Well please forgive me Josh. I wasn’t asking about the science or what you “know” but what you personally believe. I seem to recall some exchanges in Facebook groups like Answers to Answers in Genesis maybe (I forget exactly which one) where you said that a literal Adam and Eve was indeed you personal belief and that when asked about what a literal Tower of Babel you claimed that didn’t carry the same theological importance of a literal Adam and Eve. I have so many of these conversations with people it’s hard to keep track of who said what. I’ll go back and check exactly what you said to see where that misunderstanding came from.
And by a literal Adam and Eve I do mean real people in the past that appeared according to the Genesis narrative through divine fiat from nothing and I’m not asking what theologians think but rather what you believe. It’s good however to know now you don’t actually feel the need to personally believe in a literal Adam and Eve according to the Genesis narrative. I’ll go back to your Facebook posts and see where that confusion came from exactly.
Also this idea of both you and Jeanson agreeing that it is important to consider how scripture interacts with the evidence we find in nature is exactly the sort of thing I was getting at. I don’t see that this is important however and this is certainly a distinction I would make between my views and those of you and Jeanson.
Also Josh I disagree with the approach of not being a methodological naturalist in science and carving out a space in the science for a religious belief. I don’t think that’s how science works. I’m specifically referring to this interview with William Lane Craig, see starting at 36:10.
It’s fine we disagree on this stuff Josh. I don’t ascribe anything nefarious to what you are doing.
That agnosticism also includes the de novo creation of Adam and Eve.
That is a strange way of asking what I believe about them. I’m an Adam and Eve agnostic. So you are not going to get much specificity from me. I just don’t have strong beliefs here.
Be serious?
You certainly think this is important. You spend quite a bit of your free time telling YEC’s that the evidence contradicts their view of Scripture.
Great. I disagree with that approach too. Which means we do not disagree, but we agree…
In context, I misheard him as stating “metaphysical naturalist” and the specific people he was discussing think that “metaphysical naturalist = methodological naturalist.” So I misspoke.
I would disagree and say your personal beliefs are in fact important. You are positioning yourself as a spokesperson for how people of faith may reconcile their religious beliefs with the science, are you not?
I for example am more than happy to share my personal beliefs on these topics.
Again however if I misunderstood your previous Facebook posts on the issue of your religious beliefs regarding a historical Adam and Eve I apologize. These social media platforms are not great forums in general for clarity.
They are important, but not how you think. They don’t determine the conclusions of my science, but they give me very strong motivation to be honest about the evidence and reason to believe the best about those with whom I disagree, including both you and Jeanson.
I am not.
Plase do.
You did misunderstand, and I appreciate the apology.
I think you (and many others) perhaps understandably have an “immune reaction” to creationists, and somehow I triggered that immune reaction. It might, in this case, be best understood as auto-immune. I’m not your enemy.
So to be completely clear about what you said, you in fact do consider yourself a METHODOLOGICAL naturalist and misheard him. So then I wonder then why you followed up that by saying your book “makes space” for de novo creation of Adam and Eve if you were saying in fact you were NOT a “metaphysical” naturalist? Thanks again for your clarity on this and clearing up my confusion.
Well, I would never personalize it that way, but I think you understand.
I affirm methodological naturalism in scientific work, but I wouldn’t call myself a methodological naturalist. Likewise, I affirm evolutionary science, but I wouldn’t call myself an evolutionist.
From your point of view, that is likely a distinction without a difference, but how my language expresses identity is important to me.
Well metaphysical naturalism doesn’t make space for the miraculous.
The reasons this is important is that by making space for de novo creation, while following methodological naturalism, this really messes with the ID narrative. This shows they’ve really misdiagnosed the problem. It is not a problem with presuppositions, but with the way they are engaging the evidence.
Happy to do so. I agree that FB is horrible for this, which is one reason I maintain this forum.
For the record I’m fine calling myself an evolutionist. Mayr did it. Dobzhansky did it. Jerry Coyne has done it. It’s not a big deal. I’m not keen on letting creationists define terms for me.
Well, you’ve acted like I am. Putting me in the same category as Jeasnon is a pretty strong statement. It is not merely a disagreement with the approach. You’ve made far more expansive accusations and insults here.
I assume you mean ontological naturalism. I’ve heard what you are talking about called that (ala Pennock for example). I haven’t heard “metaphysical” naturalism. But thanks for the clarity.
I mean you in some ways put yourself in the same category as Jeanson. To find common ground with him on these subjects I think you have to be prepared to do that, if you want that common ground to be something more meaningful than you both like BBQ for example.
I’ve already identified two substantial points in science where you also share common ground with Jeanson. That does not put you in the same category as him, but it at least puts you in the same universe. That’s necessary to have an intelligible conversation.
I think you may need some perspective here Josh. I don’t agree with your approach to this stuff for a number of reasons we have gone back and forth on before. You have to be able to deal with that without painting someone as thinking of you as an “enemy”. You aren’t an enemy and I might add if I have between two people making space for their religious beliefs in science then of course it’s much easier for me to live with your approach to this than Jeanson’s. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything you are doing.
It isn’t clear you even have a good handle on what I’m doing or my approach. From my point of view, I’m taking those “disagreements” with an asterix. Maybe, as you learn more, you’ll have a harder time seeing any disagreements worth pressing like this.
We will see. That cuts both ways Josh. I mean Jeanson says this too. He always says people who criticize him don’t understand what he’s saying. I don’t think you are always taking the time to understand where I’m coming from either. I think your “immune response” criticism might easily cut the other way as well. So your criticism will receive it’s own asterisk if that’s what we are doing now.
Let’s not start reversing the narrative here. The only person accusing others of being an “enemy” was you, Herman. You basically said that Josh is really an enemy of science by saying that he only acts in a “friendly manner” to science for theological motivations.
Maybe you need to learn to not paint everyone who disagrees with your view about the proper relationship between religion and science to be an enemy of science.
