Mike Gantt: What a silly question. Go outside, dig a hole and sniff the soil. Drive to a wild land area and walk a mile. Investigate. Ask a question. Propose a test and measurements. Do the test and then conclude. This isn’t rocket surgery. Everywhere will be evidence of natural processes that need no supernatural directive. Sun, soil, decay - it is a non spiritual extraordinarily complex set of evidence. You do a great disservice to your own intellect (which is quite evident in these posts) to force the supernatural nonsense of christianity on to the complexities of natural processes.
I thought BioLogos existed for the express purpose of applying Christianity to the complexities of natural processes. Here’s their stated mission:
BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.
Is BioLogos thereby doing “a great disservice” to the intellects of its supporters? And are you collaborating with them in that disservice?
From what I’ve read, @loraxx is promoting a typical new-atheistic perspective and he’s not associated with BioLogos in any way.
3 Likes
Casper Hesp and Mike Gantt: I’m not associated with BioLogos except as a participant in the thorny but always fascinating topic of the intersection of religion and science. I am an atheist.
I am an atheist as well, but I don’t see this site as a place to challenge Christianity itself, although I may meander into that territory on occasion. This site is much more about the reconciliation between religion and science.
Just to be clear, I am not telling you what you should or shouldn’t say, challenge or not challenge, but I think you may get more out of Biologos if you focus on what Christians and atheists have in common than on where they differ.
4 Likes
T_aquaticus: Thanks for the advice and I suppose you’re right about the purpose of this forum. From my perspective though, discussing YEC or the specific sequence of Genesis or any other biblical claim is irrelevant if there is no evidence. If evidence is not required to believe in christian claims, then christians have the trump card: God did it. Can’t win if the other player has a handful of wild cards.
There is faith and there is the scientific method. I see no way for them both to coexist.
I use them both daily, Gunter. There are limitations to methodological naturalism, and I believe it is erroneous to assume that nothing can exist outside of our ability to directly observe.
1 Like
And there is the rub, my good sir. BioLogos supporters generally believe there is a way for Faith and Scientific Method to co-exist.
Perhaps this is not the best place for you to express your zeal?
Gould tried to reconcile science and faith through his concept of “Non-overlapping magisteria”.
“The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.”
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Gould%20Nonoverlapping%20Magisteria.htm
NOMA has the usual mix of those who praise it and those who detest it, but it seems like a reasonable place to start when one talks about the intersection of faith and science.[quote=“loraxx, post:268, topic:36232”]
From my perspective though, discussing YEC or the specific sequence of Genesis or any other biblical claim is irrelevant if there is no evidence. If evidence is not required to believe in christian claims, then christians have the trump card: God did it. Can’t win if the other player has a handful of wild cards.
[/quote]
While we atheists may not accept faith based assertions and beliefs, many of our fellow citizens do. The politics of science are an important part of our society and our future, so I think it is worth understanding where people are coming from and where we are coming from, both scientists and lay people. After all, you can’t do the science without money to fund it, and that money comes from a wide swath of people across the religious spectrum. If you are an atheist and you believe that scientific research should be funded and supported, then theistic evolutionists (or evolutionary creationists as people tend to say on this website) are our best friends.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.