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.

I think my main problem is this: why are people so concerned with hanging on to this 2,000 year old book? The author shows his own ability to reason and be a good person. Why do human achievements and human behavior somehow need to be reconciled or justified to the Bible? To me it diminishes the humanity of it. When someone holds open the door for someone, or helps a lost person find there way, there is a connection there between human being and human being. Adding God’s influence to the affair only diminishes what is actually human compassion.

I don’t need God to live a life full of compassion and inner peace, and neither does the author. He just can’t seem to see it.

The one marked “Read First” was Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, the second was Paradoxy: Coming to Grips with the Contradictions of Jesus by Tom Taylor. I’m pretty sure they were sent by my grandmother. Ever since I’ve ‘come out’ to my family about my atheism, they’ve had some problems with it.

My whole family is fairly liberal and well studied in the Bible, however, my grandmother still thinks I’m in some sort of phase. And most of them think that as I experience more of life, more mysterious things will happen which will make me believe in God. These aren’t the first religious books I’ve received from my family. Mostly they come from my aunt and my grandmother.

I study religion so I have no problem with books like Misquoting Jesus; books on religion might be the largest section of my personal library. But, I can’t help but feel slightly disrespected by the whole affair. Though I’m sure my family means well, no one has really bothered to actually talk to me about my beliefs, or lack thereof, other to say that they have seen miracles. That somehow seeing or experiencing something unexplained will magically make me believe in the absurdities of the Bible. I think the conversations I relish (going over evidence, discussing, etc.), they find threatening. That’s my hypothesis anyway.

I started Paradoxy tonight. So far it speaks of a man (the author) who had a crisis of faith in his twenties that God helped him through (paradoxy indeed), which led him to later become a pastor. We’ll see how it develops. It’s the kind of book I would probably never pick up on my own, but I want to make sure that no one in my family (or elsewhere) can accuse me of not having an open mind.