Customer Reviews
There's no evidence here - By: Nicholas Pidgeon, 20 Jun 2008 
"A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief," is the subtitle of this book. My review will assess this claim.
Collins presents 2 types of evidence. He tells us there are features of our world that need a supernatural explanation. He believes the universal longing for God means God must exist.
1. There are features of our world that need a supernatural explanation.
Collins describes a puzzle. Science cannot explain human morality, he thinks, nor the origin of the universe, nor the many coincidences that make the universe suitable for life. He has a solution to this puzzle. He proposes the hypothesis that an invisible being outside of space & time is responsible. Now, he supplies not one speck of evidence to support his claim. His hypothesis contains no process, no detail, no explanation. The analysis goes little further than, "It's supernatural & it just happened." The hypothesis relies entirely on the idea that there are remarkable things which we can't explain so a supernatural being must be responsible.
Which, of course, raises a question, who or what could create a being so extraordinary it could create a universe, life & human morality? God's god?
This we-don't-know-so God-must-be-responsible reasoning can be easily dismissed. Here's writer who manages a particularly good job:
"Various cultures have traditionally tried to ascribe to God various natural phenomena that the science of the day had been unable to sort out - whether a solar eclipse or the beauty of a flower. But those theories have a dismal history. Advancesin science ultimately fill those gaps, to the dismay of those who attached their faith to them."
Quite. And the author? Collins himself. See page 193. The mystery is why he can't see that his own views on human morality, the Big Bang & the fine tuning of the universe amount to no more than what he criticises as a God of the gaps theory. He could easily have added these issues to his list after eclipses & flowers.
Of course, his claim that, "Advancesin science ultimately fill those gaps," has already proved the case with human morality. It isn't a gap. Does Collins not know of the work of Marc Hauser & the many, many others who have shown there is nothing supernatural going on here? We might not have every last detail sorted but we certainly don't need fanciful ideas about an invisible being affecting the softwarein our skulls to explain right & wrong & altruistic behaviour.
His second type of evidence is even easier to demolish
2. The universal longing for God.
The argument here is straight forward. God must exist because the longing for him is universal. On the one hand this is another easy argument to dismiss but on the other hand cognitive scientists of religion have some interesting things to say about this type of thinking.
So, let's dismiss this one quickly. Does longing for something mean it exists? Of course not. The human imagination has evolved to dream of all sorts of things that don't exist - Father Christmas, time travel & a date for me tonight with Helena Bonham-Carter to give just three examples. But do these things exist? No. (So that's another quiet eveningin then.)
But Collin's book raises bigger & more interesting questions. Why does a leading scientist - the head of the Human Genome Project, no less - fall into these elementary thinking traps? Why is he unable to apply the scientific thinking he appliesin his book to the dismissal of Intelligent Design to his own, so-called, evidence? Why do so many highly intelligent, sane, sincere humans think like this? Why are the majority of our species convinced that invisible, supernatural beings exist?
We livein exciting times when the first good answers to these questions have appeared. Cognitive scientists of religion now tell us religion is created by how our minds work. It's a way of thinking, they say. It's about the unconscious assumptions we make that we don't even know are assumptions. Collins writes, "Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual worldview provides another way of finding truth." This statement reveals clearly two ways of thinking. We are a generation that can now choose between the two. We either try & overcome the limitations of our ape brains through the organised curiosity of science or we givein to the unconscious thinking traps of what Pascal Boyer calls our "mental basement". We are privileged to live at a time when we have this choice.
Subtle or subtanceless? - By: Rach, 17 Jun 2008 For a book that sets out to reconcile the differences between science & `belief, `faith', `religion', it makes a poor start that shortly declines into liquidation. By page thirty Collins clearly details a fundamental: `...I was beginning to understand from looking into my own heart, the evidence of God's existence would have to come from other directions, & the ultimate decisions would be based on faith, not proof.' This contradiction of reconciliation, at leastin its literal sense, can be overlooked. What I was less willing to accept was laborious metaphors based on reality no less, yet designed to explain a metaphysical concept, which runs counter to the above.
The whole issue of Moral Law I thought was by far & away the silliest of ideas, suggesting that we can thank God for our sense of right & wrong. I suspect that Mr. Collins would have read Christopher Hitchen's God is Not Great where he explicitly tackled the issue that religion has given us moral guidance as one of its virtues. Because Mr. Collin's is wanting for explanation of why it is he is a Good Samaritan, I, by contrast, wish to believe that socio-biology, Freud, anthropological evolution, & a smattering of other factors are responsible for me jumping into a freezing lake to save a drowning soul. Mr. Collins touches on some of these theories, but fails miserably to linger with enough depth of conviction to get at the truth. With such personal whimsy - which is mostly what this book is - Collins describes the Moral Law as highly exemplifiedin the figure of Mother Teresa. In the `House of the Dying'in Calcutta she attended the sick & dying; cheered on by the Catholic Church she was also a hearty campaigner against prophylactics & abortion. For every soul she tended under the media spotlight she killed as many if not morein worn-torn & famine ridden countries further blighted by AIDS & the plague of Catholocism. Lest forget either she was flown into Irelandin 1996 to veto a referendum against the Church's long & sinister hold on the everyday lives of the Irish people. If she & the Catholic Church had had their way wife-beating drunks would remain `married' wife beating drunks, as divorce equates to hell, apparently. Hardly an exemplar of Moral Law handed down from God to one of the good guys/girls. But Collins answers this by the analogy of pure water & rusty vessels; Mother Teresa was rusty then...
In all I'm happy that Mr. Collins can make sense of his own notions of faith; it should be noted, however, that he is very muchin the minority as a scientistin religious garb. As expected by such a personal account it lacks weight, & by his own admission he's not a philosopher. But he is a scientist & one with a warm glowin his heart; for me I'd put any such sensation down to heartburn. The Language of God is hardly a feather blow against the pugilistic reality of current atheology doing the rounds. Some would interpret this book as subtle & refreshing, I would not.
Science and religion do not exclude each other - By: E. Danielyan, 15 Jun 2008 
In this highly readable book one of the most well-known scientists of our times makes a compelling (and scientifically solid & sound) argument that when correctly understood science & religion not only do not exclude but actually complement each other. Science gives answers to many questions, but by no means to all - & there are questions the science is not intended to give answers to. To say that science,in any way or form, has "proven" that God does not exist is completely false. In fact, latest scientific discoveries & theories - mentionedin the book with ample references - seem to require someone or something outside our time-space continuum to make sense. I am very happy to say after reading this book that monotheistic faiths & beliefin science are not mutually exclusive, but,in Dr Collins' words, enrich each other.
Not sure what God had to do with it.... - By: S. Langworthy, 07 Jun 2008 
Had I bought this bookin order to reaffirm my faithin evolution & find out about the Human Genome Project this would have got at least 4/5, possibly 5/5 stars.
However, I do know about both these things, so I wanted this "evidence for belief". Unfortunately I didn't get it. Collins gave two half-decent arguments as "evidence". The first was universal morals. He says that the moral code for many societies is more or less the same, & this presents evidence for God. I am still not 100% sure how he comes to this conclusion, especially as the moral codes of many groups of peoples are so different!
I livein a society where, for example, female circumscision is, rightly, abhorred. But there are societies where it is practised. Cannibalism is still practisedin some remote places (and some not so remote ones, worryingly).
His next argument is that there is a universal beliefin God. This is a better argument,in that it is actually believable, but I am still skeptical. I fail to see how this is "evidence" for God's existance. Many humans around the world have imaginary friends when they are small. Is this proof of imaginary friends? I should hope not.
However, my criticism is stemmed for the description of the Human Genome Project, a wonderful & ingenious feat & Collins' narrative of the problems he & his team faced. A very interesting read, but not what I bought it for!
Still, I don't regret buying it because I did enjoy it. Collins writes very well & is much easier to understand than, say, McGrath & the likes.
The World Is Flat, Yes, Must Be - By: Ocean, 03 Apr 2008 
It is astounding how far a scientist with considerable academic achievements is ready to compromise his intellectual integrity.
Like when he argues against evolutionary explanations for moral behaviour, especially altruism, he quickly discards with "ant altruism" as irrelevant - one gene set. Other group effects are also put aside: "... evolutionists now agree almost universally that selection operates on the individual, not on the population". The additional possibility of an evolutionary aberration is not even mentioned here.
So what is interesting about the book is the evidence of intellectual compromises to reach a comforting solution - there is someone out there for me.
Flat earth theorists or the adversaries of Galileo were certainly not all stupid or mischievous people - some might just have wished for a comforting world view.
