On one’s knees in dewy grass

On one’s knees in dewy grass

Photo by Andrew Seaman on Unsplash

Originally published 9 September 2007

Here is the cru­cial moment in Fran­cis Collins’ book, The Lan­guage of God: A Sci­en­tist Presents Evi­dence of Belief, often offered as a anti­dote to Richard Dawkins’ The God Delu­sion:

I had to make a choice. A full year had passed since I decid­ed to believe in some sort of God, and now I was being called to account. On a beau­ti­ful fall day, as I was hik­ing in the Cas­cade Moun­tains dur­ing my first trip west of the Mis­sis­sip­pi, the majesty and beau­ty of God’s cre­ation over­whelmed my resis­tance. 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.

Collins’ sci­en­tif­ic cre­den­tials are cer­tain­ly in order. He led the dri­ve to sequence the human genome, one of the great sci­en­tif­ic tri­umphs of all time. And, like many of us, he has made a jour­ney to a place of spir­i­tu­al rest. But what­ev­er it was that hap­pened to him on that sun­lit morn­ing in the Cas­cades, it was not evi­dence for the divin­i­ty and res­ur­rec­tion of Jesus Christ, or for the Chris­t­ian promise of per­son­al immor­tal­i­ty — all of which Collins appar­ent­ly embraced as he fell to his knees. In fact, there is noth­ing in his book that would sat­is­fy the sci­en­tif­ic cri­te­ria for “evi­dence.” Where the agnos­tic will humbly say “I don’t know,” Collins makes the leap of faith, “God did it.”

As he has every right to do. And he is right when he says that sci­ence can­not con­tra­dict him. Sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence can­not rule out a per­son­al divin­i­ty who cre­at­ed the uni­verse ex nihi­lo, or a God-man who rose from the dead, or any oth­er event that is pre­sumed to take place out­side of nat­ur­al law. Sci­ence by def­i­n­i­tion eschews mir­a­cles. Suf­fice it to say that the evi­dence Collins prof­fers for the divin­i­ty and res­ur­rec­tion of Jesus Christ, or for a lov­ing per­son­al God, is insuf­fi­cient to con­vince any­one who is not pre­dis­posed to belief.

Now it must be said that Collins makes very few the­o­log­i­cal claims in his book, and those he does make are so couched in cau­tion and prop­er sci­en­tif­ic skep­ti­cism that the book can almost be read as an argu­ment for dis­be­lief. In par­tic­u­lar, Collins has noth­ing to say about per­son­al immor­tal­i­ty, with­out which his Chris­tian­i­ty would be much enfee­bled, so much so that there would seem to be lit­tle point in adopt­ing that faith. Few intel­lec­tu­al con­structs are more uni­ver­sal or more dear­ly held than the idea that death is not final. When Collins fell to his knees and accept­ed Jesus Christ as his sav­ior, he bought into eter­ni­ty whether he admits it or not.

But what exact­ly endures when Collins dies? The imma­te­r­i­al soul has been chased to its lair. The lair is emp­ty. And Fran­cis Collins, as a sci­en­tist, should know that as well as anyone.

Every somat­ic cell of our body car­ries a DNA sig­na­ture of our unique­ness, inher­it­ed from our par­ents when a sin­gle pater­nal sperm plunged into a sin­gle mater­nal egg. We have recent­ly seen the first map­ping of a full diploid genome for an indi­vid­ual human, Craig Ven­ter, whose team did the map­ping. Genes have been iden­ti­fied linked to heart attacks, lac­tose intol­er­ance, tobac­co addic­tion, obe­si­ty, hyper­ten­sion, blue eyes, fair skin, brown sticky ear­wax, anti­so­cial behav­ior, and so on, not all of which are nec­es­sar­i­ly expressed. It is clear that a huge part of who and what we are is inher­it­ed mate­ri­al­ly from our par­ents. A part of what we are will live on in our off­spring as genet­i­cal­ly encod­ed infor­ma­tion — not quite the sort of immor­tal­i­ty the typ­i­cal Chris­t­ian has in mind.

Anoth­er fun­da­men­tal part of a unique self is a life­time’s worth of expe­ri­ence, stored as mem­o­ries in the brain. Here too all of the evi­dence sug­gests that mem­o­ries are encod­ed as mod­i­fied synap­tic con­nec­tions among neu­rons. The July [2007] issue of Sci­en­tif­ic Amer­i­can had an intrigu­ing arti­cle on a first map­ping of mem­o­ries in the mouse brain — small steps toward what will be in the next few decades the sci­en­tif­ic equiv­a­lent of map­ping the human genome. The evi­dence so far is incon­tro­vert­ible: Mem­o­ries are mate­r­i­al. There is no way that the mem­o­ries stored in our brains will sur­vive the decay of our bodies.

So when all of those tens of tril­lions of our cells have decayed into mol­e­cules and recy­cled back into the mate­r­i­al envi­ron­ment, what becomes of a self? There is zero sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence for per­son­al immor­tal­i­ty. Qui­et the con­trary, there is over­whelm­ing evi­dence that the age-old dream of liv­ing for­ev­er is a con­sol­ing fiction.

Will that stop the great major­i­ty of humans from believ­ing in life after death? Not like­ly. When a beau­ti­ful frozen water­fall is grounds for sur­ren­der to a pack­age of neolith­ic think­ing, then we might as well give up on the sci­en­tif­ic quest and believe any­thing we please.

Which is not to say that the expe­ri­ence of a frozen water­fall is not cause for awe, won­der, cel­e­bra­tion, praise. Such things have some­times made me fall to my knees in the grass. That’s part of who and what I am. It’s part of who and what we are as human beings, inclined to self-tran­scen­dence. What part of that is genet­ic and what part memet­ic remains to be discovered.

Collins and Dawkins agree that real­i­ty is greater than what sci­ence has yet delin­eat­ed. Collins gives our igno­rance a name — God — and sur­ren­ders his curios­i­ty to faith in a par­tic­u­lar reli­gion. Dawkins is con­tent to whit­tle away at the mystery.

Share this Musing: