The Language Of God Analysis

The Language of God is a thought-provoking book by Dr. Francis Collins examining a question that pervades modern society: can science and faith be reconciled? Dr. Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project and the current director of the National Institute of Health. He is also a Christian. Collins steps the reader through his journey from atheism to faith and examines reasons for faith such as the Moral Law and the Big Bang. Finally, he considers the different positions one can take on evolution and decides if, and how, faith and science can exist peacefully within a person.

Raised in a home where faith “wasn’t very important” (11), it makes sense that he would turn to atheism as he studied science in university. Throughout his education

as a physical chemist and later as a doctor, Collins held onto this belief. The moment that changed his view came when he was a medical student in North Carolina. He was treating an older woman when she asked him what he believed. Embarrassed, he mumbled, ’“I’m not really sure.”’ The woman was surprised and this incident caused Collins to realize he had never really thought about the evidence for and against belief. As any good scientist would do, he set out to examine the evidence and arguments.
Through his exploration, Collins found the argument of the Moral Law to be the first sign of a god. The Moral Law is how we know what is right and wrong. Collins goes through numerous examples of disagreements where one party appeals to a higher standard. This standard of right behaviour and wrong behaviour is the Moral Law. It is interesting to note how this standard is universal to humans and exists in every culture. However, the application of this Moral Law can vary based on time and place, but the Law itself remains. Acts of altruism, which are products of the Moral Law, also served as compelling reasons for Collins to consider belief. Scientists have a difficult time explaining why humans have the sense to help other humans without any direct reward. There are no evolutionary benefits to these actions, so why would anyone do them? Dr. Collins found these two arguments compelling enough to consider a belief in the God of Abraham. Next, Collins answers some of the basic questions that any new believer, especially those coming from science, has. The questions of wish fulfillment, the harm done in the name of religion, believing in miracles and suffering in the world are all dealt with swiftly by Collins. The harm done in the name of religion is harm done by flawed human beings and should not be used to discount faith. Wishing for something bigger than ourselves does not rule out the possibility that it is there. Free will and the laws of physics mean that there will always be suffering and a god can’t do anything to change that unless he changes the laws of the universe or restricted our free will. As for miracles, if one admits there is a chance that there is something bigger than ourselves, who wishes to help us, miracles can occur even though they are rare.
Although science and faith are often seen as two conflicting forces, one scientific theory, the Big Bang, points to “a divine explanation” (66). Almost every scientist agrees that the universe started with a big bang, but no one knows what came before. This alone seems to point to a divine creator, but the way that the universe expanded provides even stronger evidence. In the early expansion, quarks and antiquarks, the particles that make matter and antimatter, were present in almost equal amounts. Yet, there were just a few more quarks, which make up our universe. Our universe expanded at just the right rate to prevent collapsing and allow stars to form. Additionally, the formation of elements that allow for life would not have been able to form if the nuclear forces had been weaker or stronger. Both the expansion rate and nuclear force are exactly where they need to be for life to form. Given this evidence, Collins says there are three conclusions one could draw. One, there are multiple universes with different laws, and we just happen to be in the one that allowed for life. Two, there is only one universe, ours, and we just got lucky when it started expanding. Three, there is only one universe, ours, and the precise physical laws are there because a creator made our universe. After laying out the three options, Collins begins to consider each rationally. Option two is the least likely probability because the odds of the universe form just so, are very slim. Left with options one and three, Collins argues that option one “strains credulity” (76) because the infinite number of universes also makes it unlikely that we would manage to get lucky. Thus, Collins leaves option three open, whereby a creator made the universe with specific physical laws to accomplish some goal. For the next two chapters, Collins leaves the arguments about faith and instead explains the theory of evolution, the recent scientific discoveries which support it and his experience with the Human Genome Project. He then considers the ways in which one can react to evolution.

