Harry's Place

Are we talking about Sam Harris, the English major who dropped out of Stanford?

Harris would be on stronger ground if he simply said what it is: that anyone who claims to believe in the supernatural, at whatever level, is at least a bit of a crank. All the rest of it, the pulling on history, the comparisons with other religions and other pople, claiming that Collins is a great bloke and a great scientist etc. don’t alter that fact.

That is, if you believe in the supernatural there’s something not quite right about you. Is it really that unreasonable to attempt to voice that concern, as Harris has done?

Your problem, Andrew – and it’s a problem shared by a few of the commentators on HP – is that you’re happy to indulge religious types. And I suspect that’s because you have, at one point or another, “y’know, experienced something that I can’t fully explain and have had certain feelings and hey, maybe there is more to all this than we realise and well, you know, I don’t actually believe myself but I’m just saying because I’d sooner have an open mind than a closed one and these fundamental atheists are just as bad as fundamental religious types and blah blah blah wooly wooly blah blah….”

There are only a few Sam Harris’s out there – especially in America. There are thousands of religious idiots. How about supporting the good guy?

Andrew, you’re completing missing the substantive point of Harris’s criticism, in fact you’ve just ignored it completely in favour of a discursive but largely irrelevant history lesson.

To be precise, Harris has raised specific concerns in regards to Collins’ beliefs on the nature of conciousness and the impact this could have on the funding of research in the field of neuroscience.

Collins believes that evolution is a process set in train by god some 4 billion years ago specifically in order to produce humans, and more specifically, the human brain, which god then magically endowed with consciousness, reason, morality, etc, (i.e. a ’soul’) somewhere around the time that modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) emerged as a distinct species.

Ignoring the utterly fallacious reasoning that that view rests upon, what we have here is Collins using the classic mind-body problem as a gap into which he’s inserted his belief in a personal god, a gap that also happens to be the focus of a considerable and growing body of scientific research.

That’s the issue that you and others who’ve criticised Harris have completely ignored. Collins is on record as dismissing the need for research in this particular field because, in his opinion, he already has the answer to the origins of consciousness – god put it there – and given that belief and his new position at the NIH, where he will have considerable influence over how federal research funding is allocated to particular areas of research there is a legitimate concern that his beliefs may influence those decisions in a manner which adversely impacts on the field of neuroscience.

In short, with Collins having inserted his belief god into a particular gap in scientific knowledge, researchers working on that gap are fearful that he may use his position to defend it by starving research in that field of much needed resources.

That is a perfectly legitimate concern and one that Harris and others are perfectly entitled to raise. It’s also the one point that, as yet, Harris’s critics – yourself included – have failed to adequately address.

Harris would be on stronger ground if he simply said what it is: that anyone who claims to believe in the supernatural, at whatever level, is at least a bit of a crank.

Even as a militant atheist I have to admit that there are plenty of non-believers who are themselves cranks with odd outlooks on the world and that there are many religious people who manage to be eminently sensible on a day-to-day basis.

I don’t think it helps the cause of opposing religious fundamentalism to pick on Dr.Collins. Infact it is a tactical mistake, potentially a PR disaster. Surely it’s more important to concentrate energy on the religious zealots who want to impose their views on others and who actively undermine secularism and science.

There are thousands of religious idiots. How about supporting the good guy?

So Collins is an idiot and a bad guy?

Unity,

Not missing the point at all. Harris claims 1)Collins can’t be trusted to run NIH because he believes in God and because of the scientific ignorance of Americans, the USA can’t afford it either

Second, Harris tries to compare Christinaity to Hinduism.

My answers are

Show me where at any time Collins has sacrified science for a religious belief during his tenure at the Genome Project?

All the scientific ignorance that Harris is rightly against, so is Collins(i.e. Young earth, ID, creationism, opposition to stem cell research)

And to trying to compare a Christian theist to Hinduism is just absurd as I pointed out. Christians have thru the ages advanced western medicine(Copernicus, Bacon, Newton, Galileo, Mendel ,Kelvin) whereas Hindus have no track record for supporting western science.

Unity, as ever, gets to the crux of the issue! That seems to be a genuine area for concern rather than a sweeping claim of anyone who’s religious must automatically be disqualified from overseeing scientific research.

So Collins is an idiot and a bad guy?

Sigh….

No, he isn’t.

