Sadly with that statement you have quite clearly labeled yourself as a fideist, who allows his faith to only exist in the gaps/spaces, the science/scientific authorities allow you to have. The other Christian site, Biologos has the exactly the same approach - asserts things that can only be placed in the ‘Not Even Wrong’ or allowable by the NSCE boxes . Also like you, they look for allies to attack Fundamentalists, YEC and ID but never take a stand against atheists or the atheist community - instead offering continuous calls for friendship. Sadly the scientific community only find Biologos and PS useful as temporary fellow travelers in the war against Creationists - the respect for your religion is zero. I wrote months ago that virtually no-one working in the Templeton science and religion field hold to any factual religious beliefs; trading in a ‘belief that’ for a ‘belief in’. Religion is poetry or ethics, even then, most moral philosophers consider religion as ethics a joke - and see religion as play, community or an activity for the cognitively weak .
I have been impressed by the growing field of Cognitive Science of Religion, Evolutionary Psychology of Religion and Psychology of Religion, that religion is a natural side effect of a Hyperactive agency detection device coupled with a misfiring of the Theory of Mind - in other words a Spandrel or cognitive mistake. I know there are some problems with this account but it is naturalistic, more explanatory and a better fit with want we know than ‘Theism’.
I have also noticed that in every atheist/theism debate on this site, the atheists always win. There was a physics/math guy who could defend Christianity quite brilliantly but he no longer seems to post. Even you, Josh, can’t defend even the most basic parts of your faith. I don’t think that Herman_Mays has anything to worry about.
The statement to which you refer is here:
@MRIMAN, can you please explain why you think this statement demonstrates I’m a fideist? Rather, it seems to demonstrate that I demand honesty about evidence, which is what evidentialists and scientists demand. Why would this made me a fideist? There is not even a reference to faith or gaps.
To be fair Josh I think Michael is drawing that conclusion from more than just one statement.
Is there any point in replying? Will it be banned because you may disagree with it? Is Peaceful Science an order, and not a discussion? I would love to reply if I am not wasting my time.
If you removed the chip from your shoulder, it might have a mitigating effect on the beam in your eye too. The volume doesn’t have to go to 11.
Please do reply, but in topic and with the basic respect. Feel free to start a new topic too.
That makes even less sense. I’m not a fideist.
Yeah, I’m baffled here. You don’t seem like a fideist in the slightest. Nor does the quote about being honest about what is and is not compatible with science seem to me like it even bears (in either direction) upon the question of your being a fideist.
I think many Christians who hold to some aspect of a literal or otherwise inerrant Bible give themselves two choices. They either reinterpret Scripture in such a way that it matches the science or is at least sheltered from the science or they reinterpret the science to make space for their interpretation of scripture. The other choice is of course the Bible is not literal and inerrant and doesn’t match the science. I fail to see why that isn’t an acceptable choice for more Christians.
Or, other choices, like GAE. Neither reinterpret Scripture nor reinterpret science…
38 posts were split to a new topic: Mays Asks About Interpretations Compatible with the GAE
If MRIMAN is offering the above as a definition of the term “fideist,” he is employing a definition of the term that is not used by Christian theologians or philosophers of religion. And if he’s not offering it as definition of the term, then it would be useful for him to give his definition before applying it to anyone here.
I think that Joshua has more than once denied being a fideist. If the charge is to stick, the term must be properly defined. Only then can we see whether the label applies to him or others.
I have seen what can be called strands of fideistic thinking at BioLogos, but the theological thought at BioLogos has always been so incoherent that any single label, such as “fideist” or “deist” or any other that one can think of, is hard to apply to BioLogos leaders across the board.
So let’s have MRIMAN’s definition of the term he is using.