate behaviour and morality.

Btw, I read Pinker's book. It falls into the same trap: some behaviour is – without question – valued. He doesn't question the main point.

Morality is faith as well. It is a delusion.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

35. Comment #68993 by windfall on September 9, 2007 at 12:26 pm

His faith is not unshakable, but he ADMIRES people who have that kind of faith. So, I take that to mean he'd like to have that kind of faith.

That kind of faith is the absolute picture of arrogance. While I'm glad he does not possess it currently, it says a lot about his eroded sense of scientific integrity that he respects it.

Other Comments by windfall

36. Comment #68995 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on September 9, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Many thanks for the suggestions. Who knows, maybe one day I might even be able to join in with the intelectual part of the discussions going on around here.

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

37. Comment #68999 by Corylus on September 9, 2007 at 12:47 pm

HAVNB

If you want to start off with something general I would recommend Ethics by Peter Singer.

In this book he picks out some really seminal pieces of writing (short extracts). You can go through and look at the development of ethical thought.

Guarenteed there will bits you like and bits you loathe in this book. From there you can decide what thinkers you want to look into further - and who you want to avoid.

Might save you some pennies :-)

Other Comments by Corylus

38. Comment #69001 by Ewan D on September 9, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Re Comment #68992 by Henri Bergson

"Morality is faith as well. It is a delusion."

I notice you like to jolt your readers with bold assertions. Why be so blunt?

Other Comments by Ewan D

39. Comment #69002 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Henri Bergson,
I'm uncertain how your comments on Pinker addressed my point, but that's fine.

Culture can direct us to act and think in certain ways, but research has shown universal hard-wired tendencies that can be described collectively as morality [I recommend Marc Hauser's book on the subject]. You may call it something different though. Behind the cover-up of culture is something more universal, and something we see in other mammals.

I suspect you would then argue that "personality" is a delusion as well. I don't think we need be so concrete as to think that people who speak about "morality" or "personality" or any such thing like this, believe that there is a little box in the brain housing these constructs. What we do know from neuroscience is that the myriad states of consciousness [morality might be included here] are emergent properties of widely distributed neurological networks. Your categorical dismissal of widely researched phenomena seems somewhat...unwarranted. Your decree that morality is fictitious doesn't negate all the interesting research in the area.

Other Comments by oxytocin

40. Comment #69005 by thirdchimpanzee on September 9, 2007 at 1:15 pm

quoting from Collins in the interview:

If God has given us the brains ...

This utterance alone should demonstrate why it really isn't possible to be a scientist and a believer. Since he proclaims his belief in evolution - what exactly does he mean by this statement? Either our brains, and what we do with them, are the products of organic evolution - or there's some discontinuity that allows "magic man" to step in and provide us with a brain that is substantively different from any other brains in the natural world.

As far as I am aware, the current research is steadily pointing in the direction that our brains differ by degrees from our nearest biological relatives, but there's no evidence for any fundamentally different organisation or other "divine discontinuity" separating our cognitive processes from other primates.

Whether its George Bush declaring that freedom is a gift of God, or Francis Collins that our brains are a gift from God - we should all demand to know when and how the gift was delivered, and what is the return address.

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

41. Comment #69017 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Oxytoxin,

With respect, I think you're missing my point. I have written twice now that there are universal, hard-wired behaviourisms. I do not deny that or the research into it.

You say certain behaviour can be 'described' as morality. Yes, it can be. It can also be described as weakness, sentimentalism. The question is, as is my point, what is it that labels certain behaviour 'good' or 'evil': 'moral'.

In other words, biological traits are valued/disvalued according to sociological preferences. In the west, Christianity has put compassionate traits as the ideal.

The vikings, spartans, Imperial Romans, even Plato considered compassion, say, a vice. Their society had less need for such traits. Their morals were thus different.

In other words, objective morality is a delusion, behaviour is not.

The problem with these 'new atheists', therefore, is that they lack a historic sense: they think that the current morals are universal ones.

I recommend you study Nietzsche, Ayer, Foucault. Nietzsche argued that Christian sentimentalist morality even hindered the evolution of mankind as it makes us weaker (sympathy for the weak).

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

42. Comment #69019 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Further:

You must make a careful distinction between descriptive and prescriptive morality.

Descriptive morality simply describes the different morals in different cultures. That is simply a type of sociology, or even evolutionary psychology. Fine.

Prescriptive morality prescribes morals that one 'ought to' obey (e.g. the golden rule, 10 commandments, murder, etc.). These morals are, behind the veil, power commands: they tell people what to do, how to behave.

As is commonly known, you cannot get an 'ought' from an 'is'. Illogical.
Research can never tell people how to behave.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

43. Comment #69026 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 2:23 pm

And with respect to you Henri Bergson, I think you have also entirely missed my point.

What I'm talking about is something very different from what you're discussing. The writers you have mentioned have all described morality in a way that early psychologists [e.g.,. Kohlberg, Piaget] have described it: as a cognitive process, the end result of which is a conclusion based on a set of certain societal values. This is NOT what I'm talking about.

