Slipped ever so casually into a New York Times profile on Dr. Francis Collins, the new director of the National Institutes of Health, is this stunning and not-so-objective example of reporting:
"First, there is the God issue. Dr. Collins believes in him. Passionately. And he preaches about his belief in churches and a best-selling book. For some presidential appointees, that might not be a problem, but many scientists view such outspoken religious commitment as a sign of mild dementia."Excuse me. Rewind the tape, please. Did the New York Times just say that people who believe in God and talk about it have dementia?
In an otherwise unremarkable profile, this offhand remark, which is never backed up by anything that could even remotely be considered "evidence," is included as part of a discussion on whether Dr. Collins, who happens to be Christian, could possibly handle the reins of NIH and believe in God at the same time. Quoted in the article is another doctor who says that Dr. Collins' two-year search for God after being questioned by a patient about his beliefs and his conclusion that yes, there is a God, is "enough to cause concern."
Dr. Collins, unfortunately, supports "therapeutic cloning," which is probably the only reason the Times didn't complete discredit him and his beliefs. Well, that and the fact that he drives a Harley and plays guitar with rock stars. In other words: He may be crazy but at least he's cool. Glad the Times reporter knows what's important. Read the full profile HERE.
Visit 
Posts
26 comments:
It seems to me that the statement is exactly right. Many, perhaps most, American scientists do think that any kind of religious commitment is pathological. Sad but true. As far as I can tell from what you quote, the writer is merely reporting this fact and not explicitly endorsing it. Also, it is relevant to Collins's new job, since he will be dealing with lots of scientists, especially those in the biological sciences, who, from my experience, seem to be the most anti-religious of the scientists.
Ah yes - the old "many people say" argument. Typically used by authors who believe something but are afraid to say so.
For example, "many people" tell me that religious intolerance is a common symptom of narcissistic ego-mania. Or "it's been said" that people who don't believe in God are self-delusional and unable to grasp basic evidentiary principles.
At the core, it's clearly acceptable behavior to trash someone who DOES believe in God, but completely out of bounds to even question someone who DOESN'T.
It's enough to make one long for a return of the 'civil town square' where people of differing opinions could gather and discuss them openly.
On the terms the NYT writer has set, the obvious response is "ah, but many people say that it is a kind of dementia to view religious belief as a kind of dementia."
Fortunately, nice people don't stoop to that level, except as a joke to make the point. If we argued it seriously, I suspect some writers' heads would whirr around and smoke, like the androids' in I, Mudd (Star Trek, the Original Series, for those who don't get the ref.).
I do not see where the NY Times said that Dr. Collins has dementia. The quote was "many scientists view such outspoken religious commitments as a sign of mild dementia."
I might argue that they do not define what percent "many scientists" means.
"To believe in God is impossible; not to believe in Him is absurd." - Voltaire
The Times: "many scientists view such outspoken religious commitment as a sign of mild dementia."
Poust: "Did the New York Times just say that people who believe in God and talk about it have dementia?
No. Read the first quotation again. The New York Times said that many scientists felt that way. Granted, these scientists are not identified, and no data is presented to support the conclusion, but it hardly seems controversial given the existence of books like The God Delusion.
One might say, "Accepting anything stated in the New York Times as literal truth is a mild form of dementia."
One might say that....
Personally I have no problem with atheists thinking I'm demented for believing in God.
Saves me the trouble of having to deal with them.
The day will come when belief in God is considered a mental disorder, making one unfit for any serious duties. And when this day comes, it will be scientists that lead the charge. "Science", as a way of putting the field of professional scientists, really is hostile to religious belief and freedom. Collins work is viewed in some quarters as suspect simply because he is a Christian.
The ironic thing about the scientists' concern about Dr. Collins is that Pres. Obama's science adviser, John Holdren, has held and published some truly wacko beliefs. Yet he gets a free ride because he is currently ideologically correct, and is not a Christian. Such weird hypocrisy.
Alfredo is wrong. I'm a scientist...and an atheist. I don't know of ANY scientists who consider religious belief to be pathological. Sorry to burst a bubble, but that's the way it is.
