Yikes! You are right. Some atheists describe themselves as “devout.” I suspect this is meant as tongue in cheek appropriation but I was wrong to roll my eyes at your usage.
I’m nibbling my way through From Bacteria to Bach and Back, which is enjoyable although I’m at the stage where the half-a-chapter-an-evening approach isn’t working very well. That’s the recent book specifically about “consciousness and AI.” I give a heartier recommendation to Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking: it’s made for nibbling, perfect for commuting (once winter is really here, I less often bike to work) and suitable for a devotional. It has samples and vignettes on all the topics Dennett is known for, including a chapter based on his article “The Evolution of Reasons” which you can find on his website. That chapter is where he issues his challenge “which campaign do we evolutionists want to lead?” regarding design and designers.
Since Christians already are resolved to believe in a few one-off miracles (like the virgin birth of Jesus, or his resurrection in Jerusalem), it would seem that allowing for a few more one-off miracles (say, the special creation of Adam and Eve) should be within the realm of acceptance - - if it means that the audience will then be able to reconcile Evolutionary science with their personal faith.
Thoughts?
I think you have a good point, George. I welcome the idea of a special creation of Adam and Eve, perhaps in the midst of a population of humans, especially if it helps some integrate science findings with their faith, though do not think it necessary or accurate due to other factors.
I completely agree. You can use the scientific method to do science and use other methods for other questions you come across in life. Difficulties can arise when there is conflict between science and theology, but if there is no conflict then reconciliation can be achieved, and even encouraged.
I also don’t see a commitment to excluding conclusions on the part of BioLogos. If anything, there is a commitment to parsimony, which is a very common and rational position to take. If there is overwhelming evidence for a natural process then one doesn’t propose a supernatural process that exactly mimics the natural process.
It also seems prudent to leave the possibility open that a natural process could be involved where there is a chance of collecting evidence that could shed light on a question. We won’t have access to evidence that would be relevant to the Resurrection or the virgin birth, but we could stumble upon evidence for abiogenesis, as one example.
While I may not share the same faith as others here, I can certainly see how faith can live in harmony with science.
2 Likes