Lillian 2009-01-04

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins is an intriguing book .Collins a geneticist and head of Human Genome Project find God in the most peculiar places were science and spirituality meet. Collins believes no matter how deeply one studies science one will never find answers for the simplest human attributes like morality. The more he studies the more he realizes that everything including the genetic code is all made from "God's Instruction book."It doesn't matter how you get there !
There is a beautiful new book about God and faith entitled "The Enlightenment, What God Told Me After One Million Prayers: A Message for Everyone," by John H. Eagan. I just finished it. It's really great and deals with God, the creator, Jesus' teachings, and His Passion. It brought me to tears. I think the readers of Collins' book will really enjoy The Enlightenment.

Herb M. Bounds 2008-12-23

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

I bot 2 bks both under the descripyion "used and new". One book was perfect and the other had a LOT of writing on many pages in the margins.

Matthew J. Fanning 2008-12-20

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

I bought this book right after I lost faith in Christianity. I was an atheist and looking for a book by an intellectual (aka, someone smarter than me) who would lay out solid, logical reasons why the idea of a God and a Christian one at that was warranted. Instead I got a great anti-ID book with a bit at the end about God.

R. S. Fertig 2008-12-14

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

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.

Sean 2008-12-03

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

I really liked this book. I do not buy any of Dr. Collins' arguments for God, but I really appreciated the depth of his understanding of evolution. This book is much better than Dawkins' The God Delusion for promoting science to people of faith. I have friends who do not believe in evolution because they feel it contradicts their understanding of Christianity. This is a book I would heartily recommend to them to help them better understand the fact of evolution without offending their religious convictions. Dr. Collins' "evidence" for the existence of God was clearly lacking and most of his arguments stem from C.S. Lewis (thus I am about to read Mere Christianity to better understand this perspective). He points to the moral law and the longing for God as evidence of God's existence. Evolution accounts for a moral law and can be observed in some form in nonhuman primates (for example, reciprocity). The longing for God does not mean that God is real; I long for my grandfather to still be alive, but this does not make him alive. Also, the longing for God being evident in every culture does not adequately address the fact of polytheism and other forms of faith that do not include the Christian conception of God, and also neglects Buddhism, which is transcendent but nontheistic. Dr. Collins' conception of God is much grander than the Bible's as it has been informed by science. But because there are still mysteries as to the beginning of the universe and the origin of life this means that the Christian conception of God is accurate seems to be lacking as an argument. Dr. Collins like people of faith in centuries past still believes that humans are part of the grand scheme and purpose of the universe and relates to facts of life as lessons from a loving God. For example, Dr. Collins relates how his daughter was raped. Collins' response to this was to believe that he was being taught by God that he could not protect his daughter. This to me seems like the early Christians believing that they are the center of the universe and everything that happens is to do with them. How Collins can believe in a loving and all-powerful God that allows his daughter to be raped is beyond me. I recognize that this belief helped him in this situation and I think it is good that he wants to forgive the perpetrator. However, this does not mean that God exists. Dr. Collins recognizes that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago and that life evolved, without God intervening, over millions of years. Dr. Collins then states that when humans came to be they were gifted with an immortal soul. It just seems unlikely and unparsimonious to assume this as a fact. I believe Dr. Collins has emotional reasons for believing in God, but this does not mean that God exists. To the extent that this belief creates better human beings, I am all for it. I think Jesus was an extraordinary moral teacher and people following his ethical example can only be a good thing. But it just seems more likely that God does not exist as conceived by religions. There is no Zeus, and likewise there is no Yahweh. It is important to remember the actual context of the Old Testament and God's behavior and come to realize that this God does not exist just as all of the other gods do not exist. And if he did exist, he wouldn't be worthy of worship in my opinion. Dr. Collins argues elegantly against the "God of the gaps" in evolutionary theory, but I feel he still appeals to this God in other areas such as the beginning of the universe. There is something we don't understand, so God must have done it. There is something to the argument, however to make the leap that the universe is so complex it must have been created by a god does not mean this is the Christian God. Why not Brahman or Aten? There are just too many leaps of faith to be considered evidence as the subtitle of the book suggests. That said, if one is to believe in God, surely this is the way to go about it, with a clear understanding of science and a realistic view of the natural world. Collins has a magnificent balance in his view that I admire, though I must confess that even though Collins considers it the most irrational position, I remain an atheist. Dr. Collins believes that Jesus rose from the dead and other similar myths. Certainly Dr. Collins recognizes myth when it comes from other cultures, but to ignore this in one's own culture to me seems irrational. Thank you for reading.