Review of "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins

The Language of God was an immensely enjoyable read, particularly for me as a scientist far removed from the DNA world. I have not seen the basics of evolutionary theory presented as clearly and simply as Collins does here. However, the book does not deliver what some might hope it does or even what the header suggests: evidence for belief. But this is for two obvious reasons, which Dawkins would do well to remember. First, Collins is not a philosopher. But he does not try to be--he merely describes the arguments (mostly articulated by C. S. Lewis) that persuaded him to become a Christian. For Collins, the Moral Law is the most convincing. For me as a scientist and a Christian, the Moral Law is less convincing than other evidence related specifically to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Second, Collins is not a Biblical scholar either. Like the philosophical discussion, Collins simply articulates his position regarding the first few chapters of Genesis. The bridge he develops to traverse from a literal interpretation of Genesis to a more figurative one is tenuous at best. Thus, Collins has the potential to aggravate both Christians and non-Christians. But Collins excels at combating a view often promoted in popular culture and espoused by of the reviewers of this book and some of my own students--that science and faith are incompatible. Strangely, it is far more frequent for a professor in the humanities or social science to tell me how science has nudged out faith than it is for a practicing scientist to articulate the same. The greatest contribution that Collins makes is his own statement of faith as a respected scientist. If this book does anything, I hope that it checks those who attempt to use science to discredit faith. So, although I don't agree with all of Collins's arguments, I stand with him as one of the myriad of believing scientists to say that science and faith are compatible. And I recommend this book to anyone who wants to be fascinated by the natural world.

Further comments on the Bush administration

Along the same lines as the previous article that I recommended by Peter Feaver, this Wall Street Journal column by William McGurn highlights some of the glaring oversights in the media coverage of the recent Scott McClellan book. This article illustrates the significant change in strategy signified by the Surge in Iraq and the firing of Donald Rumsfeld, both of which demonstrated the administration's willingness to not only change directions when necessary but to take responsiblity for failed policies. It also gives some rarely heard praise and respect to the President.

Assessment on the "Surge" in Iraq from a policymaker

Although politics and foreign affairs are generally not the focus of my blogs, I ran across this article (linked to the title of this blog) by Peter Feaver and couldn't help but notice it. I am particularly interested in his comments as I have tried a couple times to get him to speak here at Cornell, but it turns out that he is a really busy guy. In any event, his first hand experience pertaining to the development of the most recent strategy in Iraq, namely the Surge, makes his assessment of the successes and continued challenges of that strategy all the more enlightening. It is a perspective that, apparently, is out of favor with the majority of the media outlets.

Did God say...?

Recently, I was sitting in an excellent lecture entitled “Freedom to Live” by Dr. Stephen Um. During the course of the lecture, he began an exposition on Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1-6). As he examined the text, through the lens of freedom versus the law, my mind wandered from his main point. I considered Satan’s statement generally, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden?’” Satan’s question was an attempt to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of God and His word: they would not really die (3:4); in fact, God’s words to Adam and Eve were not in their best interest at all (3:5).

From the day that the serpent came to Eve many millennia ago, to this very moment, the assault on faith has been the same. A nagging question in our minds whispers, “Can I really trust God?” A broken heart wails in despair, “God, are you really compassionate? Where were you when all this happened?” Weary hope, deferred for seeming eternity, begs an answer, “How long God? Where is your graciousness? Has my patience been for naught?” In tragedy and sickness and death, we indict God, “Where is Your justice? Where is Your goodness? Where is Your power?” Through all the troubles of life, we groan as our faith is tested—sometimes feeling like God is Darth Vader and we are the budding Jedi crying out, “Father please!,” in hope that the lightning bolts will stop. In these times, if we are reminded of God’s revelation to Moses, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin,” (Ex. 34:6-7) maybe we sarcastically respond, “Oh, really?!” Regardless of the exact nature of its manifestation, in the course of the Christian life we will all face the same question: Can I trust God? Does His word hold true? We come to that point when we are confronted with a declaration of God that contradicts our experience. Now what?

One approach is to become a moral deist of sorts: I’ll just try my best to be a good person. I’ll be kind to the poor and I won’t engage in any really egregious sins, but as far as serving and worshipping a personal God…maybe later. This is better for society than the other option of tacit rebellion. Perhaps a third option is to be “Christian,” but replace joy with bitterness and faith with duty. Unfortunately, all of these miss the mark. What does God require? He requires us to act justly and to love mercy, to which all the deists say amen, but also to walk humbly with God. (Mic. 6:8) Sorry, all of you deists, a walk is an intimate affair.

Because ultimately it is God who directs our paths, we cannot walk with Him without trusting Him. To trust Him, we must believe that He will be true to His word. In other words, when the time comes that we find ourselves being asked, “Did God really say…,” we can answer back, “Yes he did! And He will do it!” Two directives are implicit here. First, we must know what God said. Second, we must know Him in order to trust that He will deliver. I think that Jesus’ response to Satan, after being hungry for forty days in the desert, is remarkable. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” (Matt. 4:4) It is a doubly intriguing statement because not only is Jesus saying it, but he is also citing God’s word in Duet. 8:3! In fact, all three of Jesus responses to Satan are citations of God’s word in the Old Testament. It is worth thinking about the difference between Adam and Eve’s response and Jesus’ response to Satan; it is precisely that Jesus knew what God said and knew God to be true, while Adam and Eve did not. Much more could flow from this line of thought, such as the fact that Jesus is referred to as the Word (John 1:1-14), but I hope this suffices to stir a little reflection.