It's tiresome to read the anti-scientist tirades coming from folks like 'DesScorp.' I have a feeling it's due to envy or a feeling of being threatened by science. It's time to grow up and be an adult. Historically, of course, it's more true that scientists must fear the religious than vice versa.
I never quite understand why you seem to never deal with the substantial issue of whether or not religious belief is in fact demented.
Scientists gain knowledge of the world around them by accumulating evidence in support of theories and when the evidence doesn't support the theory they change it or discard it.
You know... reason and rationality. I can understand how it might strike them as demented how an otherwise excellent scientist could be able to think in two mutually exclusive ways about two different subjects. I mean the cognitive dissonance required must be a bit dementing.
I think the NYT writer, Gardiner Harris, was factually correct: There is a large minority, or perhaps even a majority, of professional scientists who view belief in God to be a sign of irrationality.
That Collins' views will prompt suspicion and disrespect from these folks is a natural conclusion.
I hold that it is only the poor state of philosophical literacy and introspection in the scientific community which allows so many otherwise intelligent and intellectually honest folks to have such a wild misunderstanding of their fellow men.
But that is beside the point -- assuming that the point of this discussion is to evaluate the article, rather than to rehash the millennia-old debate between atheism and theism.
With respect to the article:
It is true that newswriters often engage in the sloppy practice of relaying opinion without attribution with phrases like "some say that...."
Sometimes this is done from laziness (the writer doesn't care to track down who, exactly, says it) and sometimes from dishonest propagandist motives (the writer wants to assert his own opinion as if it were news, but, knowing he can't slip that past his editor, opts to preface his opinion with "some say...").
I'm not sure which of these motives prompted Gardiner Harris, so until other evidence accrues, I'll charitably assume it was laziness.
Not, I think, an unforgivable sin.
I am a scientist, of some modest reputation, a devout Catholic, and a member of the faculty at a major research university that is known for its left-wing sympathies. While religion does not often come up in discussions within the faculty (among several subjects that might be sensitive) casual conversations over the years lead me to believe that almost all of the folks around me are religious at some level and many are Christians. The suggestion that Christianity and science are somehow antithetical is absurd.
Bill,
"You know... reason and rationality. I can understand how it might strike them as demented how an otherwise excellent scientist could be able to think in two mutually exclusive ways about two different subjects. I mean the cognitive dissonance required must be a bit dementing."
if cognitive dissonance were actually dibilitating, I'd expect more than a few secular liberals would suffer by on a disability pension.
To believe this,
"gain knowledge of the world around them by accumulating evidence in support of theories and when the evidence doesn't support the theory they change it or discard it."
I can't name a progressive yet who would disgard a single tenet of the New Deal no matter how discredited, no matter how dysfunctional the solution is, they treat FDR as the first prophet in chief, to whom no criticism be spoken. Like many a so called reasoned scientist, modern progessives claim it's about reason and rationality,.
but common experince of the great unwashed masses, is entirely contrary.
The data suggesting global climate change is one huge hoax keeps piling up,
and the true believers in the science cummunity will not din to consider it,
lest their one true messiah Gore the Al, smite them with a haughty smirk and evocation of Godwin's law.
Scientists are human, and just as likely to be swayed by petty prejudices and false concepts, ones they should see through, but do not, as they'd have to question their own assumptions, something scientists are no more likely to do than the public at large.
To claim reason and rationality, isn't the same as actually posessing them.
Bill,
I have never met anyone who believed in a religious claim without citing evidence from their personal experience or research to justify their doing so.
Faith doesn't mean accepting something as true despite everything to the contrary--even people who say it means this, after more careful discussion, proffer up that what they really mean is that a set of ideas which has proven trustworthy in the past should be given the benefit of the doubt when faced with new difficulties. And that's a fairly trivial, commonsense-type notion. We all use it, and it's good we use it; generally speaking, it works.
Now, because reality is so ambiguous, and our individual experiences encompass such a small part of it and rarely have much overlap from one person to another, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that a man obeying the exact same rules of deduction and inference would become a Christian evangelist in one setting and a militant atheist in another. In either case, the thought processes could not be considered demented, because they would be exactly the same. Only input would vary.
And as a cognoscente of chaos theory should know, even a slight variation in a single life experience could alter the output of a person's cognitive processes dramatically, and need I say, incredibly disproportionally.
Rather than calling each other insane, we should be curious to find out if others have come across something we haven't--it could make all the difference.
All scientists should be required to take theology, philosophy, and art courses from people with viewpoints diametrically opposed to the materialism and empiricism to which men of numbers are often inclined. And theologians should be compelled to take sciences and such.
The results could be intriguing indeed.
Why anyone would even want to read the sorry excuse for journalism- the NY Times- is beyond me. Yet many people still treat the NY Times as if it is a respectable publication. The National Enquirer is a more reliable news source than the NY Times.
Also, I find it interesting that bpuharic feels the need to bash religious people in this thread accusing them of discrimination and intolerance when it is the scientists that are behaving so intolerant in this case.
For what it's worth, I am neither religious nor a scientist so I have no "dog in this fight." I am just giving my honest opinion about the NY Times and many modern day scientists.
"Scientists gain knowledge of the world around them by accumulating evidence in support of theories and when the evidence doesn't support the theory they change it or discard it."
Bill, I think you are on to something about some 'scientists'. When the evidence doesn't support the theory they change the evidence. As in: the discredited Hockey Stick evidence for global warming.
Calling yourself a 'scientist' and repeating the words 'reason', 'logic', and 'rational' does not make you a scientist, nor reasonable, logical or rational. A 'scientist' can be as dogmatic and faith-based as any religious figure.
Some pretty well considered responses, I expect other than myself, there are some very educated people who've left a thought here. I've driven by a college or two, but that's the extent of my contact with higher learning. My experience is much more the working class norm.
I'm on the front lines of the culture war. With the elites of every faction attempting to gain the favor of a majority of us, to better stand atop the pile and proclaim their brand superior.
I have no interest in advancing any athiest view. It seems though the ones who claim to be guided only by pure reason and rationality; are so often,
guided by people who enjoy insulting everyone else so that reason is the last guiding principle evoked.
wouldn't that be kind dumb?
I mean geez,. I'm just a retired grocer, but the simple truth is, don't insult the public,. they pay your wages, something that athiests might want to take to heart when they get upset they aren't gaining many converts.
I'm with my wife, exploring our options in choosing a church to attend, wanting to return to regular church attendence. We were both brought up protestant, hope I spelled that right,..
we've been thinking the Catholic Church, not the easy choice, but then what thing good,...
is ever easy?
In fact, there are specific psychoatric diagnoses defining religion as mental illness, such as schizophrenia, and even a casual perusal of the literature will make that clear. Read further in the field, and you get such gems as the Psychiatrist's Portrait of Ignatius of Loyola, which smacks that label on him rather quickly. There's plenty more where that came from. So I suppose the NYT felt okay about making that statement because it is rather widespread.
The realm of faith is that of the supernatural, which by definition is outside of science's arena.
Science has an excellent set of tools with which to investigate the natural world. But that it all that it can do. Many "science-ists" make the logical error of therefore assuming that nothing exists that their tools cannot measure.
Remember what Einstein said: Not everything counts that can be counted, and some things that count cannot be counted.
"Scientists" also say that life evolved from nothing, that humans evolved from monkeys. So much for the credibility of "scientists."
I am a scientist, university professor and a fundamentalist Christian. An unbiased, honest assessment of what we know (especially in the biological sciences) leads inexorably to a Creator and Designer that exists outside our physical universe.
The most potent argument in favor of this view is the inexplicable volume, specificity and complexity of information contained in living systems.
The billions of bits of information contained in DNA cannot have self-organized by any physical laws that are currently understood.
To argue otherwise is analogous to suggesting that the digital code that you are using right now to surf the internet came about by a happy accident of random hardware and software that organized from basic elements like silicon, copper, polymer resins, etc. and random electrical discharges.
I agree with "Materialist."
Post a Comment