The Pageless Book

DNA rendering by Ynse

I believe that there is no contradiction between science and spirituality; both speak of different truths. Science speaks in regards to the verifiable truth of empirical research, while spirituality speaks in regards to the truth of the human condition which we can only know in our hearts. Yet many people find the two incompatible, based upon literal interpretation of religious scripture or practice, and it’s conflict with scientific discoveries.Like myself, Dr. Francis S. Collins sees no contradiction between science and spirituality and attempts to show those on both sides of the argument why. Unlike myself, Dr. Collins has an advantage in that he himself is a former atheist who converted to Christianity and was the head of the Human Genome Project. With having been on both sides of the argument, as well as being one of the world’s most prestigious scientists, one would think that his reasoning would be sound and solid. Unfortunately, I found this not to be so in his book The Language of God.

While I liked The Language of God, I found it lacking in several areas. Most important of these, as it is central to the book’s theme, is his use of apologetics to explain his belief in God. The very first chapter of the book, which attempts to show the reason he came to believing in God, argues that altruism could not be the result of evolution and so must be considered evidence of God’s Moral Law inherent within humanity. However, this argument is based upon what I would call soft logic - that is logic that has no basis in concrete physical reality.

Altruistic behavior has to be defined and quantified, observed and studied in order for even the suggestion to be taken seriously. What you might define as altruistic may not be strictly without evolutionary benefit. Those examples of altruism that cannot be explained as being evolutionary could possibly be explained as psychological anomalies or the result of social conditioning. There are simply too many variables to make that claim; if I were an atheist, I wouldn’t accept this argument.

The failure of Dr. Collins’s “Moral Law” argument puts a large dent in his other arguments, as he repeatedly refers back to this throughout the book. In addition to that issue, Dr. Collins relies far too much on C.S. Lewis and not enough on his own understanding or experiences to promote his views. I hate to say it, but if I wanted to read C.S. Lewis, I would have picked a book authored by him. I did say that I like this book, didn’t I?

I do like The Language of God… but not for it’s intended purpose. His personal stories and explanation of the current struggle between science and religion is where this book truly shines. His disarming demeanor serves him well in bringing a better understanding of science to the religious community, which all too often looks upon the scientific community with suspicion. As it is the religious community that is instigating the argument over evolution, his goal of ending the disagreement would better be served by concentrating his efforts on that audience.

So while I feel that The Language of God is worth reading, the chances of an atheist reading this book and having doubts over their non-belief in God is very slim indeed. If you are going to read this book, read it for one man’s story from atheism to Christianity, his growth as a human being, and to understand the science behind the controversies. Don’t look here for irrefutable proof of God’s existence - you won’t find it.