The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

Collins presents evidence for God, while supporting evolution and the fundamentals of science. He uses both for evidence of God. If you are looking for a creationist book, this is not for you. If you are looking for an extremely well written book which is perhaps the most logical argument for belief, this book will serve you well. It was a pleasure to read, regardless of any prior belief.

Francis S. Collins is the leader of the Human Genome Project, an esteemed biologist, and an ardent believer in Christianity. In his book, subtitled "A scientist Presents Evidence For Belief", he attempts to do exactly that. He makes a number of arguments for belief in a God, while at the same time arguing the efficacy of science in explaining the natural world.
His book was no doubt an interesting, fairly easy read. Collin's talents lay primarily in succinctly adumbrating a variety of scientific and philosophical arguments in a way that makes them accessible to people who may not be well versed in either the scientific or philosophical aspects of those arguments. The contents of the book can roughly be categorized as follows: philosophical arguments for god; scientific arguments for god; scientific refutation of common fallacies which appear in the arguments of believers; and a foray into the future of bioethics.
Collins begins by recounting how he himself came to be proselytized to faith from atheism/agnosticism. His own path mirrors closely that of famed convert C.S. Lewis, whose arguments Collins makes generous use of. The basic premise on which his faith is based is simple. He believes that human beings are divinely endowed with a sort of moral compass which cannot be explained by science. He cites much of the same logic as Lewis, pointing out that people's arguments usually seem to appeal to a sort of higher moral authority. People seem to intrinsically feel that mistreating others is "wrong", people getting more than they work for is "unfair", and when challenged about their own actions, people try to rationalize them in the context of this moral authority, rather than simply dismissing the accusations. It is here that I believe Collins makes his biggest error. Collins attempts to discourage a variety of "god of the gaps" arguments are highly laudable, but I believe he falls into the same trap when trying to explain people's seemingly intrinsic sense of morality and the presence of altruism in the world. While undoubtedly a highly accomplished scientist, Collins seems to be at best only vaguely familiar with psychology, and in particular the area of social psychology. He holds that people helping other people simply cannot be explained in evolutionary terms, and makes a few weak arguments against various explanations of altruism by sociobiologists. Once or twice, he even makes completely false statements, observing that "...for the evolutionary argument about group benefits of altruism to hold, it would seem to require an opposite response, namely, hostility to individuals outside the group. Oskar Schindler's...agape belies this kind of thinking". As any introduction to psychology student can tell you, hostility towards the "outgroup" is a very highly studied, well documented, proven human behavior. Even when people are grouped by something as arbitrary as randomly flipping a coin, laboratory studies have shown that people will still favor the members of their own group, while tending to perceive members of other groups as more homogenous and less diverse than theirs. Perhaps Mr. Collins has forgotten why Oskar Schindler is famous in the first place? Systematic extermination of Jews certainly seems to qualify as hostility to members outside the "group", as defined by the nazis. It is my contention that altruism, and morality in general, can be explained in evolutionary terms, so I found the arguments Collins presented in the book shaky at best.
This is not to say the book wasn't good for a lot of other reasons. The author is a very open believer in god. However, he strongly discourages other believers from using faulty reasoning to try and argue for the existence of god. He points out that wherever believers have used god to explain the natural world, there has invariably been found a scientific explanation for it. In older days, god(s) was/were used to explain things like the wind, rain, sunrise, childbirth, etc. In more recent history, the only explanation for the stunning complexity of nature was creation at the hands of a god. Now the theory of evolution provides an answer much more consistent with observations. In the current era, many mysteries about the universe abound, some of which strain the imaginations even of the researchers studying the problem. I concede that The Big Bang, quantum mechanics, the fined-tuned nature of the laws physics, etc., pose problems for those looking for rational explanations. But, if history is any indicator, answers to these questions will be found. And, as Collins points out, when believers rest their faith on the things science can't prove, they inevitably find less and less territory from which to argue. This is not to say that science and faith are incompatible. They are not. But to ignore what science has to say about the universe is to bury one's head in the sand. Collins argues, and I agree, that even the faithful should be enthusiastic about working to progress science. An understanding of the complexity and majesty of the universe needn't necessarily diminish the sense of wonder about the world around us.
Overall, Collins' book didn't prove anything or change my mind. It is essentially an updated version of C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity", with considerable more treatment of scientific topics. It was easy to read, and I recommend it for anyone looking to explore this topic. I wish to note that I find it very refreshing and encouraging that some of my best arguments against believers came from this book. It shows the the author has truly thought about all aspects of the subject, and, while I disagree with his conclusions, I can respect what another person believes when that belief is well thought out and rational, rather than based on ignorance, willful or otherwise.

I think the underlying theme to this book was that wherever you fall in belief- (a)/theist- that most arguments/disagreements can be resolved through humility, patience, and intellectual honesty. I agree that we humans tend to have a lot of hubris for the little knowledge we've attained. We have barely touched the metaphoric tip of the iceberg of knowledge- specifically the scientific iceberg as detailed in this book.

I have no scientific authority. I have taken a few chemistry classes and a number of anatomy classes- which actually resulted in my coming to Christian faith. The microscope sparked a fire in me with an epiphone that there is more to this life than the physical. I have since been seeking that truth. What I do know- is that when peering through a microscope- there will never be a message saying in plain words- "Here I Am"- which I think so many are seeking for such a sign.

Starting around Chapter 4, I had to be intellectually honest with myself. This is the first time I've read a "believer" that has fully embraced evolution and written about it- which I wasn't expecting. I've never really thought much about evolution- which seems to be the be all/end all for those like Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. as to whether or not there is a God. But as I ruminated- evolution whether it be fact or fiction- has no bearing in the case. If God works through moral law- He would also work through Natural law. Perhaps, evolution could be that force in which creation occurs? Evolution could be used as much a weapon for theists as atheists- but it ultimately comes down to individual faith.

Faith falls into both camps- faith that there is a God or not- neither can disprove the other- or prove themselves. It comes down to the individual being intellectually honest and searching the evidence for themselves. In this book, Mr. Collins details his coming to first theism and then later to Christianity. He uses both Moral Law and Natural Law to make his case.

The book was very engaging- got my mind turning and spinning. My only problem was that it seemed to be all over the place. Perhaps, he went from each idea too quickly, I'm not sure. There were things I felt he could've spent more time on- and other things that didn't seem to add to his argument. The appendix especially jumped around- but that may be why it was the appendix.

For the theists- personally- there wasn't much new information. For the new theists- this would probably be a good starting point as well as CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity." For atheists or agnostics- I would recommend simply because it only seems right that we should challenge ourselves with opposing views.

p. 232 "Coming to a knowledge of God's love and grace is empowering, not constraining. God is in the business of release, not incarceration" my favorite line in the book which also reminded me of II Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things are passed away, behold all things are become new." I have personally experienced this- and wish anyone genuinely seeking such peace- the best journey they could imagine.

As I think about "The Language of God", I liked Collins' science. The closer he was to his expertise, the better it got. The DNA and biology were good, as were the bits on quantum physics. Specifically, religion doesn't affect his science - he knows that the earth is old and that we've evolved from earlier forms. Science doesn't have a conspiracy of hiding information - scientists make their reputations by bringing new facts to light, even if it contradicts accepted theories - the idea of an evolutionary conspiracy is laughable.

His section on "God in the Gaps" is excellent. If you depend on it, it diminishes your theology. So, you believe in God and say, "We don't know how life came about on earth - God must have done it." and then, 10 years from now, we discover the processes responsible for producing the first life, theology, religion and belief in God all take a hit.

Of course, Collins already counters his own rule when he discussed the big bang and the origin of the universe, where he couldn't imagine that it could have happened naturally and must have had a supernatural beginning. Where is his "God in the Gaps" rule now? I guess those discoveries are just far enough in the future for him to feel comfortable making his god in the gaps argument.

I find that Collins goes out of his way to discuss that science and religion are not in conflict. While he takes his whole book to do an ok job, I found that Joseph Campbell did a better job in two sentences in "The Power of Myth": "There is no conflict between science and religion. There is only conflict between modern knowledge and knowledge from biblical times."

I have a slight personal acquaintance with Dr. Collins and believe him to be a sincere, thoughtful and--obviously--intellectually brilliant person. I think that by writing this book he was making a heroic effort to break through the absolutist arrogance of both sides of the debate (is there any other topic that creates such hateful rhetoric as whether man got here by evolution or by creation?). Neither camp is particularly appealing in their intransigence, and both are more interested in claiming converts to their position than they are in a measured discussion of relative merit, as the comments and reviews on this book attest. The actual fact is that no one knows with 100% certainty whether God exists or whether evolution fully explains our presence on the planet and we probably never will know to everyone's satisfaction. People on both sides seem to conflate the strength of their personal convictions with the rightness of their belief system and they are not equivalent. There are, however, observable scientific facts that are not in dispute and creationists do themselves no favors by dismissing these facts. If you take into account the vast evidence for biological adaptation and evolution (which we experience annually when we require a new vaccine for constantly evolving influenza viruses), then the question really becomes is evolution the product of intentional design by an intelligent creator or is it a random occurrence? I think Dr. Collins book was an attempt to start a respectful dialogue on this question. Unfortunately, given the arrogance of believers on both sides, this is impossible. I don't happen to agree with Dr. Collins' religious views, but I do respect his contributions to science and applaud his efforts to encourage more open, less vitriolic discussion on this topic.