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.
2 Likes