Collins' The Language of God addresses a hotly contested subject from an unenviable perspective—the middle. The author is at once one of America's leading scientists and a self-styled evangelical Christian, and he wrote this book to explore and explain how one manages to be a scientist of faith. As is clear from the opening and closing chapters, the book is a spiritual and intellectual autobiography in which Collins plays the dual roles of scientist and theologian.
The book is divided into three parts and eleven chapters. The parts are entitled, "The Chasm Between Science and Faith"; "The Great Questions of Human Existence": and, "Faith in Science, Faith in God." In addition, the book contains an appendix entitled, "The Moral Practice of Science and Medicine: Bioethics." Collins' audience, which he addresses directly at the end of the book (pp. 230-234), includes those "seekers" who are either believers suspicious of science or scientists suspicious of faith. His message is that a viable "synthesis" (or merging, harmonization) of faith and science is possible. One can be a scientist and a believer. He writes, "But this synthesis has provided for legions of scientist-believers a satisfying, consistent, enriching perspective that allows both the scientific and spiritual worldviews to coexist happily within us." (p. 201) Although he was speaking specifically of what he calls "theistic evolution," these sentiments sum up his general take on the relationship of faith and science. Collins wants to bridge the cultural chasm between religion and science that seems to dominate American social consciousness. He regrets the ongoing battle between the two, which he sees as being dominated by extremists on both sides.
 |
| Dr. Francis S. Collins |
Collins personally drew on the writings of C. S. Lewis to build that bridge. Lewis' book, Mere Christianity, played a pivotal in his own conversion by introducing to him the importance of universal Moral Law in proving that there must be a God. Collins says that the Moral Law, "... shone its bright white light into the recesses of my childish atheism, and demanded a serious consideration of its origin." He then asks, somewhat rhetorically, "Was this God looking back at me?" (p. 29) It was, and for much of the rest of the book Collins marshals his argument for a harmonization, merging, and synthesis of science and religion. As he does so he makes observations such as "...there is nothing inherently in conflict between the idea of a creator and what science has revealed." (p. 81)
Collins, in making his case, tends to be cautious and circumspect. This tone is almost certainly partly a reaction to the bombastic, vitriolic writings of certain atheist scientists and creationists, and it may also reflect his own temperament as a trained scientist who doesn't want to get ahead of the data. That tone, however, makes for some subdued, almost limp conclusions that fail to carry his case forward persuasively. For example, he discusses in some detail the "anthropic principle," which argues that the universe's fundamental physical constants are "fine-tuned" for the existence of life on Earth. The possibility that all of the constants could be so fine-tuned by chance is vanishingly small, and provides a strong argument for the existence of Something Beyond the universe that tuned these constants for life on Earth. But then, in what seems like almost a throw away line, Collins simply concludes, "But for those willing to consider a theistic perspective, the Anthropic Principle certainly provides an interesting argument in favor of a Creator." (p. 78) This limp conclusion fails to do justice to the weight of the evidence presented.
Part of Collins' concern is to avoid the trap of trying to make the case for God by squeezing God into the "gaps" in understanding left by science. For example, there is still much that science does not understand about the origin of life, but this does not give theists an opportunity to insert God into the process on the basis of their ignorance. As Collins observes, "...this is not the place for a thoughtful person to wager his faith." (p. 93) Yet, when it comes to such things as evolution, while they do not reveal anything about God, they do provide opportunities for believers to feel more awe, not less (p. 107).
In the course of The Language of God, Collins touches on virtually every subject and controversy involved, and therein lies what is one of the major weaknesses in his arguments. He is seldom able in less than 250 pages to invest sufficient detail to make a strong case for his arguments. They tend to be superficial and to assert conclusions or observations that are not all that well nailed down in his presentation of the facts. For example, after summarizing the case against the arch-atheist Richard Dawkins in a brief two pages, Collins asserts that the "major and inescapable flaw of Dawkins's claim that science demands atheism is that it goes beyond the evidence. If God is outside of nature, then science can neither prove nor disprove His existence." (p. 165) Dawkins and other atheist scientists simply reject the whole idea that God could be outside of nature as being nonsensical—unscientific! Collins is not likely to convince thoughtful seekers inclined toward atheism with such assertions based on a brief, hasty, incomplete analysis that contributes little if anything to the debate itself. He does no better, really, when he addresses seekers inclined toward faith. In his chapter on "creationism" (pp. 171-179), his basic argument is that young Earth creationists are wrong when they say that God created some of the supposed evidence of science (e.g. for evolution) to test the faith of Christians. God is not a trickster. Those conversant in the Bible, can immediately counter with the Book of Job or God's demand that Abraham sacrifice his son, Isaac, as clear examples of God testing the faithful (see the posting, "Does God Test Us?" at Believers.org for a list of passages that "prove" that God does test us).
 |
| Image via Wikipedia |
First, Collins does not articulate clearly the actual relationship between faith and science that he advocates. At times he sees it as a merging of the two. Sometimes he says he wants to harmonize them. At other times, he wants a synthesis. These are very different things, and it matters whether we are attempting to merge, create a synthesis, or harmonize faith and science. A merger suggests the two become one new thing in which the constituent parts no longer exist. A synthesis results when two simpler things are brought together to create a new, more complex whole. When things are brought into harmony, however, they remain independent of each other and are no longer in conflict. These are very different things, and it matters whether we try to merge, synthesize, or harmonize science and or with faith. In the end, Collins seems to lean towards a harmonization of the two, but only after using the three terms interchangeably.
