Interview with Francis Collins

Here is a good interview with Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Collins (M.D., Ph.D.) has been lauded as “one of the most accomplished scientists of our time”. An interesting quote from the interview:

While these are not proofs of God’s existence, and I believe no such proofs will be found, the combination of these arguments led me to realize that atheism is the most fundamentalist and least rational of all of the worldview options. In Chesterton’s words, “Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative.”
This entry was posted in atheism, Evolution, Francis Collins. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Interview with Francis Collins

  1. Burk Braun says:

    Hi-

    Forgive my butting in yet again. It is nice to see that you have given up intelligent design. That deserves a round of applause, at last.

    Also deserving of appreciation is your admission that proofs of god will never be found. Bold words from someone who believes nevetheless in the existence of that which has never and can never, be proven. I assume you and Collins are on the same wavelength here.

    Yet, the last bit seems odd, philosophically speaking. Surely you understand the basic logic whereby a claim for existence carries the need for positive evidence/proof, while the claim for nonexistence, in the absence of evidences and proofs, wins by default. Not to mention that after this many millennia, the absence of evidence indeed becomes a kind of evidence of absence, to anyone who considers the matter… skeptically, that is.

    And of course, the atheist makes only a probabilistic statement, not a blanket negative. She only agrees with you that god's existence has never, and probably will never, be proven or otherwise convincingly demonstrated, and the most probably reason applicable is its non-existence. Simple as that. Our minds remain open to new methods and arguments, and no faith on our part demands either the existence, (or non-existence), a priori, of anything other than what has already been proven empirically.

    “If evolutionary mechanisms turn out to be sufficient to explain the Moral Law, that still doesn’t rule out God’s hand in the process.”

    Oh- this is classic… Even if my argument is shown to be completely defective, I will believe in my dogma anyhow, because, well, I just will, that's why.

    Like

  2. Darrell says:

    Hi Burk,

    I believe the reason there is something, rather than nothing is because of the God revealed in Jesus Christ. The only reason ID is insufficient is because the “design” could be from any agent—even alien visitors for all we know. ID is trying to “prove” something by the same failed standards you are appealing to when you speak of “proof.” We have been over this many times. Evidence and “proof” are always interpreted “evidence” and “proof.” I have never said one could “prove” God by using a failed modern approach to such questions. Such is a fool’s errand. I have no idea what “admission” you may be talking about. I'm happy however to hear you applaud someone who believes that God is the creator of all things.

    Like

Comments are closed.