Collins is not as uncommon a scientist as most non-scientists seem to think. I've known a few religious scientists (although only one of them an outspoken born again). People like Sam Harris only show how limited and dogmatic their ideas are when they claim that one can be an excellent scientist while not having a scientific frame of mind.

From my experience, there are more atheists among scientists than among the population at large, but they're still a minority, even in hard sciences. But obviously most scientists don't discuss religion with fellow scientists, in part because it is such a dangerous topic, in part because they generally aren't all that interested in religious questions. Science is a passion, at least for those that make a career out of it and there's little room for an intense faith in a scientists' life (hell, there often is barely room for a family).

Collins is perfect for the job, especially if he uses the position to defuse the antagonism between religion and science that pervades US society. By promoting mutual exclusiveness, Harris and Dawkins (amongst many others) are simply promoting their own wallets at the expense of science's position within US culture. For people that pretend to stand on facts, it is amazing how they seem to miss the obvious one: if a vast majority of the tax payers are religious and a large minority is very religious ("born again"), convincing them that the pursuit of science is in opposition to their beliefs means that the pursuit of science will suffer.

If you want an academic life in which you never have to worry about the interface between science and religion, you go to Europe. There you can even make fun of religion - it won't matter. But in the US, it simply isn't an option. The next best thing is to promote people like Collins so they can defuse the situation, in stead of elevating zealots like Dawkins as spokespersons.

Indeed. Today's Pew report in Science emphasizes the numbers of religious scientists; admittedly fewer than in the general population, but not as few as people might think. Further, I (among others) do not think that the reduction in number of religious scientists is a sign of any sort of 'progress' towards a Hitchens/Dawkins heaven on earth, but instead a potentially temporary turn of events. Over the years, all sorts of trends have wound through the communities of the rich, the powerful, the educated, the erudite - in the history of religion alone, these trends have involved egyptian religions, the Magi of Persia, battles between Buddhism and Confucianism in China, etc. To claim that our own current learned folks are better than all that would be an act of striking arrogance - something a Dawkins or Hitchens might be capable of, in fact... instead, we should be humble in the face of the religious natures of the great scientists of the past, which may not have been mistakes or primitive states, as some would imply.

Chocolate vs. strawberry is a false dichotomy.Because one can choose Other, Both, or Neither.

But science vs. religion isn't. If one is correct, the other isn't. Either god did it, or he didn't. There is no middle ground.

I find it sad that you term people like Dawkins as extremist merely because they point this out. 

If there is a dichotomy, good.

Religion and the state, the government, used to be the very same exact thing...a fact which a lot of Americans do not understand at all when they advocate for state relgion.

So the government did not represent the people, it represented GOD ALMIGHTY, and had therefore no constriants on it at all, could do as it pleased, arbitrarily, totally without thought or mercy...they they DID.

And if God decides, then hereditary rulers are easily justifiable...and when you get a stupid one, you cannot get rid of him except by war.

The separation of church and state was the best thing that ever happened to humanity.

It is interesting that you think you are smarter than Stephen Jay Gould was.

"Did what?" is the first obvious question that you ignore in your trivial formulation.

The distinction between ultimate and proximate actors can also be used to complicate the issue somewhat.

Warnings against oversimplification and unclear formulations of questions abound. Don't ignore them while you strut around insulting people.

Hmm. And I thought it was the discovery of cooking...

"But science vs. religion isn't. If one is correct, the other isn't. Either god did it, or he didn't. There is no middle ground."

That's simply not true, and the best evidence of that fact is people like Francis Collins and millions of other believing scientists. It's also not logically true. It is perfectly logically possible to believe that God created and heavens and the earth and that science explains how things work. Religion deals with ultimate realities in a way science does not. They are not mutually exclusive at all.

In fact, in the book Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark makes the argument that it was the very idea that an orderly God created an orderly universe which gave rise to science. Only if we believe in a fundamental order and rationality of the universe does the pursuit of science make sense.

If God did create life as we know it then surely he is by any reasonable moral standards a great monster.

To quote Dawkins: "The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

This depends on so many perspectives and factors that the only thing we can conclude is that Dawkins sets himself up to be the judge of everything in the universe. That is certainly monstrous.

Perhaps it is that a single point of happiness is enough to justify the universe in all its detail; or perhaps this is a temporary intermediary state; we cannot know. What we do know is that finding a dime on the sidewalk apparently brightens a person's whole day, losing a dollar apparently has a similar impact to the negative - while so many larger issues go unaccounted for. We are certainly not good judges of importance, significance, or justice. Dawkins in his arrogance is unjustified and scandalous.

Endorendil: "People like Sam Harris only show how limited and dogmatic their ideas are when they claim that one can be an excellent scientist while not having a scientific frame of mind."

You lost all creditability with this statement. If you're going to make the claim that Sam Harris is dogmatic, you must provide some support. You wouldn't be able to, because Harris doesn't lay down ideas as incontrovertibly true. He reaches conclusions based on facts and observations. You don't like his conclusions so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

"That's simply not true, and the best evidence of that fact is people like Francis Collins and millions of other believing scientists."

This is not evidence.

BenK:

This depends on so many perspectives and factors that the only thing we can conclude is that Dawkins sets himself up to be the judge of everything in the universe. That is certainly monstrous.

Perhaps it is that a single point of happiness is enough to justify the universe in all its detail; or perhaps this is a temporary intermediary state; we cannot know. What we do know is that finding a dime on the sidewalk apparently brightens a person's whole day, losing a dollar apparently has a similar impact to the negative - while so many larger issues go unaccounted for. We are certainly not good judges of importance, significance, or justice. Dawkins in his arrogance is unjustified and scandalous.

Whether we're good at judging or not, we do it. You did it, too, in your response. The difference between you and Dawkins, though, is that he clearly puts forward not only his bottom-line judgment, but he also tells you exactly what it is predicated on. Moreover, that was merely a quote. You could run down the thing it is from (or even, mercy of mercies, actually read him in the original and not how some with a mindset like yours filter it for you). There's nothing monstrous about an opinion so clearly delineated. What is monstrously arrogant is for someone to ignore his predicates, and thus engage in ad hominem evasion without refuting one bit of it. What is it in that quote of Dawkins that you see as not being so? Is that or is that not the way it is in nature? If so, why is his conclusion so monstrous?

This about sums up your and Collins's problem in as few words as possible:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus

If you can't address this honesty and directly, throw in the towel.

"Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

Deciding not to remedy every evil does not make someone malevolent. Is it not possible to permit evil in order to allow for a greater good? Most of the truly horrible evils in the world (Holocaust, e.g.) are created because human beings have free will. It certainly seems possible to believe that free will is such a great good that we simply have to put up with the evil use of it.

We could prevent a lot of evil in the world by keeping people in a constant drugged state where they could make no evil decisions. Are we malevolent if we don't do that?

In the Bible, God came down hard on free will a number of times: Sodom and Gommorah, Egypt, the Flood, the Tower of Babel.

How does that God look at a Hitler and just shrug his shoulders?

Deciding not to remedy every evil does not make someone malevolent.

"Someone"?

The presence of light 'creates' the existance of darkness even though darkness is just a label for the suddenly possible absence of light. Lighting a small candle, then, produces a vast realm of darkness in some certain sense, but in reality, no darkness was created. Perhaps 'evil' doesn't 'come' from anywhere, nor can it be 'prevented' because it is merely a pre-existing absence. For people to have the ability to do good means that there must not in every case be preexisting perfect good. So, to allow a world in which people can do good, there must be places where it is absent at least in part.

Your entire argument is based on a fallacy.