Gus diZerega, author of Beliefnet's "A Pagan's Blog," decides to take a whack at the New Atheist pinata by attacking Sam Harris for his recent New York Times op-ed opposing the appointment of Francis Collins to head the NIH (I oppose it too).
DiZegera does the usual anti-Harris quote mining to prove that Harris is a horrible, horrible man, but I want to point out two of diZegera's salvos that I think deserve particular derision.
Sam Harris has a column in today' New York Times objecting to Obama's naming Francis Collins director of NIH. He objects solely because Collins is a Evangelical Christian.
Wrong. (And come on, atheist-hayta's, do you really think the Times would publish a lengthy op-ed by someone who did oppose him on those grounds?) Here's what Harris actually wrote:
Dr. Collins has written that “science offers no answers to the most pressing questions of human existence” and that “the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted.”
One can only hope that these convictions will not affect his judgment at the institutes of health. . . . .
Francis Collins is an accomplished scientist and a man who is sincere in his beliefs. And that is precisely what makes me so uncomfortable about his nomination. Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?
He is not opposing Collins because of his religion, he is opposing Collins for his very public, totally unabashed rejection of science and rationalism within the very field over which he will wield so much power. You should read the whole thing to get the full story, for surely diZegera did not.
Indeed, diZegera did not even bother to come up with his own post title. He hat-tips a post by Mark Kleiman which sports the same title ("Biogited Atheism") and makes the same erroneous claim. Again, if you've read the actual piece, you can't possibly come to the conclusion reached by Kleiman. I mean diZegera.
Oh, and the best part of diZegera's attack piece:
What a total loser.
Classy, right?
Let's be done with him. Kleiman makes his case at least a little bit better than diZegera, and uses fewer words.
When Sam Harris objects to the nomination of Francis Collins as NIH Director because Collins is an Evangelical Christian who has actual Evangelical Christian beliefs, that's different ... how, exactly?
Harris wants to impose by politics the sort of "religious test" the Framers explicitly forbade imposing by law.
Nice try, I admit, but the test that Harris wants imposed is not religious--it's scientific. The head of the NIH should not allow his beliefs in the supernatural to inhibit his pursuit of knowledge. By deciding that vast areas of intellectual discovery are off-limits to science and only the purview of spirituality and mysticism, that is a rejection of the very idea of scientific inquiry, the antithesis of what the NIH ought to be engaged in.
This is very important: No one would not want an energy secretary who felt that wind was off-limits as a power source because worshiping the Wind Spirit was part of his or her religion. Collins has been very clear about what parameters he places around science, and we should take him at his word.
Update: Oh no. I am a bigot!
Related posts:
- The LA Times supports the wall of separation, but misses the bigger point
- On religion, viruses, and the New Atheists
- Newt Gingrich prepares to save America from polytheist hordes
Comments
Francis Collins is a Christian American RETARD.
If that's bigotry, then so be it.
Good article. I was thinking of writing one about Harris's OpEd piece too but I have yet to get past the "thinking about it" stage.
;)
Collins is spot on. Science can describe things like atmospheric absorption and refraction to define spectral frequencies and the optical increase in size of a setting sun. It cannot, nor should it, attempt to measure to the decimal place the wonder, fun and awe of seeing it! On my deathbed, I’m certain I will be profoundly grateful for any help medical science will bring in easing my pain and suffering. I’m equally sure that I will have still greater appreciation for answers to questions that transcend science; what Collins correctly identifies as the ‘pressing questions of human existence’. Science is a tool – it is not, nor should it be, the goal. Is it not limiting to consider only the material, and discount those things that supersede it? I feel profoundly sorry for those who severely limit themselves by not understanding that.
Bill -
The problem is that Collins takes it upon himself (based on what he believes to be true about a particular supernatural dogma) to decide where science stops - he baselessly decides that we can only know the universe "up to here," which puts up a barrier to exploration. How does he know what can and cannot be discovered?
Francis Collins says religion answers the meaning of life questions.
He says “God could have activated evolution...” So far he sounds like a deist, content to leave it at that. Then he goes on, “with full knowledge of how it would turn out”. When asked, about belief in the virgin birth and the resurrection, he answered, “if you believe in a God that is outside of nature, why couldn’t that God invade the natural world with miracles?” And, “I don’t think it’s God’s purpose to make everything absolutely obvious to us. It would not have been sensible for Him to use the mechanism of evolution without posting obvious road signs to reveal His role in creation.”
Collins believes there is a God that created the universe, he knows that his God thinks, what his God thinks and that his God would not do something that wasn’t sensible. Collins reasons that if he were God, this is what he would think and do. Sounds more like making meaning than finding meaning to me.
Collins did a great job guiding the human genome project but he wasnt acually doing science there. He wont be doing any science in this position either.
It's essentially harmless. Science survived 8 years of blatant anti-science christain leadership and it will survive Collins because luckily, the people doing the actual work will keep on doing it no matter who is in charge of the NIH.
Great job at exposing the guy's quote mining.
I completely agree that we should take Collins at his word. A lawyer I once knew said criminals will always tell you what they're planning...if you have the wits to listen. This doesn't even take wits; it's just out there.
Your column puts me in mind of a column I need to write; why should POTUS even consider balancing religions in his appointments? Shouldn't he be looking for people who keep their religious beliefs, if any, separate from their work? Should it not be a requirement for public life/service that a person either be religion-neutral, or at the very least, make a convincing argument that, despite their personal religious affiliations, they can take actions based on logic and not mythical beliefs? Demanding public servants be atheists would be as wrong as the Christian cabal Mr. Bush put in place. But religion-neutral seems like a target to shoot for.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!