Quite beside the point of whatever any particular society values, are what psychologists/neuroscientists today are uncovering as the emotive impetus for moral behavior. I'm neither endorsing descriptive nor prescriptive morality, but innate "morality" or "moral" feelings. These are utilitarian feelings that have developed early in evolution as an affiliative drive, the result of which is natural selection of individuals who possess them. These are good only insofar as they promote survival...they are objective, and neither "good" nor "evil" since nature appears to be inherently indifferent to the survival rates of species.

In reaction to a recognition of a particular stimulus, organisms respond with particular emotions. We do not need to be taught, for example, that having sex with one's sister or brother is a counterproductive thing. Most of us respond with a feeling of disgust, followed by a post-hoc rationalization for why it might be "wrong".

My contention [backed by reams upon reams of scientific data that I can provide to you if you want] is simply this: without having a serious set of instinctual drives that we are born with [which is one of the central premises of Pinker's book] we would never come to do much of anything but act in chaos. We wouldn't have the time or motivation to learn the things you are suggesting we learn.

I would recommend that you look at the evidence from neuroscience; there is much written for popular consumption. For example, Antonio Damasio has written a spectacular treatise on the importance of emotion in decision making in "Descartes' Error". Oliver Sacks discusses similar issues in cases studies in many of his books, including "An Anthropologist on Mars".

If humans insist that we are entirely in control of our perceptions and entirely conscious about how we come to the conclusions we do, we're in trouble.

I'm quite certain, BTW, the "New Atheists" as you say, vary in the degree to which they know history, just as any religious person varies similarly. No need for smugness.

Are you a religious lurker here??

Other Comments by oxytocin

44. Comment #69031 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I see Richard Dawkins as being a more intellectually honest scientist that Francis Colins. Dawkin's attack on religion is against the scientific claims made by the people of faith and the methods they use to arrive at their conclusions. Dennett, Hitchens and Harris's approach are a bit different ofcourse.

But the point is Richard Dawkins is a scientist talking on a scientififc subject. Francis Colins is a scientist talking out of his field of understanding, a scientist making a non-scientific claim, wanting to believe it because it is comforting rather than because it is true. When emotions are strong, we are liable to fool ourselves.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

45. Comment #69046 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Francis Collins said and I quote, "Belief in God is more plausible than disbelief." Eventually he took a leap of faith or so I gather. I looked up what it meant and found what plausible means.

Plausible - describe that which has the appearance of truth but might be deceptive. Perhaps Collins was not being critical enough. Why should he? That faith is a danger is a new idea, till very recently the surrender of reason was regarded a virtue.

But alas, Collins is a scientist, he should have been more cautious. I read about what science meant to a great scientist, I had admired, the late Richard Feynman. He had said "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

And he goes on, "Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation ... Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Now there was a man who believed in experimentation.

And he was not arrogant, but he was brave, "I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things; by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose — which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me." He was not willing to let God fill the gaps in his knowledge.

I think we all need to be brave today. The universe without a purpose doesnot mean our lives are without purpose.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

46. Comment #69051 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 3:45 pm

82abhilash,
Here here. I second that motion heartily.

Other Comments by oxytocin

47. Comment #69063 by onagol on September 9, 2007 at 4:10 pm

The gist of all this (let us ignore self created obfuscation for the moment) ultimately comes down to the (too) oft repeated "Outside of Nature" thingy (repeated many times - as, of course, was pointed out by jaytee_555 in post no 3).

Collins mentions something akin to "clues" in nature that support his beliefs but says nothing (beyond the usual suspects) about where these clues might lie - of course we would all like to know the details.

Anyway, the "outside nature" argument has been done to death (FSM, pick your faith out of the hat etc.) So it is really no argument at all.

Beyond that it would be nice to see Dawkins given a similar amont of time on some sort of faith show. Debating with a presenter as eloquent as Grothe but one whom is batting for the opposition so to speak - the time thing is the key as, I think, the recent Radio 4 interview demonstrated.

NW, Cornwall, UK

Other Comments by onagol

48. Comment #69068 by Yorker on September 9, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Oxytocin

I think you should study some old posts, you'll get a better handle on the characters here.

Henri, for example, is a lover of philosophy and somewhat like myself, has a fondness for making terse blunt statements as a way of being an irksome bastard, but he also says some wise things to show he's not all bad. Some of us have a tendency to enjoy the perverse fun to be had from fucking with peoples minds that this medium encourages. Best not to take it all too seriously I think, what we say here carries little if any weight.

Other Comments by Yorker

49. Comment #69070 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Thanks for the info Yorker. I've noted the tendency of some folks to be shit disturbers.

Other Comments by oxytocin

50. Comment #69071 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Yorker said,
'Best not to take it all too seriously I think, what we say here carries little if any weight.'

I tend to disagree with you on that point. There are others here who may have faced similar arguments with theists, in other circumstances and can use these counterpoints that people like Oxytocin are putting up here.

It can carry weight if it can lead us to make our peers (even one) re-examine their views on life based on new evidence and new ideas.

At the least someone might (at grass root level) be able to put a good defense against the so called 'people of faith' who try to propagate their nonsensical ideas, to a less informed public and part them of their money.

I once had a 'Hare Krishna' guy tell me about how wonderfully God made the tangerine, so easy to peel and chew, and I got him stumped by asking him about the pineapple.

Other Comments by 82abhilash