Christfag:“If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked.”

Really not much I need to say here.  The conclusion would appear self-evident to any moderately intelligent human being.

Christfag:“Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?”
I am living it you balless coward.  Live or die.  Reject rationality and you will not live long in this World.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

As is it only a nomination, who confirms: Senate, House or both? Who should we contact to stop such non-sense?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This is a political appointment, pure and simple.  President Obama, in trying to protect the interests of liberals and the Democratic Party in 2010 and 2012, has decided to court the religious vote (or dance with the devil, whichever you prefer).  Collins is a perfect choice, when viewed from this angle.

Is Obama wrong to do this?  It’s not an easy question.  Obama could certainly have appointed someone who doesn’t wear a “Got Jesus?” button on their lab coat lapel, or isn’t as controversial as Collins; after all, this is the NIH Director’s job, not the Secretary of State.  Few would have even broached the subject of faith versus science if the candidate was a neutral one.

The fact that Obama didn’t choose the “neutral” path and avoid controversy tells the whole story, in my opinion.  He is assuming, under the guidance of many Democratic power players, that Democratic chances in the next elections could be greatly enhanced with the selection of a well-respected, bible-toting scientist like Collins.  And this somewhat hypocritical conclusion is our fault—the people of the USA I mean, because politicians rarely actually LEAD, they just put their ears to the ground and find out what we are talking about, and then create policy.  They are FOLLOWERS, not leaders.  They are mostly carrion feeders, to put it bluntly.

I hope Obama’s right, actually, but I also think he may be in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Science, or Atheistic Materialism, is the future of this country.  It is the future of the civilized world, in fact.

I’ll chalk this one up to cynical, defensive politics on the part of Obama and the Democrats.  It definitely has a lingering odor that really stinks, however.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Sam,

I’m a little confused by your article. One the one hand, it is two pages of begging the question. “Since Francis Collins beliefs are wrong…etc. etc. etc.”

On the other hand, it’s a very limber strawman: “Since Collins would say this…we should react this way.”

I certainly see some tactical purpose in simple (in every sense of the word) ridicule of religionists…but I see no internal honesty to it.

Are we meant to believe that your understanding of what constitutes an internal conflict of ideas for a scientist is more acute than Collins’? You’re essentialy questioning his credentials, and I’m afraid I’d have to ask if I were him “Who are you Sam Harris?”

Secondly, your assumption that his responses would defy logic don’t make sense. I have yet to meet a religionist who rejects rationality.

I can see an honest argument that religion DOES reject rationality, but to argue it by presumption smacks of fanaticism.

I have to admit, it’s making me increasingly skeptcial about your purposes.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

MrStandfast, (loaded name) surely you can’t just use a little imagination and try a simple (in every sense of the word) and replace Jesus or God, with which Sam is questioning, and replace it with some other words or people or divinities, such as Horus, or Krishna, or Zeus and honestly assess whether you should really be taking such a ludicrous stance.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Sorry, I missed what was ludicrous in my stance. Can you elaborate?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

To mrstandfast:  One doesn’t have to argue by presumption that religion rejects rationality.  By definition, religious faith—belief irrespective of evidence—is contrary to rationality.  Thus, many of Collins’ most fundamental convictions about the nature of reality itself are not rational.  It is easy to see that this could lead to conflict of interest in the way he might carry out the duties of directing the NIH, an organization that deals with undeniably material matters.
Also, “Who are you, Sam Harris,” is not the pertinent question.  What matters is what he is saying and what Collins says and has said about his own beliefs.  Based on these, my own personal judgment is that Sam Harris DEFINITELY has a better understanding of what constitutes an internal conflict of ideas for a scientist.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

So, that may be the bad news.  What can the average person do?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Excellent article! I agree, it’s not right to stop at the god character as an excuse for existence. Existence is a process for the scientific method to explore, not a religious ownership where we need keys to an imaginary door.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I don’t think that’s a sustainable argument though. Religious faith is nowhere described as “belief irrespective of evidence.” You may argue that this is what it amounts to, but to pretend that this is what Collins claims is certainly not a useful starting point.

I see the conflict of interest you’re concerned baout. I do not, however, see any evidence to support this concern. Perhaps a more responsible column would have been to look at Collins experience and see whether any conflict of interest presented itself in his professional history. Such a prominent scientific professional has plenty of history to examine.

And think you’re missing what I’m concerned about. I simply don’t think Sam Harris is presume that Collins convictions about the nature of reality are irrational.

He’s qualified to argue that point, but not to presume it. At least not convincingly.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

sheesh, I’ll shutup now.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The slide show quotes are particularly chuckle-worthy.  Mr. Collins would seem to be in need of a well-honed, incisive, clean Occham razor.  He dutifully (and objectively) states physical facts about the world then, with astounding metaphysicality adds things he just can’t know.  Of course, we can posit anything at the end of these particular propositions and if we wanted to be especially obfuscating, we can conveniently add that any questioning of them means they are completely beyond our ken.  It may be masquerading as some sort of Spinozan pantheism but I think Sam’s concern here—and this is old news—is the unscientific leap from this “prime mover” to the
[O]ne that sends son’s, hears thoughts, is offended by bedroom behavior, etc.  Only then do we leave the realm of science and truly begin to create that demarcation line between serious observation and wishful thinking.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Superb op-ed Sam! Your writing has such clarity, it’s like a breath of fresh air.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The slide show quotes are particularly chuckle-worthy.  Mr. Collins would seem to be in need of a well-honed, incisive, clean Occham razor.  He dutifully (and objectively) states physical facts about the world then, with astounding metaphysicality adds things he just can’t know.  Of course, we can posit anything at the end of these particular propositions and if we wanted to be especially obfuscating, we can conveniently add that any questioning of them means they are completely beyond our ken.  It may be masquerading as some sort of Spinozan pantheism but I think Sam’s concern here—and this is old news—is the unscientific leap from this “prime mover” to the
[O]ne that sends son’s, hears thoughts, is offended by bedroom behavior, etc.  Only then do we leave the realm of science and truly begin to create that demarcation line between serious observation and wishful thinking.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

