Duane raises what I regard as some slightly abnormal concerns about President Obama’s appointent of Francis Collins to head what the Huffington Post describes as “the nation’s premiere medical research agency”. For Duane there is something of a problem in that Francis Collins is a Christian.
The first question (you’ll excuse me if I ask this one as a non-American) is whether Collins’ faith can legally be taken into account. I thought you were not able to apply a religious test for public office?
The second question is about whether Duane is truly examining the evidence. All the evidence shows that Collins is an excellent scientist, a proven project manager, and a well-tried and convincing communicator. Therefore, even if Duane thinks that Collins’ beliefs ought to stop him doing the job (because – Duane seems to say – they are epistemologically incoherent) all the evidence is that they do not stop him doing the job.
The third question is whether Duane’s distinction between “tradition based faith” and “evidence based something” (Duane fails to provide a word to correspond with faith here) is actually the right one. Overarching theories are both interrogated by and based on specific pieces of evidence, but they not only also interpret the evidence coherently, they determine what is looked for as further evidence, and may decide what counts as evidence.
From the believer’s point of view, past tradition, present community and personal experience all provide their own evidence of oneself and others experiencing reality relationally and intentionally. Duane may disagree with that framework. He may well say the tradition misinterprets the experiences associated with prayer and worship as experiences of an external reality rather than an internal neurological byproduct. (BTW I’m not denying there are complexities here.) There does, however, seem to be a fair amount of human experience that needs explaining here – and it looks rather like a particular type of evidence.
The thing is it seems to me to be the case with people like Francis Collins (and I say this from having read his Language of God) that he sees no epistemological incoherence. Rather he sees an overarching framework which not only makes sense of the world, but actually encourages us to belief that the world does make sense, and is open to rational investigation because it was rationally conceived. The patterns and meanings we find in the universe are discovered because they are truly there, not imposed or invented because the human animal likes to make patterns and impose meaning. That seems like a good match between faith and science to me.
{ 4 comments }
As an atheist, I have to say that Collins’ record in running scientific institutions should be the determining factor. if we sacked every scientist who who held “incoherent” views, who would be left to do science?
It is, indeed, illegal (and political suicide) to reject a candidate due to religious belief.
Doug.
Thanks for the interaction. Here are a few short responses to a few of your points.
1) “I thought you were not able to apply a religious test for public office?”
It is unconstitutional for the government as a whole or a government official to apply a religious test for public office. I am neither the government nor a government official.
2) “All the evidence shows that Collins is an excellent scientist, a proven project manager, and a well-tried and convincing communicator.”
That was the burden of my very first sentence. I couldn’t agree more.
3) The third question is whether Duane’s distinction between “tradition based faith” and “evidence based something” (Duane fails to provide a word to correspond with faith here) is actually the right one.
There is not reasonable space here or in my post to debate this important question in detail or to have a meaningful discussion of word correspondence. I was discussing my personal worry about Collins and I used what amounts to a sketch of my views on “belief” and “faith” to motivate my concern.
Your comment, “The thing is it seems to me to be the case with people like Francis Collins (and I say this from having read his Language of God) that he sees no epistemological incoherence” gets to heart of the matter. Why doesn’t he? His own attempts to explain this are far from convincing and more in the category of apology for what I call tradition based faith.
It is should also be noted that in the end I am supportive of Collins’ appointment.
Duane – on the last point, yes I should have noted that on balance you came out in support of the appointment.
To be exact it is illegal to have a religious test (e.g., only Christians need apply or no atheists need apply).
I might find Collins’ views on religion a bit odd, but, he has done good science and, more importantly, is suppose to be a good administrator. He will also drive the creationists crazy.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }