How Medical School Led Me to Christianity | Francis Collins
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ต.ค. 2024
- Francis Collins shares how his experiences in medical school led him towards the Christian faith. | California Institute of Technology, 12/21/2010 | View full forum at • The Language of God: A... | Explore more at www.veritas.org.
Want Veritas updates in your inbox? Subscribe to our twice-monthly newsletter here:
www.veritas.or...
INSTAGRAM: / veritasforum
FACEBOOK: / veritasforum
PODCAST: podcasts.apple...
SUBSCRIBE: www.youtube.co...
Over the past two decades, The Veritas Forum has been hosting vibrant discussions on life's hardest questions and engaging the world's leading colleges and universities with Christian perspectives and the relevance of Jesus. Learn more at www.veritas.org, with upcoming events and over 600 pieces of media on topics including science, philosophy, music, business, medicine, and more!
Medschool has led me to God too
It's amazing how after all those years of his life and even into medical school, no one had ever asked the simple question, "What do you believe in?". Shows how much impact such a simple question can have on one's life.
i believe the book he was talking about was "mere christianity" by C.S Lewis. same author for the chronicles of narnia. im already a christian but i also still gotta read that book.
Zareen Faith you should read it! it's amazing! you can get a pdf online for free
I like his tie
truth bomb
Super speech
Evidence vs proof. I never saw it that way.
what book?
Alfonso Yap mere chriatianity by c.s lewis.
Zareen Faith woah. thank you! I'm currently (slowly) reading that right now! still on the 2nd book
Alfonso Yap yeah. i should. maybe at the end of the school year. that was my plan since 2015. :( never made time for it. have to buy it still though. thanks! though im already a christian, i still got a few questions that has to be answered for my inner peace. lol
Zareen Faith yes yes. it was my plan since last year too. but I'm still busy with school too. :( well, we all have that struggles including the intellect. i recommend you read "Beyond Opinion" by Ravi Zacharias (editor). and Lee Strobel books too. It helps with questions on the intellect. I'm glad you have already known Christ :) continue the faith! keep pressing on to God! don't forget Him and His works. write them down! (This helps me in times of struggles haha). and yes me too. i still have struggles but whew. Let's just seek Jesus. We have victory in Him. :)
hmmm... journal writing. thats an awesome idea! God is working on me everyday, slowly increasing my faith. thanks for tips on the books! appreciate it. will definitely look for it in christian bookstores. i prefer hard copies.
This confirms for me my suspicion he abandoned Science because of his emotions. When he did so he abandoned science and true "knowing". He fell upon christianity as a security blanket and one reason he could not accept death as a part of living. There is no requirement to be at peace at the time of death but accepting death as part of life is one of the truisms in life, that everyone and everything dies at some point. The acceptance of the inevitability of death can be an important guide how to live life, to make the best of the life one has especially in connection to fellow human beings. A god or the supernatural or immortality, etc. are just diversions from the "truth of life". And any "scientist" that abandons empirical evidence and the scientific method is Not a "true" scientist because the two, science and the supernatural, are at opposite ends of a knowledge spectrum. One can't know Anything about the supernatural, it's all presupposition. Science on the other hand pursues empirical facts. Facts that human beings can put TRUST in to be reliable. It does not matter if this "scientist" was involved in decoding DNA. He abandoned the scientific method when he chose the supernatural as a conclusion for cosmology instead of possessing a dedication to finding the facts. He might even began his decoding of DNA with a motive toward revealing the supernatural. Unfortunately that's not how the scientific method works because in the scientific method one has to be able to draw direct causal connections between phenomenon and data... between cause and effect. People like him are an embarrassment to the discipline of science.
The very first thing he says is wrong.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!yeah
Oh I see, and of course you published your findings in peer reviewed paper?
Of course you followed scientific scrutiny and you provided materials and method of detecting god and somebody in India had the same results or conclusions?
As a christian you have to believe that we come from one man and one woman and that woman was made from man's rib. So, let me give you some crash course on genetics because you show that you don't understand it at all. Working on Human genome and discovering the DNA sequences that we share with chimpanzees didn't cross your mind that we must share the same ancestor? We don't have such similarity with common owl. Oh just to let you know sperm carries gender chromosome not a rib. If I pull your rib I will simply clone you, but no way I will get woman from it.
Honey this man is the former director of the human genome project. I’m sure he knows more about genetics than you do. He probably views Genesis as metaphorical, rather than historical- like many Christians do both today and even did in the first century. Don’t believe me? Do your research. Some of the very first Christian scholars were very vocal in their metaphorical interpretation of Genesis. You don’t have to believe in the story of Adam and Eve to be a Christian. Jesus himself spoke often in parables. These were never intended to be taken as literal accounts
@@caitlinconsolver7827
Are you for real? Did you just say honey?
This:
"I’m sure he knows more about genetics than you do"
is called a logical fallacy. Do you know what those are, honey? I doubt it.
Specifically it is The Appeal to Authority. And in this case it is VERY easy to show how complete stupid you are, honey.
The vast majority of scientists DON'T believe in the god, or specifically the god of the Bible, honey. So now what? Who do we believe? So, yes, Collins DOES need to provide evidence, since there are all sorts of scientists who believe in many different gods. Or is that also news to you?
Have you read Collins' book, where he says he believes in god because one day he saw a waterfall and thought that it was so nice that there had to be a god. Does that sound scientific to you, honey?
"Genesis as metaphorical, rather than historical"
I'm glad someone admits it. Which means that we don't need to believe ANY of the Bible, honey.
@@SamIAm-kz4hg is your ego really this fragile.
@@chamber0461
"is your ego really this fragile."
Did you really just pull that out of your ass?
@@SamIAm-kz4hg you've just proved my point kid
This person did not do enough research. If he read C. S. Lewis and was impressed by that? Ridiculous. There is a lot more to these topic than that.
Religion, making smart people believe in dumb things.
+Poseidon63 You just proved one of Dr. Collins' points, namely that most of the arguments for atheism are like that of school children: name calling and generalization. Simply calling an idea dumb is no way to state your case against it.
BrotherofWord
I am not making an argument for atheism, I am saying if he believes in the bible, which he has to as a Christian, he is believing in dumb things. like the earth is a flat sphere, the earth is only a mere 6000yrs old and a virgin can give birth etc
Poseidon63 1) Bible does not say the earth is flat. Verses like that are clearly poetic in genre also speaking of the heavens being stretched like a tent and the earths inhabitants grasshoppers. We do the same today, speaking of a "beautiful sunset", not a "beautiful earth rotation".
2) While most Christians read Genesis as a solid 6,000 years (and yell it loudly), most scholars, understanding the "days" of genesis as eras or epochs not 24-hour periods of time.
3) On the virgin birth, there is no way to poeticize (is that a word?) it. It means what it says: Mary had not known a man and yet was found with Child. Now, you may say it's dumb to believe this because nobody else has been born that way before or since but it is crucial. You see, even though Eve sinned first, Adam failed to redeem her (by not sinning and pleading her case before God) therefore the weightier sin is on Adam, the man. Consequently, the fallen nature the human race finds themselves with comes through fathers, not mothers. This is not to say females don't have the fallen nature though; females all have fathers too. Jesus could not have had a human father or he would have had a sin nature and thus couldn't have redeemed us. He did however redeemed us by giving His innocent life for our guilty one and that is why Jesus is called the SECOND ADAM, he pleads the case of His Bride (us!) whereas the first Adam failed to do so.
I'm sorry this was so long but this is the point of the whole Bible: where man (Adam, Eve, me, and you) fails, Christ triumphs. His resurrection then validates the whole thing...and by the way, without the truth of the resurrection, I would agree with you that the whole thing is dumb.
BrotherofWord
Nice post and thank you.
"His resurrection then validates the whole thing"
It would interesting to hear your view on christ's sacrifice because from what I understand he wasn't sacrificed because he survived. If you sacrifice something it's supposed to be permanently destroyed which jesus wasn't. Seems he just had a bad weekend.
Poseidon63 Do you mean by "he survived" that he really didn't die when He was crucified or that He survived bc He didn't stay dead?
If the former, the 'swoon theory" is overwhelmingly dismissed by historians; the Romans were experts at killing and nobody survived crucifixion but supposing He did survive then the disciples would have no reason to think He was indeed God in the flesh, just a very lucky man. And they wouldn't have made up a resurrection lie and then stuck by it to the point of death.
If the latter, then you hit on a huge point. The penalty for sin is death, and not just physical death but spiritual death (ie separation from God). The fact that he didn't stay dead shows that His payment for sin was acceptable (like a check with funds in the account). If a person rejects Jesus' payment they are choosing to pay the debt themselves, but since they are not innocent (only spotless sacrifices were acceptable in the Old Testament Temple system, which was a picture of Christ yet to come) their payment is no good. The check bounces so they remain in debtors prison (Hell, which is separation from God) forever.
Note on Hell: The "justice" in Hell as God's judgment is that God is giving people what they WANT: an existence without Him. Absence of God is torment because everything good that is experienced by anyone during their life is a grace afforded by God, which we should be humbly thankful for. Nobody can imagine how "bad" the absence of "good" is. Nobody can explain it either, which is why most scholars, understanding the imagery used ancient near-east literature, see the "fire" of Hell as metaphorical.
It will be much worse, more akin to the torture of total isolation, being left with your own selfishness and regret as you "become" your sin, in its fullest (ie without God's loving restraint), consuming you forever.