A religious scientist

Dr. Francis Collins was head of the Human Genome Project and is also a devout evangelical Christian. I find this a paradox. I was aware that there are some scientists who are also religious but this man is clearly a leader in his field and is able to reconcile his scientific background with his religious beliefs.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=125

Interview starts about 1:30 into the podcast and lasts about 30 minutes.

I think this is a case of a smart person using their intelligence to explain away beliefs they have arrived at for dumb reasons (to misquote Shermer). Can he not see the shaky foundations of his position? On the other hand, his view on evolution and 'Intelligent Design' is spot on.

But then I would think that. What do others think?

--- Penguin.

A variety of studies have shown that the more intelligent and/or educated someone is, the LESS likely (s)he is to be religious. What should that tell us (if anything)?

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
A variety of studies have shown that the more intelligent and/or educated someone is, the LESS likely (s)he is to be religious. What should that tell us (if anything)?

I am aware of this inverse correlation but on the other hand there are a large number of intelligent, educated people wo do not hold the logical (to me) atheistic or agnostic views. This is what I find hard to understand.

Listen to the interview. This is an intelligent, educated, logical scientist, well versed in the scientific method, who firmly believes in one particular religion for what appears to be entirely emotional and cultural reasons.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
A variety of studies have shown that the more intelligent and/or educated someone is, the LESS likely (s)he is to be religious. What should that tell us (if anything)?

This should tell us that the church has chosen to wage war with science because the findings of science have been deemed to be heretical with Biblical teachings as in the day of Galileo. In fact, the church is the one who has drawn an imaginary line in the sand by saying either choose the Biblcial teaching or the educated scientific findings. In short, the blame lies soley with the church in this regard.

Why has this happened within the church? I think that it lies in ignorance of both scripture and of science. In fact, those much more familiar with native Hebrew tongue that Genesis was written in thousands of years ago had a more evolutionaly view of creation found in the Genesis account than their modern day counterparts who use the KJV instead of the original Torah to decipher such things.

I suppose it all has to do with how "edeecated" you are in terms of the scriptures and science. If well enough versed in both, which is rare to say the least, you would not have this discrepency.

For me the position is a bit strange. Some people simply were educated with religion and must take it as a part of their life to have some meaning, and try conciliate both somehow. Of course their position is weak, but they can live with it.
I know many religious scientist, and had some heavy discussions with them. In the end, it's all about having faith. Faith is illogical to me, because it's believing something blindly without proof. Why do people have faith? Because some must have a meaning to life, other are afraid of death, some afraid of hell.
I don't criticize them. A scientist is only human, and many have their fears. It takes a huge confidence on ourselves to take the whole universe on our own hands. It's a lot more comfortable to trust God.

Originally posted by serigado
For me the position is a bit strange. Some people simply were educated with religion and must take it as a part of their life to have some meaning, and try conciliate both somehow. Of course their position is weak, but they can live with it.
I know many religious scientist, and had some heavy discussions with them. In the end, it's all about having faith. ...[text shortened]... elves to take the whole universe on our own hands. It's a lot more comfortable to trust God.

Faith is NOT just accepting something "blindly without proof." Faith and evidence go hand-in-hand! If I just had the brakes on my car replaced, I would have "faith" (but not certainty) that the car would stop when it should. My "faith" is rooted in my confidence in my mechanic. If I didn't have my old brakes replaced, my "faith" that the car would stop when it should would be weaker. Faith and evidence go together!

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
Faith is NOT just accepting something "blindly without proof." Faith and evidence go hand-in-hand! If I just had the brakes on my car replaced, I would have "faith" (but not certainty) that the car would stop when it should. My "faith" is rooted in my confidence in my mechanic. If I didn't have my old brakes replaced, my "faith" that the car would stop when it should would be weaker. Faith and evidence go together!

A life without faith would be miserable indeed. Imagine never being able to make a move without first fully being able to understanding everything that you see and hear around you. Even if you deluded yourself into thinking you could understand it all, such a life would be miserable. Also, imagine never being able to have faith in those around you. Its crazy when you think about it yet when you say you place your faith in God you get treated as though you are the one who is crazy. I say those who do not live their lives by faith are the ones who are crazy. This is how we are designed. Our relation to God should be no different.

Originally posted by whodey
A life without faith would be miserable indeed. Imagine never being able to make a move without first fully being able to understanding everything that you see and hear around you. Even if you deluded yourself into thinking you could understand it all, such a life would be miserable. Also, imagine never being able to have faith in those around you. Its cr ...[text shortened]... e ones who are crazy. This is how we are designed. Our relation to God should be no different.

ok... gaychessplayer and whodey... we are using the word "faith" to very different things. Let me try to clarify what i meant by faith. It's different to make an assumption that something is right, like I do e.g., for Classical Mechanics. I assume it is right because all evidence provided by nature is coherent with what Sir Isaac Newton said. To me, an assumption is an "almost certain". For having faith in persons around me, I call "confidence", or "trust".
About the "faith" in my brakes, it's a bit of both. I trusted my mechanic and i assume laws of physics aren't going to screw my brakes. It's reasonable because most people changed brakes, and except for some explainable failure, they will keep working. I don't have "faith" in the brakes.
You must agree that the faith you have in brakes, people, whatever is different from faith in God. Faith can be employed correctly to describe this events, but I want to make the distinction. There are many different types of faith. Hereford when I say "faith", it's the kind of blind faith of believing something without having a good reason to do so.

Originally posted by serigado
Hereford when I say "faith", it's the kind of blind faith of believing something without having a good reason to do so.

The question is what constitutes a good reason.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The question is what constitutes a [b]good reason.[/b]

Something below 99% 😀
I mean, a reason supported by everyday reality, that everyone in the world can experience by themselves, either they are chinese, muslims, etc.. I mean, independent of religion, race or anything.
If something is exclusive of a religion and can't be verified, and only some say "it's SO true", then it must be "faith".

Originally posted by serigado
Something below 99% 😀
I mean, a reason supported by everyday reality, that everyone in the world can experience by themselves, either they are chinese, muslims, etc.. I mean, independent of religion, race or anything.
If something is exclusive of a religion and can't be verified, and only some say "it's SO true", then it must be "faith".

Ah! You mean evidence. That wasn't clear in your post. There are other 'good reasons' for believing something even when there is no evidence.

It would be better to just say 'evidence' and not 'good reason' as 'good' is a relative word and implies that your reason (evidence) is inherently better than any other reasons yet it is not necessarily so.

Originally posted by serigado
ok... gaychessplayer and whodey... we are using the word "faith" to very different things. Let me try to clarify what i meant by faith. It's different to make an assumption that something is right, like I do e.g., for Classical Mechanics. I assume it is right because all evidence provided by nature is coherent with what Sir Isaac Newton said. To me, an assu of blind faith of believing something without having a good reason to do so.

No ones faith is baseless including mine. The Bible has "truths" within it that represent such evidences. These truths include spiritual truths such as loving your neighbor as yourself, historical truths backed by such things as Biblical archeology, fulfilled prophesy, most from the book of Daniel, and changes within my own life. It also answers such nagging questions as to why we are here in the first place.

In your example of your brakes not working, does everyone have a grasp of physics as you do? Thus is everyone else illogical who trust in their brakes but do not understand the math behind it? Even at that, do you fully understand the forces at work in physics such as the relationship of quantum mechanics with physics and how they relate in together in producing an anticipated occurance?

Originally posted by whodey
No ones faith is baseless including mine. The Bible has "truths" within it that represent such evidences. These truths include spiritual truths such as loving your neighbor as yourself, historical truths backed by such things as Biblical archeology, fulfilled prophesy, most from the book of Daniel, and changes within my own life. It also answers such naggi ...[text shortened]... mechanics with physics and how they relate in together in producing an anticipated occurance?

aha! That's the point. Your truth resides in the Bible. I won't discuss writings related to moral questions or guides, or what to do with love, and respect and how to behave. I can accept them.
There are many things in the bible that make sense. I'm not saying it's full of lies. But there are many wrong things there. Well... I can't say 100% they are wrong, but they are incoherent with things I can see in the nature at the present time.
The discussion is about those things. People who don't know physics about brakes TRUST their mechanic, the engineers and other people who were responsible for making those brakes. We made a society based on trust among us. I trust many things I can't comprehend fully, but that someone else does. More importantly, I know that if i study them, I will understand them.
Yes, I understand the forces in physics, quantum mechanics, and how everything relates. What do you want to know?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Ah! You mean evidence. That wasn't clear in your post. There are other 'good reasons' for believing something even when there is no evidence.

It would be better to just say 'evidence' and not 'good reason' as 'good' is a relative word and implies that your reason (evidence) is inherently better than any other reasons yet it is not necessarily so.

Thanks, you made a lot clearer. English is not a native language to me, and many times I lack some vocabulary in the tip of the tongue.

Christians speak often of "faith", and the NT says somewhere what "faith" means: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence for things unseen." I don't know what NT book the above quote is in; probably Hebrews 11.