Truth and the Devil

In The Language of God, Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, argues, unlike other scientists who have published articles on the subject recently, that science and religion are completely and compatible and that science does not lead to atheism.

However, his attempts to reconcile science and religion are met with little success. His arguments are in no way novel, and his primary argument for the existence of a deity is based off of C.S. Lewis’ argument from Moral Law; that we all have an intrinsic moral sense, and this moral sense must have been given to us by God. Now, the fact that I disagree with the Moral Law argument wouldn’t be as bad if it didn’t seem that Collins had not read any further on theology than reading Lewis. He merely quotes Lewis as a justification for this belief and doesn’t address any criticisms of it.

Though this book claims to be written in opposition to recent authors (such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett) who espouse a purely materialistic worldview, it doesn’t appear as if he’s actually read their books. None of their arguments are directly addressed, which make the book immanently unsatisfying.

Occasionally, Collins manages to get going when talking about science and how wonderful the mysteries and discoveries of science are, but then trips himself up when discussing his theological conclusion. For example: after explaining the implications of damage to the FOXP2 gene with regards to language, an interesting story demonstrating the explanatory power of science and genetics, he then states, “The comparison of chimp and human sequences, in interesting as it is, does not tell us what it means to be human. In my view, DNA sequnce alone, even if accompanied by a vast trove of data on biological function, will never explain certain special human attributes, such as the knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal search for God.” He later expounds on this as his major argument for the existence of God, which is that our innate Moral Law is something that science is unable to explain, therefore God must have given it to us.

Now I agree that DNA sequencing alone is probably not sufficient to explain a moral sense or consciousness, but who would make the claim that DNA sequencing would explain all human attributes? Genetics is not the only field dedicated to understanding human evolution, behavior and cognition. It is not possible that developments in the fields of evolutionary development, social psychology or neurology might one day answer these questions? Even now there are strong theories in various fields pointing to scientific explanations of moral traits.

This type of argument for god is know as the ‘god of the gaps’ argument. The idea that there is some particular characteristic of the natural world that science alone cannot explain, therefore some sort of god stands as an explanation in its place. This has been acknowledged even by theologians as a terrible argument for god. What’s ironic is that Collins seems to know its a bad argument and even argues against a ‘god of the gaps’ later when discussing intelligent design.

He states, “[Intelligent Design] is a “God of the gaps” theory inserting a supposition of the need for supernatural intervention in places that its proponents claim science cannot explain…Advances in science ultimately fill in those gaps, to the dismay of those who had attached their faith to them. Ultimately a “God of the gaps” religion runs a huge risk of simply discrediting faith. We must not repeat this mistake in the current era.”

This is only one of many poorly argued points in this book. This book is perhaps fine for those who already believe in the compatibility of science and religion and aren’t too concerned with asking uncomfortable questions, but for those who are looking for a serious, in-depth look at these issues, I cannot imagine this book being terribly satisfying.