From viewing the evidence, Collins is no worse than Mehdi Hasan. Given that half Americans believe the world is 6000 years old, I say throw them a bone – the guy is obviously a good scientist, despite his unfortunate batshit crazy tendencies.

Half Americans – yes, I am impugning the Americanness of religious Americans. ;)

Paul,

Collins is more on the side of Harris then Harris wants to realise, that is the whole irony of this.

On the major issues of creationism, ID, young earth movement and stem cells, issues which Sam Harris in both his books spend alot of time on, Collins agrees with Harris.

I simply can’t figure out why Harris can’t at least make an ally of somebody even if they don’t agree with him 100%.

Harris is a fundamentalist.

As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ. (Ibid, p. 225)

I mean really – what a nutter.

Meanwhile, the extremist crank who is Our President’s Science Czar goes unremarked at HP.

I doubt that Jesus had many opportunities to see frozen waterfalls in Eretz Israel.

Frozen waterfalls are generally thought to prove that more northern gods exist – Freya, Thor, that sort of thing.

“I simply can’t figure out why Harris can’t at least make an ally of somebody even if they don’t agree with him 100%.”

Because you’d expect – not unreasonably – an eminent scientist not to have supernatural, crackpot beliefs of any kind.

And anyway, this is the biggest problem with religion – that we keep letting off (for want of a better phrase) cranks because, well, they’re not that mad are they? Just a little bit mad. They’re ok. Harmless, in fact. And so it goes on and on and on and on. Don’t you think we should just say enough is enough?

It’s not about sides and allies – it’s about what’s true and what’s not. Sam Harris believes in truth, Collins believes in lies (and his belief in bigger, other, truths doesn’t alter that fact).

Show me where at any time Collins has sacrified science for a religious belief during his tenure at the Genome Project?

He hasn’t, nor has anyone suggested that he’s been anything other that an efficient and capable administrator on that particular project.

But, it also has to acknowledged that there was nothing in the human genome project that posed any direct threat or challenge to Collins’ personal beliefs, which is certainly not the case when one looks at the current direction of research in evolutionary neuroscience and, in particular, research in the evolutionary and biological foundations of language and morality to cite but two areas in which current research is already mounting a challenge to Collins’ preferred version of the god hypothesis.

Christians have thru the ages advanced western medicine(Copernicus, Bacon, Newton, Galileo, Mendel ,Kelvin) whereas Hindus have no track record for supporting western science.

Presuming that you’re aware of William James’ ‘white crow’ test then let’s refute part of your argument by citing the great physicist and cosmologist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar as just one example of a Hindu who has a considerable track record in supporting science – and as a snarky aside, lets cut this ‘western science’ crap out as well.

There is the scientific paradigm and method, which are universal such that anything anything conforms to them is science and any that doesn’t isn’t, regardless of where it comes from.

Oh, and as for the Christians advancing science through the ages thing, that has very little to do with core Christian beliefs and pretty much everything to do with Aquinas and others cribbing from Classical Greece, from which some strands of Christianity derived their belief in an orderly universe.

Buddhism is not really a religion in the western sense. Really?

Well, given that much Buddhism is atheistic, not really, at least in the way most understand it. Certainly in the Therevadan and Chan/ Zen traditions. As Christmas Humphreys – a founder of the British Buddhist society, author of a number of books on Zen Buddhism and founder of the and a former High court Judge said – “As between the theist and atheist positions, Buddhism is atheist”.

Buddhist teaching – the four noble truths and the eightfold path, and all the rest of it – including vipassana meditation, mindfulness etcetera ….are a system of ‘mind posture’, not a form theism. If you can have a religion without gods, then I guess Buddhism counts.

Given the concept of Anatta – non self – Buddhism would seem to suffer rather less the rampant solipsism of the major theistic religions.

Certainly personally I can attest having studied and practiced Buddhism and as a pretty hard core atheist, I’ve seen nothing requiring holding to anything paranormal or supernatural for Buddhist practice….With regards Buddhism I can see exactly where Sam Harris is coming from.

That said, certainly much superstition and superstitious detritis is attached to Buddhism as often practiced. Reincarnation being the one especially glaring example and many Buddhists treat it less as an intellectual pursuit and more as a religion.

So I guess you can argue the toss both ways!

As for Collins; he’s not a vague amorphous Deist. He’s a Christian and presumably thus holds some really bizarre superstitions to be true without a shred of evidence. I can see Harris’ point.

“It’s not about sides and allies – it’s about what’s true and what’s not. Sam Harris believes in truth, Collins believes in lies (and his belief in bigger, other, truths doesn’t alter that fact).”

Paul; all your argument is based on a flat statement that God does not exist and that religion is “lies”. If this had been scientifically proven, then believers would indeed be cranks. But it hasn’t. The neo-Darwinists have developed a viable model of a universe without God; but that is not the same as proving His non-existence.

In effect, you are saying that people who believe something to be true which you believe to be false should be debarred from certain public posts. Not only are you clearly an obsessive crank, but a deeply intolerant one; a few threads ago I coined the term “atheofascist”.

If Collins’ science is inadequate, then he is fair game. But if not, then attacking him for being a Christian would be no different to attacking him because he was gay.

Oh and Tibetan Buddhism per the Dali Llama is a subset of Northern Mahayana Buddhism and is quite a small demographic in the wider Buddhist diaspora. So the Buddhist ‘Pope’ has quite a small flock!

“all your argument is based on a flat statement that God does not exist and that religion is “lies”.”

Correct. And?

“In effect, you are saying that people who believe something to be true which you believe to be false should be debarred from certain public posts.”

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that anyone who believes in the *supernatural* (presumably as you do) must be tapped – to a greater or lesser degree.

Look, it’s never worth arguing with religious types because you never get anywhere. You believe in supernatural, unproven, babyish nonsense. I don’t. You’re wrong, I’m right. End of, as they say.

“But if not, then attacking him for being a Christian would be no different to attacking him because he was gay.”

Don’t be a twat.

Paul; all your argument is based on a flat statement that God does not exist and that religion is “lies”. If this had been scientifically proven, then believers would indeed be cranks. But it hasn’t. The neo-Darwinists have developed a viable model of a universe without God; but that is not the same as proving His non-existence.

Again this is an old error and often disingenuously employed trick – conflating amorphous, first mover god belief or Deism with Christianity. Collins holds to Nicenean Christianity which is on the face of it, is very obviously complete superstitious twaddle. It involves holding to a whole string of bizarre superstition.

Deism was rather common in the pre Darwin era amoungst intellectuals who could spot the very obvious twaddle in Biblical or Nicenean Christianity. Until Darwin the teleological argument – the argument from design, absent other explanations, had proven quite persuasive. Darwin eviscerated this by showing how living things are ‘designed’ mindlessly. Folks that had, prior to ‘The Origin’, been amorphous Deists because of the strength of the Teleological argument were more liable henceforth to be atheists.

which god then magically endowed with consciousness,

As opposed to consciousness magically emerging out of unconsciousness?

Paul:

Because you’d expect – not unreasonably – an eminent scientist not to have supernatural, crackpot beliefs of any kind.

This is the nub of the issue and to my mind, it’s a fair point.

Paul/Nick: Well, I can’t stop you thinking your way and you can’t stop me thinking mine.

Not yet at any rate. But I can’t help thinking that a bit of a totalitarian note is audible in your thinking. Atheists are generally just boring and unimaginative. But atheists who sound like they’d like to introduce some sort of Inquisition to test correctness of belief are unpleasant. And atheists who, like Stalin, accuse those who disagree with them of being mentally ill are downright dangerous.

“Not yet at any rate. But I can’t help thinking that a bit of a totalitarian note is audible in your thinking. Atheists are generally just boring and unimaginative. But atheists who sound like they’d like to introduce some sort of Inquisition to test correctness of belief are unpleasant. And atheists who, like Stalin, accuse those who disagree with them of being mentally ill are downright dangerous.”

You presume a hell of a lot there don’t you? I suggest you get a grip.

You atheists are just as silly as the theist nutters. Here’s what you believe:

In the beginning there was no beginning. There was nothing. And nothing happened because nothing was. Then *POOF* for no reason at all, nothing became something, and then EXPLODED with more force and energy than anyone in all of this ’something’ has never been able to observe or conceive of since then. And it became a universe based on six physical constants, which, by sheer coincidence, were precisely tuned to ensure stability.

Quite good so far for nothing.

Then, this ‘new something’ became molecules which had no minds of their own but which could self assemble into complex living organisms, ‘little self replicating protein clusters’. Conscious life coming from unconscious non-life. Order from disorder in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

And then these mindless protein clusters continued to join up and eventually assembled themselves into dinosaurs.
And eventually people.
Whose identities are just the quirky byproduct of chemical reactions in their brains and nothing more.

And THAT, is as much crackpot silliness as any theist could ever weave.

My friends, we all have religion.

Andrew: excellent article, thank you!

“Atheists are generally just boring and unimaginative.”
What a charming generalisation, honestly though I thought we were pass this childish behaviour of branding entire groups with negative traits, Cipriano obviously has a bit more growing up to do.

“In the beginning there was no beginning. There was nothing. And nothing happened because nothing was. Then *POOF* for no reason at all…”

Sigh. Who said it was for no reason at all? Maybe there was a reason and hopefully one day science will be able to tell us what that was. In the meantime, in the absence of that reason, I won’t be putting it all down to a big man in the sky.

See the difference?

“Order from disorder in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.”

You don’t seem to know the second law of thermodynamics.
You could say there would be some kind violation of the law if life appeared in every single planet in the universe. Life has only appeared on Earth until now, so no violation at all.

Deliberate provocation, Dermot dear boy, in response to someone calling me “tapped” for believing what millions of others have believed for thousands of years. But you’re hardly much of a counter-example to my generalisation.

And atheists who, like Stalin, accuse those who disagree with them of being mentally ill are downright dangerous.

Oh no the outspoken atheists are morally compromised trope! No doubt atheists are over represented in prison too.

I Blame the Parents:

As opposed to consciousness magically emerging out of unconsciousness?

No theory is far better than a non theory. that poses way more questions than it answers.

If I cant figure out why my car wont start I persist in looking for a naturalistic explanation, I don’t start to posit malign invisible dwarfs as a cause, give up and start sacrificing goats, burning incense or make deferential supplications to invisible sky fairies.

Paul, Nick;

Why would it be a problem? It would be accurate to say that most scientists (and those throughout history) have some sort of metaphysical belief. Belief or non-belief has little relevance.

Fabian;

If the law is violated in one place, if order can emerge from chaos in one place in the universe, then there is a problem with the law, no?

“…someone calling me “tapped” for believing what millions of others have believed for thousands of years.”

And they could be forgiven for believing in the supernatural. You, you’ve been living here in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. So what’s your excuse? If it isn’t because you’re a tiny bit tapped, what is it? Is it just something you feel? Voices in your head? What?

Nick;

Magical sky pixies and malign gremlins are not the only alternative explanations out there. It would be a mistake for atheism to become as narrowly dogmatic as theism.

The findings of quantum mechanics suggest that we live in an observer created universe, where a conscious presence is required for events to occur, and even for particles to pop into existence. I would think such research to be very troubling for the hardcore atheist.

You atheists are just as silly as the theist nutters. Here’s what you believe: [usual bollocks]

Most of us don’t actually, most of us just think it silly pretending that you’re answering a question by positing miracles that require more explanation than not positing them, whilst pretending in any shape or form you’ve answered a mystery, all whilst presenting diddly squat evidence.

Paul – I’m not aware that anything has changed in the universe in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries (Morgoth at this point usually chimes in with “This is the space age!” – so charmingly retro) which should cause humanity to redraw its world view from scratch. We now know more than we did about certain things, and it is clear that the picture has to be revised once different bits of it are uncovered; but again, the fundamental questions of which we treat have remained elusive. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are clever men who have read an awful lot of books: so are Rowan Williams and Josef Ratzinger. Perhaps because I am not very good at science, nor (to be honest) very interested in it, I tend to the latter side. When something goes wrong with my car, or my ageing body, I consult the appropriate scientific or technical professional; if I heard voices in my head, which I don’t, I would do the same. When I am dealing with the countless human problems every day on which scientists have nothing to say, I am more likely to consult the great body of literature or philosophy, often though not exclusively religious in inspiration, which bears on these issues. I find this a perfectly sane way to behave.

What worries me is how angry atheists seem to get these days. I do not think I am being fanciful in worrying that this anger might in the future give rise to persecution. There was nothing about the Gulag in the works of Marx, but it didn’t take long to get there. And no, Nick, I don’t think atheists are necessarily morally compromised. I just think that many are growing horribly intolerant, and we know – from the Inquisition, for a start – where intolerance can lead.

Paul,

Would you not say that agnosticism rather then atheism would be a more intellectual correct side for a scientist?

Even Richard Dawkins has admitted that there could be a case for a deist god.

Unity,

I think you will find that what drove many of those Christian to advance science had to do with them trying to find their god.

As to most of it was Aquinas and his followers, you are aware that men like Sir Francis Bacon and Issac Newton were Protestants.

“Would you not say that agnosticism rather then atheism would be a more intellectual correct side for a scientist?”

I would say not being a Christian would be a more intellectually correct side for a scientist. Collins isn’t even an agnostic. You point being?

As for your “*Even* Richard Dawkins…”. What does that mean? That you think I think he’s the great atheist leader or something? Dawkins can think what he likes.

Andrew, I think you should at least have the honesty to admit to your own supernatural beliefs. Or your spiritual leanings or whatever you want to call them.

Andrew, I shouldn’t bother. I admitted to mine, and he merely said I was bonkers. We’ve got a very angry man here. I’d be interested to know why, but I suppose it’s none of our business really.

I would say not being a Christian would be a more intellectually correct side for a scientist.

Would a Hindu or a Bahai be more appropriate than a Christian?

What worries me is how angry atheists seem to get these days. I do not think I am being fanciful in worrying that this anger might in the future give rise to persecution.

You’re right, I’m looking forward to posting videos on the internet, hacking some poor sod’s head off to chants of ‘Dawkins is a clever fucker’, prior to a bit of light buggery with some small kids in my charge. Preferably with the help of a goodly dollop of state subsidy.

Jesting aside. You’re right about the intolerance though, there has been a sea change since 9/11 and fewer of us are prepared to remain quietly tolerant of abject superstitious nonsense in the face of its malign effects. More of us are prepared to kick back, to openly ridicule it.

Sam Harris calls it a kind of conversational intolerance.

“We’ve got a very angry man here.”

I’m not at all angry. But please – feel free to point me to where I demonstrated anger.

I suggest you try not to confuse my dismissal of your chuckleheaded, babyish beliefs with anger.

“Would a Hindu or a Bahai be more appropriate than a Christian?”

No. I said ‘Christian’ because, er, Collins is a Christian….

Andrew:

I think you will find that what drove many of those Christian to advance science had to do with them trying to find their god.

And?

The scientific discoveries of Newton et al stand independently of their beliefs or motives in investigating the natural world – that’s what makes the science.

As piss poor arguments go, the whole Newton/Gallieo/Kepler was a Christian is amongst the most ridiculous. Newton also believed in alchemy and Kepler was an astrologer, neither of which has any bearing on on the value of the scientific discoveries nor does it offer any guarantees that latter-day Christians do not hold views that are inimical to science.

As to most of it was Aquinas and his followers, you are aware that men like Sir Francis Bacon and Issac Newton were Protestants.

Bacon and Newton were both, in their own way, following in a tradition of intellectual inquiry rooted in the Neo-Platonism of Augustine of Hippo and the naturalism of Aquinas, both of which significantly influenced the culture of Renaissance Europe.

IBTP:

The findings of quantum mechanics suggest that we live in an observer created universe, where a conscious presence is required for events to occur, and even for particles to pop into existence. I would think such research to be very troubling for the hardcore atheist.

Oh well, someone else who doesn’t understand quantum mechanics and the Copenhagen interpretation.

“You’re wrong, I’m right. End of, as they say.” “Don’t be a twat.” “You presume a hell of a lot there don’t you? I suggest you get a grip.”
“So what’s your excuse? If it isn’t because you’re a tiny bit tapped, what is it?” ‘As for your “*Even* Richard Dawkins…”. What does that mean? That you think I think he’s the great atheist leader or something? Dawkins can think what he likes’.

Sounds angry to me. If that’s the way you habitually hold conversations in the pub, then you must be a very big or very scarred bloke. Thank God for cyberspace. I’d normally far rather talk in the pub than online, but if this conversation had been held in the pub, I honestly think I’d have been glassed by now.

Unity;

Care to explain the collapse of the wavefunction to us dumb swills?

“…but if this conversation had been held in the pub, I honestly think I’d have been glassed by now.”

Don’t be ridiculous. I repeat: get a grip.

If you think those (out of context) quotations of mine represent anger then I can only assume you’re a very – very – delicate flower.

Oh, sorry – was that me being too angry for you?

You mean you can get even angrier if you want? Yes, don’t worry, I believe you.

God, you atheists are a tiresome lot, as well as being boring, unimaginative, boorish and crassly intolerant, as I said before. A gross generalisation, I know, but one steadily, step by step, achieving the status of an empirically established axiom.

Well, I’m for the pub. Deus vobiscum.

“Well, I’m for the pub. Deus vobiscum.”

Don’t say anything stupid while you’re there. You never know, you might get glassed.

Don’t worry – I don’t drink with foam-flecked atheists. They never seem to have anything worthwhile to say.

What worries me is how angry atheists seem to get these days.

With good reason. Everywhere, lunatic bronze age supersitition is on the march, and mental retards who hold bronze age supersititions seem to think they’re above criticism.

Care to explain the collapse of the wavefunction to us dumb swills?

I go with quantum decoherence myself.

P.S. what Unity says, with knobs on.

Unity,

Your making my point. Christians have tried to reconcile science with their faith, wrong or right but at least there were efforts made by Aquinas, Newton etc- whereas, Eastern mystics that Sam Harris has a soft spot for, have no where near the same tradition.

Help me here. Harris can’t stand Christianity because of its morals and its superstitution, so everything about it is bad BUT……BUT….Buddhism we are supposed to ignore its superstition and bad baggage and focus on its positive aspects.

Just curious, why Buddhism gets a a pass, and Christianity doesn’t in Sam’s world.

“If the law is violated in one place, if order can emerge from chaos in one place in the universe, then there is a problem with the law, no?” (I blame the parents)

The Second Law of the Thermodynamics is not violated anywhere. Leaving aside the fact that this law doesn’t actually deal with “order and disorder”, you can make the analogy that the appearance of life on Earth is like the clumps in your oatmeal. They appear although you sprinkled the oats over the milk carefully to fall randomly.

In any case, if you don’t get the analogy, think that by the way you understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the fact that galaxies exist would also be violating the law.

You are talking nonsense. Grow up.

Cipriano: “Atheists are generally just boring and unimaginative.”

You mean… they’re a bit… bovine?

If you say so, Mehdi.

Cipriano sees no reason to abandon age-old superstitions just because we can debunk them with facts. What about middle-aged men marrying nine-year-olds, Cipriano? Still fine? Part of humanity’s venerable system of accumulated values?

According to Ophelia Benson, the entire premise of this and the earlier article is wrong, and Sam Harris’ objections to Collins are not simply because he’s religious. Here is her take, and it’s well argued, quoting Harris himself:

“Harris says very clearly what makes him ’so uncomfortable about his nomination’ and it’s emphatically not just that he believes in God and prays. It’s right there in black and white, words on the page, easy to understand ….

Harris explains his worry very clearly. He quotes Collins on god and morality, then [asks]:
Why should Dr. Collins’s beliefs be of concern? There is an epidemic of scientific ignorance in the United States. This isn’t surprising, as very few scientific truths are self-evident, and many are counterintuitive. It is by no means obvious that empty space has structure or that we share a common ancestor with both the housefly and the banana. It can be difficult to think like a scientist. But few things make thinking like a scientist more difficult than religion.

He then expands on why. By no stretch of the imagination does it boil down to ‘he believes in God; he prays.’

You can read the entire entry at:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notes.php

Just curious, why Buddhism gets a a pass, and Christianity doesn’t in Sam’s world.

Possibly something to do with a significant difference in core tenets. There are no superstitions in accepting the 4 Noble truths and following the 8 fold path. Read the Dhammapada and then the Bible…..chalk and cheese.

Where in Christianity is there anything approaching the Kalama Sutra?

I can assure you that there are plenty of atheists who practice Buddha Dharma.

For those interested I recommend the short The Buddha M Carrithers and Buddhism without Belief – by ex bhikku (monk) Steven Batchelor.

The anti-Collins argument (as channelled by Unity) is unconvincing. It doesn’t follow from the fact that Collins thinks that God arranged consciousness that Collins also thinks (or should think) scientists who look for the physical causes of consciousness are wasting their time. If he does, that opinion isn’t compelled by his Christianity, so Christianity can’t be the criterion for refusing him employment. After all, lots of Christians believe that God made the world, and still think that geography, archaeology and physics have something to tell us too. Second, there are impeccably non-theistic folk who have thought that the problem of connsciousness is unsolvable.

the fact that Collins thinks that God arranged consciousness that Collins also thinks (or should think) scientists who look for the physical causes of consciousness are wasting their time.

It shows that Collins doesn’t really believe in evolution. Since consciousness is the software running on the hardware of the evolved brain. It appears that Collins thinks a magic man came along and added a magical ingredient to add consciousness.