Second, he seems to discard entirely the notion of providence, that is God's rule over and care for the world. On page 200, Collins lists six basic premises of "theistic evolution," which is another term for BioLogos. The fourth premise is that, "Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required." What then of God's Presence in the universe and the relationship of God to humanity? What then of prayer? It sounds as if he is proposing a kind of Deism, which is fine (as far as it goes) if that is what he really intends, but it certainly doesn't offer a bridge that most Christians will want to cross in seeking a harmonious relationship with science. It is particularly troubling that Collins seems to cast this point to the wind almost blithely, apparently not understanding its implications. As a rule, scientists make poor theologians, and Collins tends to be a case in point in spite of his deep faith.
Third, in that same list of the basic premises of theistic evolution, Collins lists the following statement under number six, "But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature." He points to the Moral Law and the search for God as cases in point. But, are humans actually unique in a spiritual way? The answer is, "Possibly not." As noted in a previous posting here, "Primatologist Jane Goodall is convinced that chimps display, 'an unadulterated sense of spirituality.'" Skeptical scientists will reject Collins' assertion that there are spiritual aspects of human life that it can't understand, saying probably correctly that it is only a matter of time until they do. Human spirituality is a legitimate field for scientific inquiry. Collins, that is, has unwittingly fallen into the "god-of-the-gaps" trap that he himself warns others about. A little later, he again falls into the same trap. He asserts that science "was never intended to address" such questions as how the universe was created (p. 204). Only religion can these questions. What he seems to have meant is why rather than how the universe was created, and the why question may be indeed beyond science's purview. Surely, the factors that caused the creation of the universe (the how) is open to scientific investigation, and in fact the "Big Bang" theory is science's current best answer to that very question. Perhaps, Collins misspoke, but his mistake is elemental and troublesome, one that creates a scientific gap (science can't study certain how questions) that science wouldn't even recognize as being a gap.
Fourth, Collins' assertion that Genesis 1-2, "can best be understood as poetry and allegory rather than a literal scientific description of origins" (p. 206) is also troubling. In the discussion of Genesis 1-2 that follows, he seems to assume that those two chapters were intended to be either literal scientific truth or allegory; there is no third choice: . He concludes that God does not expect us to, "deny the obvious truths of the natural world that science has revealed to us." (p. 210) That leaves us with poetry and allegory. But those are not the only choices we have for understanding Genesis 1-2, and in fact neither one of them is a viable choice. It is more helpful to acknowledge that in ancient times the Genesis story of creation was believed to be objective truth and made entire sense to those who believed it. They did not intend that it be taken to be scientific truth because science hadn't been invented. The stories were not written to be read as allegorical, and today they don't make much sense as allegories. They do contain theological insights, rather than allegories, that still make sense to faithful Jews and Christians today, such insights as God's status as creator of the universe and that we are created in the creator's image. Collins' discussion of these matters is superficial and misleading. Some of his most sympathetic readers, furthermore, will surely be troubled by his warning against "unrestrained forms of 'liberal' theology that eviscerate the real truths of faith." (p. 209) This is an undeserved, stereotyping side-swipe at the very audience, theological liberals, most open to his views. It adds nothing to the argument he is making, and it feels like he is pandering to an evangelical audience hoping to find some wedge into their thinking.
In the end, Collins made a fundamental mistake in trying to address two audiences coming from two very different directions—on the one hand, "seekers" who are coming from the realm of faith and, on the other, "seekers" from the realm of science. The Language of God attempts to mix messages and arguments addressed to each. The result is a superficial mixture that fails to address deeper issues and critical objections brought to the table by each side. Collins would have done better to address each side separately with lines of reasoning crafted to their concerns. In this regard, it is a disappointing book.
That being said, The Language of God is still an important contribution because it brings into one volume all of the key issues involved in the debate between faith and science, and it provides the key lines of arguments for each issue—if superficially. The book, furthermore, testifies to the fact that one can be an internationally-known scientist and a person of faith. It is helpful that the book is generally well-written and carries its arguments forward smoothly and logically. Collins has organized his subject well, no mean feat given its complexity. For those who want to understand the debate between faith and science, this is a good place to start. For those who are asking questions, the "seekers," this may also be a place to get an orientation to the issues involved and possible answers—a jumping off point as it were. For those who want to understand how a world-class scientist can inhabit the same mind with a man of faith, The Language of God, offers important insights into the kind of spiritual journey that can harmonize the findings of science with the life of faith.
And, finally, Collins must be commended for eschewing the language and attitudes of battle. This is a civil book on a subject desperately in need of civility and mutual forbearance. If we learn nothing else from The Language of God, we should at least learn how to address each other.
[A book review of Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.]
[A book review of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.]
Links for Francis S.Collins:
Collins has a large "presence" on the Web both as a scientist and a Christian. What follows is only a tiny sample:
Wikipedia article, "Francis Collins."
May 1998 interview with Collins.
PBS 2004 interview with Collins regarding his conversion to the Christian faith.
The Biologos Forum founded by Collins.