To the political point and the real point of the op-ed, I think Saint Stephens post (#3) put it very well.  This seems to be a calculated effort on Obama’s part to placate a certain demographic.  We have no real substantial evidence but I get the SENSE that Obama has no real time for religion but realizes the obvious: in office, ones rational hands are pretty tied in a religious country like ours.  So in that sense, Collins was the safe political pick.  As Sam says, his credentials are impeccable.  Maybe in Obama’s case, he was what I think people call a political “two-fer”.  Am I saying that right?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

In my opinion the human mind works more by association than logical deduction. It is possible for people to hold what appears to others to be contradictory positions. By necessity, we all hold incomplete knowledge but collectively there is an overlap in that knowledge. The belief in religion has more to do with education and social cohesion than rational deduction. It is disappointing that a scientist of the caliber of Francis Collins, still holds religious beliefs but perhaps if you can understand why Francis Collins holds the beliefs he does you have a better chance of arguing your case with the general public.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Those slides are indicative of a mind that is not thinking critically or even logically. 

The very fact that Dr. Collins believes Good and Evil are anything more than abstract concepts that society has applied to behavior for the sake of labeling those things which are beneficial or harmful to the human race or subsets thereof is troubling to say the very least.

I had high hopes for Obama’s administration (and I still believe he has a chance to make real, positive change) but most of the decisions he has made since Jan20 seem to have been politically motivated and have been extremely disappointing.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

There are unequivocal and fundamental incompatibilities between true science or rational thinking and religion or faith. I have always been struck by Francis Collin’s insistence to the contrary. The only explanation that I can come up with is that he holds some sort of deep atavism that prevents him from using the tools of reason as far as it may be necessary in order to expain facts. If that is the case, then it is very troubling to see Collins as the head of the most important biomedical research institution in the world.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“There are unequivocal and fundamental incompatibilities between true science or rational thinking “.... You might like to look at “the origin of ideas” featured on ABC Fora TV this week.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/

It talks about the role of the intuitive leap in many great discoveries. The misnomer is to think that science progresses purely by logical deduction. It involves pattern recognition, although I guess that can be considered as rational.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I just hope that Collins will eventually experience another ethereal epiphany viz a vis a beautiful set of waterfalls, but this time maybe the presence of REASON and LOGIC will invade his soul and replace his adamantly held parochial beliefs.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

If it really existed, I should think that the christian god idea could speak consistently for itself, in whatever form of communication it preferred. However, in reality, each christian proclaims to know their god idea and those proclamations often are in conflict. It seems that each christian is simply making it up as they go along - that can’t be good for humanity. A loving caring super daddy wouldn’t be handing out different answers to each person. Mr. Collins there is something definitely wrong somewhere in christian never never land.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Calling on all Godless, Atheists, Agnostics, Ignostics, Apatheists…

Join in Evangelizing for Atheism Door to Door…Meet Xians on their own ground in their homes…knock on their doors at 8 am Saturday….see video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dW-bt_1LzY

“Atheists bother Mormons in Salt Lake City, Utah…and Evangelize for Atheism.”

Hugs, Judy

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Weismonger, Your rant is enough to get me to vote for Obama again.  You make a series of logically unconnected and unsubstantiated statements, describing Obama as “black” and not intelligent (kkk stuff), comparing him to Hitler (as the religious right does), accussing him of being a socialist (as the religiouS right does), and claiming that he is a “Moslem” whose religion is socialism.  What? I recommend a Logic 101 course.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Very disconcerting to read the letters to editor this ed generated. The biggest battle we have is with the many American liberals who, not directly stifled by religion(it not being sufficiently powerful at the moment) think there is no problem at all. It seems to me that Sam needs to be on the debate curcuit at all these damn Universities!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

By joining this site I was looking forward to avoiding the low quality debates about religion I see elsewhere. Why does my optimism always betray me?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Sam Harris has pointed out that religious moderates betray both, faith and reason equally. I can only trust that Collins will continue to betray his faith just as he has been doing it so far. Collins might profess an array of parochial beliefs for a reason that is, to me, yet unknown (perhaps for political purposes), but his unquestionably outstanding carrer has thrived only by way of his overt neglect of these beliefs.

Collins has found ways of accomodating his biblical exegesis to his understanding of science and not the other way around.

My point is: Is he wrong to “believe” (if he really believes)  that raft of blatanty absurd notions about the nature of the universe and the nature of humanity?  - Absolutely

Will it interfere with his scientific work? - It hasn’t so far, so I have no reason to deem it likely that it will. Collins is simply a lousy believer.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

anthonzi wrote: “Christfag:‘If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution…’”

How is that any different if you would have written ‘Christnigger?’ Do you think people would have applauded you for that one?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.