The first position considered is atheism and agnosticism, or when science trumps faith. Dividing both into two forms, weak and strong, Collins explains their positions. Strong atheism is a firm conviction that God does not exist whereas weak atheism is simply the absence of belief in a deity. Weak agnosticism is when a person says that knowledge of God’s existence can’t be known at the time whereas strong agnosticism is the belief that humans will never know if God exists. Not much separates strong agnosticism from weak atheism, but agnosticism is typically seen as less aggressive. Collins’ main objection to agnosticism is that he thinks one must arrive at this position after careful consideration of the evidence, but most people who take this stance do not look at the evidence thoroughly. Thus, agnosticism becomes a sort of cop-out and those who do look at the evidence often become believers. Atheists have three main objections to faith: evolution accounts for biological complexity, so God is not needed; religion is antirational, and a lot of harm has been committed in the name of religion. In regards to the first concern, Collins says that it “rightly” (163) disagrees with the claim that God performed multiple creation acts. However, the argument does not rule out that God could have carried out his plan through evolution, so therefore it is irrelevant. The second argument is also highly illogical according to Collins because it makes faith into believing something you know isn’t true. Yet, Collins says that this definition of faith is simply not true, also making this argument useless. Collins finally reminds us to not judge faith on the actions taken by imperfect humans and thus concludes that atheism & agnosticism are not reasonable positions.
Position number two is creationism, or when faith trumps science. More specifically, Collins looks at Young Earth Creationism (YEC). He explains that YEC believers interpret the first two chapters of Genesis literally, meaning six twenty-four-hour days of creation and individual acts of creation. Rejecting macroevolution on the basis of gaps in the fossil record, YEC’s accept microevolution but still argue that evolutionary theory is a lie. There is no way that modern science and Young Earth Creationism can be compatible. However, Collins argues that the ultra-literal interpretations taken by these people are unnecessary. Pointing out the differences in tone between parts of the Bible, Collins claims that not are parts are meant to be taken literally. Some passages have the feel of eyewitness testimony, while others like Genesis are more of an allegory. On this basis, Collins suggests that another point of view must be taken.
Next, Collins considers the Intelligent Design (ID) theory, or when science needs divine help.

This theory has three basic principles: evolution promotes atheism and should, therefore, be resisted; evolution can’t account for the complexity of life and is flawed; if these are true, there must be an intelligent designer who provided a guiding force. In regards to the first idea, ID did not come from a scientific background and did not start out to understand scientific theory. The second argument rests upon the complexity of cells and the fact that if one thing goes wrong a cell cannot function. Idea number three is straightforward and although the proponents don’t specify God, it is clear God is what they mean by an intelligent designer. There are numerous scientific objections to ID theory, the first being that it fails to qualify as a scientific theory and therefore should not be used to explain science. Additionally, there is no mechanism by which the supernatural intervention ID suggests could have been carried out. Furthermore, science is now gaining a greater understanding of structures that were once thought too complex to make sense of. Theology also has objections to ID theory largely because it is a ’“God of the gaps”’ (193) theory that stick supernatural intervention where science cannot explain phenomena. Eventually, science will fill those gaps and those who attached faith to them will be left with nothing. Given the numerous objections, ID cannot be a legitimate position for much longer.

The final position that Collins considers is his own, which he calls theist evolution and describes as science and faith in harmony. Collins asserts that this is the position taken by those who are serious scientists and believers. He lists the basic tenets of theistic evolution as

follows:
The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear precisely tuned for life.
While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over long periods of time.
Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.
Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history. (200)
Collins argues that if one accepts these points, then faith and science can exist peacefully in a single worldview. This view manages to agree with monotheist religions and provide a satisfying way for people of science to have faith. Although few non-believers are aware of this synthesis, it’s lack of popularity is not helped by the fact that few believers understand the science well enough to endorse it. It is noted by Collins that the name theistic evolution does nothing to help matters either and suggests the position be called BioLogos instead. However, there are those who object to BioLogos. Atheistic scientists claim this to be another God of the gaps, but Collins says this is not the case. Theistic evolution is intended to answer questions that science is not designed to answer and therefore never can. On the theistic side, believers are troubled by the fact that God would use such a random process to carry out creation. Once again, Collins readily has an answer. Since God is outside of human limitations, and hence time does not apply in the same way, it is possible that He could have known everything that was going to happen in the moment of creation. Having easily addressed the concerns with his position, Collins argues that this is the best way to know the whole truth.