Re: [asa] Sam Harris on Collins

Likely by pointing out that there's no (or vanishingly little) conflict
between religious belief / what Collins believes, and what Harris brings up
as examples of difficulty.

* Explaining human nature "without reference to a soul" is not a problem
unless it's claimed the explanation is total and exhaustive. No religious
person I know objects to pointing out correlations between, say.. glucose
levels and desires for sweet or carb-heavy food, on the grounds that "you're
not talking about the soul!" By the same token, I know of no religious
person who denies that physical trauma or experience can affect the mind's
operation.

* Harris of all people should realize that simply denying or leaving out
talk of a "soul" - which itself is a vastly more complicated topic than
Harris suggests here (and again, he should know better) - does not leave one
with "atheistic materialism". Unless buddhists, panpsychists, and David
Chalmers himself are now "atheistic materialists".

* Collins does not believe a scientific understanding of human nature is
impossible. If anything he believes that not every aspect of human nature
(or nature itself) is a scientific question, and therefore "complete"
scientific accounts (if even that is possible) would not be a complete
account, full stop.

* Harris' focus of the Collins' claimed "intense plausibility" of God's
existence isn't of concern - it amounts to "I disagree", which is fine. And
I think his characterization of how Collins would defend such beliefs is
mistaken. The idea that Collins in particular, or theologians generally,
shrug their shoulders and simply give that reply is nonsense.

* Shouldn't Harris wonder why Collins' credentials are impeccable? His
beliefs are rather long-standing at this point, and he's nevertheless
engaged in success after scientific success. So much so that his fiercest
critics right now are loathe to object to him based on his track record. So
why, if he was able to head up the Human Genome Project (another success, I
believe?) is there suddenly a problem? Indeed, are there good scientific
reasons to question Collins on this?

I could go on. But Harris isn't supplying all that much here, and what he
does supply is bland and sloppy.

That's how I view things, anyway.

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:35 PM, John Burgeson (ASA member) <
hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:

> The NYT yesterday published an op-ed piece by Sam Harris opposing the
> nomination of Francis Collins. It can be viewed at
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27harris.html?th&emc=th
>
> How should the arguments Harris makes be countered?
>
> --
> Burgy
>
> www.burgy.50megs.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 27 13:17:57 2009