In "God Vs. Science" The cover article of Time Magazine's Nov. 13 2006 issue contains a lengthy debate between noted evolutionary scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins and head of the human genome project, and believer in God, Francis Collins.
Both are men of science, but they differ on whether or not scientific thought makes the idea of God ridiculous. Collins argument is well reasoned, and clearly molded by a man who understands that he needs to abandon the tenants of organized faith (though he still calls himself a Christian) if he's to take his work seriously, as many of the claims of Christianity are flat out absurd, and so naturally a non-literalist interpretation to very much the loosest form of faith in which his idea of God (which he realities can not both stand on the toes of what we know about physical reality and be real) is a being which transcends space and time and lives outside of time and physical space.
Undoubtedly Collins has had to back peddle and re-shape his faith in order to avoid it from directly conflicting with what he knows about rational thought and the natural world, yet still he clings to the idea that science, leaves plenty of room for the existance of not just a God, but the Christian God (even if he can understand that it leaves no room for more eclectic ideas such as transubstantiation or an earth-centered universe). Richard Dawkins, in classic form, tries to make him understand how hopelessly flawed this idea really is by admitting his idea has a little bit of validity:
To paraphrase Mr. Dawkins' argument (and make it more relevant to an atheistic perspective), If we are to assume that there could well be a being far outside the realm of human perception, existing entirely outside of time and space as we currently reckon it, then it is simply useless to draw any conclusion based on the possibility of this being's existence. Putting God in such a place would force us to weight him equally with all other universal negatives and arbitrary claims - because there is no evidence, because this being is so conveniently beyond our sphere of understanding any feature we try to attribute to any being in such a place would be completely arbitrary.
This idea puts God in the realm of fairies and unicorns and dragons, things which we also can not prove do not exist, yet due to the complete lack of even the slightest hint of empiric evidence in favor of existance we are completely well within reason and safe from consequence in simply saying "there is no such thing".
Under such circumstances one could not claim to be a Christian, as they have, in a sense, lessened the nature of the Christian God, as they have put him on completely equal footing with Thor, Osiris, Enki, Xenu and every other God or supernatural being from any other pantheon or mythos in human history, and indeed even those which haven't yet been dreamed up. Collins doesn't seem to realize it but by his own logic he should be a follower of Baal, or Dischordia as he is of any flavor of the Christian God.
Again, none of this eliminates the particularly improbable idea that some transendant being exists outside of our observable world, but it does begin to show the arbitrary and useless nature of such a claim and certainly the absurdity of forming a religion around the possibility of such a being and claiming special knowledge of him (especially when so many other theological claims used to explain the world have fallen again and again as science's ability to give us true testable knowledge has made ideas like the flat earth obsolete).
Establishing the rather shaky ground of religious beleif brings me, finally to my point in all of this. It may not be outright absurd to harbor in your heart a hope for a benevolent power beyond that which we can ever truly know in life - heck in this giant world of ours anything is possible - but to take your religious beliefs so seriously as to feel that those who don't agree on the same points of dogma that you feel are true makes you a hypocrite, There's no reason to take your faith too seriously, and be careful about sneering at the innocence of a child who still believes in the tooth fairy.
Both are men of science, but they differ on whether or not scientific thought makes the idea of God ridiculous. Collins argument is well reasoned, and clearly molded by a man who understands that he needs to abandon the tenants of organized faith (though he still calls himself a Christian) if he's to take his work seriously, as many of the claims of Christianity are flat out absurd, and so naturally a non-literalist interpretation to very much the loosest form of faith in which his idea of God (which he realities can not both stand on the toes of what we know about physical reality and be real) is a being which transcends space and time and lives outside of time and physical space.
Undoubtedly Collins has had to back peddle and re-shape his faith in order to avoid it from directly conflicting with what he knows about rational thought and the natural world, yet still he clings to the idea that science, leaves plenty of room for the existance of not just a God, but the Christian God (even if he can understand that it leaves no room for more eclectic ideas such as transubstantiation or an earth-centered universe). Richard Dawkins, in classic form, tries to make him understand how hopelessly flawed this idea really is by admitting his idea has a little bit of validity:
To paraphrase Mr. Dawkins' argument (and make it more relevant to an atheistic perspective), If we are to assume that there could well be a being far outside the realm of human perception, existing entirely outside of time and space as we currently reckon it, then it is simply useless to draw any conclusion based on the possibility of this being's existence. Putting God in such a place would force us to weight him equally with all other universal negatives and arbitrary claims - because there is no evidence, because this being is so conveniently beyond our sphere of understanding any feature we try to attribute to any being in such a place would be completely arbitrary.
This idea puts God in the realm of fairies and unicorns and dragons, things which we also can not prove do not exist, yet due to the complete lack of even the slightest hint of empiric evidence in favor of existance we are completely well within reason and safe from consequence in simply saying "there is no such thing".
Under such circumstances one could not claim to be a Christian, as they have, in a sense, lessened the nature of the Christian God, as they have put him on completely equal footing with Thor, Osiris, Enki, Xenu and every other God or supernatural being from any other pantheon or mythos in human history, and indeed even those which haven't yet been dreamed up. Collins doesn't seem to realize it but by his own logic he should be a follower of Baal, or Dischordia as he is of any flavor of the Christian God.
Again, none of this eliminates the particularly improbable idea that some transendant being exists outside of our observable world, but it does begin to show the arbitrary and useless nature of such a claim and certainly the absurdity of forming a religion around the possibility of such a being and claiming special knowledge of him (especially when so many other theological claims used to explain the world have fallen again and again as science's ability to give us true testable knowledge has made ideas like the flat earth obsolete).
Establishing the rather shaky ground of religious beleif brings me, finally to my point in all of this. It may not be outright absurd to harbor in your heart a hope for a benevolent power beyond that which we can ever truly know in life - heck in this giant world of ours anything is possible - but to take your religious beliefs so seriously as to feel that those who don't agree on the same points of dogma that you feel are true makes you a hypocrite, There's no reason to take your faith too seriously, and be careful about sneering at the innocence of a child who still believes in the tooth fairy.
