The language of God

By Steven Hussey

Francis Collins, the lead scientist of the Human Genome Project, has in a recommendable book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief argued for rational harmony between science and faith. The “language” that he refers to is of course the human DNA sequence. But if you were expecting (as I was) that Collins would speak of an undeniable divine message in our DNA, you’d be disappointed. Collins’ discussion of the genome itself is a mere validation of evolutionary biology and a trampling of both Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design (two unsuccessful attempts to arm faith against science). Instead, the harmony between science and faith exists only inasmuch as science cannot disprove God (which most scientists agree it cannot, any more than it cannot disprove Bertrand Russell’s Cosmic Teapot). Rather, the evidence Collins presents for God is the so-called “universality” of the altruistic Moral Law in religion (which is it is hardly), the yearning of almost all civilisations towards theism (which could be explained by a plethora of hypotheses, and which is partially the result of ignorance about natural processes) and the perceived improbability of the “perfectly tuned” universe we inhabit. The evidence remains weak.

The universe may be seem inexplicable, but the argument from improbability is hypocritically one that Collins cautions against when considering the evolution of the first cells. Science tends to fill gaps in our understanding with time (the “God of the gaps” notion is the fallibility of ascribing processes that are not yet understood, to God). Hence, not understanding the origin of the universe is not good evidence for God. Also, as Dawkins fairly argues in The God Delusion, God is not a simple answer to a complex universe. If God designed the cosmos, God would have to be considerably more complex than the universe, and hence less probable than a spontaneous universe. God deflects the question of origins rather than sufficing as an answer. In any case, as Stephen Hawking reveals in The Grand Design, modern physics can now explain why our universe appears perfectly fine-tuned and how an entire universe could be formed from nothing: M-theory and the Anthropic Principle in particular provide a near certainty that, out of innumerable unique parallel universes, at least one conducive to the evolution of life will exist. Thus our universe, like evolutionary theory, at least appears atheistic and, paradoxically, literally is “nothing” than “something” for reasons best left for Hawking to elaborate on. It seems science may indeed answer those pesky “why?” questions.

I strongly disagree with Collins’ assertion that atheism cannot be rationally defended. Certainly not a religion (by definition), atheism is a simply null hypothesis. In all tests in science and everyday life, it is the claim of a phenomenon in question that demands evidence; the absence of that claim (the null hypothesis) is a given. Only when evidence shows that the null hypothesis is not true, is the claim accepted. In real terms, one does not need evidence to refute the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the idea that, between Earth and Mars, there is indeed a floating china teapot, because the onus is exclusively on the extraordinary claim to provide the evidence. The claim of an omnipotent, know-all God(s) (sometimes with a definite sex, form and temperament) is a truly extraordinary phenomenon, and one that requires extraordinary evidence (thanks Carl Sagan), rather than the negation of such a claim. Why should theology be in a class of its own? Until convincing evidence for the “God hypothesis” is presented, I will not reject the null hypothesis.

It is furthermore quite convenient that Collins finds a Christian God, to which he converted from atheism spuriously during his emotive experiences with morbid patients and the harsh reality of death (one would initially think his book was a treatise on CS Lewis from the frequency in which he is cited). Science cannot disprove the existence of Christ (some historians argue that history can), but no science speaks of his existence either. One could use Collins’ apologetics to argue equally for a rational belief in Horus and Seth, garden fairies or the Maasai god Ngai on Mount Kenya, as for Christianity. To be fair, and almost betraying to his faith, Collins urges everyone to embark on their own spiritual journey. But is it rational to adopt a strict religious doctrine, given that a vague definition of God cannot be refuted by science?

Despite my criticisms, I cannot recommend Collins’ writings more highly for the religious (of all creeds) who are reluctant to embrace scientific revelation out of fear that it might obliterate their faith. This is a time where the difficulties of accepting evolutionary biology and a personal God have been uncomfortably polarised between the failing theistic pseudosciences of Henry Morris and the aggressive atheism of Richard Dawkins. I have witnessed the cognitive dissonance of the marriage between faith and science in unfortunate ways: on hearing the news of the Ardipithecus ramidis fossil discovery that advanced our understanding of hominid evolution, a devout Seventh-day Adventist in my department immediately rubbished the claim on the basis that it conflicted with her faith, while conceding in the same sentence that she was a scientist. She had never read the publication.

While religious beliefs are not immune to being lambasted by philosophical discourse outside of science, popular science authors such as Collins are instrumental in showing that science is not the enemy of religious conviction, given that a non-literal interpretation of Scripture is sometimes necessary. It is a healthy discussion rather than the usual fight club. The argument also seems to soothe the burn of the atheist’s sting in science: while faith certainly has no place in science, by its very nature science is essentially powerless (at least at this point) to slam the notion of a personal God.

This article is dedicated to Vince Rautenbach

Steven is a former Mandela Rhodes Scholar and geneticist at the University of Pretoria.