Comments on The BioLogos Statement on Adam and Eve

[Jonathan_Burke]

@dga471

It’s good that we now agree that what Josh has done is a scientific/theological (whatever you would call it) advance in the North American world.

I said “within a narrow North American theological spectrum”, not “in the North American world”.

@dga471

People arrive on their epistemology in different ways. Consistency with mainstream science could be one thing, but not the only one.

Yes. Some people don’t care about reality, they just care about what they prefer to believe. For them, consistency with mainstream science is unnecessary.

@dga471

By its very nature, it is difficult to directly compare epistemologies and say which one is “valid”, other than, say, bare logical consistency. What is the criteria by which we determine an epistemology is valid?

That depends on what you think the purpose of an epistemology is. If you think the purpose of an epistemology is to enable you to justify the way you prefer to see the world, then the only criterion for a valid epistemology will be if it produces results which do that. If you think the purpose of an epistemology is to arrive at facts and create an accurate model of reality, you use the kind of criteria I mentioned previously.

@dga471

And nobody is suggesting that PS endorses arbitrarily changing epistemologies from day to day.

I didn’t say that PS endorses this.

@dga471

One can still hold to one’s epistemology while being willing to put yourself momentarily in your interlocutor’s shoes, in order to be able to communicate with them and get towards something productive.

Of course you can. I am not contesting this.

@dga471

Frankly, I don’t think the most pressing matter is to make sure that the TE, ID, YEC, OEC camps all resolve their disagreements and adopt the same epistemology.

It might not be the most pressing, but it should be considered one of the most pressing.

@dga471

It’s better that the church can talk about these issues in a civil, loving and productive manner.

It’s better for the church to speak truth than to encourage falsehoods.

@dga471

This is quite shocking coming from a Christian.

Why? Do you look to most theologians in order to gain information about reality? In your physics studies, do you consult theological commentaries or physics papers most frequently?

@dga471

What do you mean by reality? These are not just word games.

Yeah they are.

@dga471

I genuinely don’t understand how you can be a Christian and yet claim that theologians don’t know much about reality.

I did not say theologians don’t know much about reality. Please read what I wrote.

@dga471

Is God not part of reality?

Yes. So what?

@dga471

Even if we agree that science can’t prove the existence of God, we can still talk about philosophical arguments for the existence of God, the nature of God, how God could act in the world, and so on.

I agree.

@dga471

You don’t need to remind a physicist on the importance of the Scientific Revolution.

But you sound like the kind of physicist who will turn around and say “Of course we physicists are just big sillies playing with numbers (and what are numbers? we still don’t even know!), we don’t really know much about reality, we have all our fancy ideas and such, but we don’t really know if they’re true and we have no way of knowing, so we can’t say for example that YECs are wrong, they might be more right than we are!”. You sound like the kind of physicist who thinks we don’t even know what reality is.

@dga471

Although I do have to remind you that the history of the Copernican and Galilean controversies were not as clear cut as many scientists tend to portray them.

Yes, we agree on that.

@dga471

While I acknowledge that the scientific revolution was an advance (such that I’m willing to dedicate a decade of my life studying physics), I also acknowledge that there is much, much more to Christian theology than what Bacon, Galileo, or Newton had to say about the subject.

Yes. But I’m talking about science. Let the theologians do theology, and let the scientists do science. We’ve had 1800 years of theologians doing theology and calling it science, while opposing actual science, and it has been a disaster. There are people out there who still believe demons make people sick, and witches turn people into goats. Thanks theologians!

@dga471

There needs to be respectful and careful dialogue between scientists and theologians, and it seems at the moment that the approach here at PS has potential to do things that the Biologos approach can’t.

I think the Biologos approach has the correct balance; let the scientists do science, and let the theologians do theology. I think the people who don’t like scientists find Peaceful Science a more comfortable place because Peaceful Science doesn’t require them to accept science or integrate it into their theology. Peaceful Science can give them reasons to accept their theology while rejecting science they don’t like.