All illnesses have some heredity contribution. It's been said that genetics loads the gun and environment pulls the trigger.
Francis CollinsRead
I'm enormously interested to see where neuroscience can take us in understanding these complexities of the human brain and how it works, but I do think there may be limits in terms of what science can tell us about what does good and evil mean anyway, and what are those concepts about?
Interpretation
The quote expresses curiosity about neuroscience while acknowledging the limitations of science in understanding moral concepts like good and evil.
Francis Collins highlights the dual nature of neuroscience as both a fascinating field that can provide insights into the human brain and its complexities, while also recognizing that scientific inquiry may not be sufficient to fully comprehend moral concepts such as good and evil. This speaks to the intersection of science, philosophy, and morality, suggesting that some aspects of human experience may lie beyond empirical study.
In practice
During a discussion on the limitations of scientific inquiry in ethics.
All illnesses have some heredity contribution. It's been said that genetics loads the gun and environment pulls the trigger.
I think history would say that medical research has, throughout many changes of parties, remained as one of the shining lights of bipartisan agreement, that people are concerned about health for themselves, for their families, for their constituents.
I finished up my graduate degree in quantum mechanics, but underwent a bit of a personal crisis, recognizing that I didn't want to do that for the rest of my life. It was too abstract, too far removed from human concerns.
The brain is the most complicated organ in the universe. We have learned a lot about other human organs. We know how the heart pumps and how the kidney does what it does. To a certain degree, we have read the letters of the human genome. But the brain has 100 billion neurons. Each one of those has about 10,000 connections.
I believe God did intend, in giving us intelligence, to give us the opportunity to investigate and appreciate the wonders of His creation. He is not threatened by our scientific adventures.
I took biology in high school and didn't like it at all. It was focused on memorization. ... I didn't appreciate that biology also had principles and logic ... [rather than dealing with a] messy thing called life. It just wasn't organized, and I wanted to stick with the nice pristine sciences of chemistry and physics, where everything made sense. I wish I had learned sooner that biology could be fun as well.
The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed.
Nowhere in space will we rest our eyes upon the familiar shapes of trees and plants, or any of the animals that share our world. Whatsoever life we meet will be as strange and alien as the nightmare creatures of the ocean abyss, or of the insect empire whose horrors are normally hidden from us by their microscopic scale.
To invoke the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing - for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer.
What is the difference between a 2°C world and a 4°C world? Human civilisation!
Science is objective. And in my view we cannot take any experimental results seriously except in the light of good explanations of them.
It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.