Continuing the discussion from Who Sponsors Peaceful Science?:
A fairly important distinction has been raised that I think is valuable. It seems that our resident atheist @Patrick and I both share a similar view of how operate, with disagreements in the public square on faith and science. I think this important to call out for several very practical reasons.
First, I agree with the distinctions being made here. Clearly making these distinctions are part of what can help bring about Peaceful Science. The fact that our resident “militant” atheist and I (a openly confessing scientist) both agree on this should be a indicator that there should emphasize the value of this point.
Second, making this clear is immensely important to students who are listening in. Not knowing the rules, it can just be frightening, not knowing what is allowed and not. Clearly laying out the rules, however, can give confidence about how we can talk about deeply held values, with calling down others who disagree with us against us.
Let me put a few quote out:
So, the way I would summarize with this:
-
We all as private individuals can publicly talk about our religious views, including how we see scientific findings in light of our religious beliefs, and including confessing belief in miracles like the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth and de novo Adam.
-
We cannot as representatives of science and-or science claim to be speaking with the authority of science, or using public funds, to make religious claims such as these.
-
Given that we have multiple roles as Christians (or atheists) in science, that are also private citizens, there is value in being up front clear on what we are saying by scientific authority, what we think should be put into policy, and what is our personal (or collective) understanding from a religious point of view.
For that reason,@patrick…
-
greatly appreciated (1) my Forum Disclaimer, and (2) clarification about funding: Who Sponsors Peaceful Science?
-
had no problem about me explaining there is “no evidence against a de novo Adam” as long as I’m clarifying (as I do) that any de novo creation event is not a scientific claim (and it is not).
-
was opposed to Collins attending the BioLogos conference, advertised as the NIH director, as if the NIH was endorsing TE as a religious belief, and potentially using government funds
-
had no problem with Collins going to said conference as a private citizen, even though he was the NIH director at the time.
-
was upset by Deb Haarsma’s declaration on God and the multiverse, The Multiverse and God, perhaps because he read this as a pronouncement being made with scientific authority.
-
would have been okay with Deb Haarsma’s article if she had clearly separated what science was telling us, from how she a private citizen would understand this from a Christian point of view. Such a distinction between what “science says” and “what Christians might think about it” is very helpful to make clear, and cannot be left tacit without increasing anxiety by others.
-
would also have similar objections to atheists not making these distinctions clear between their atheistic beliefs, and the a neutral view of science.
-
has similar frustration with BioLogos and other creationist groups (e.g. ID, YEC, and OEC) because they can be similarly squishy on these lines.
I think I have that right, and would just add that this is exactly how I also have navigated being an openly confessing scientist, as an untenured scientists. I’ve found that my colleagues have no problem with this, because I am (1) not misrepresenting science, (2) improving understanding and trust of science in difficult to reach groups, and (3) not claiming scientific authority to promote my personal beliefs. Now I’m getting tenured, but nothing about how I speak about this publicly is going to change.
Of course, I can speak from multiple perspectives at the same time (as a scientist, and as a private citizen), in the same talk, as long as I am 100% clear about whose authority I am speaking by at each oing, and being sure not to misuse my authority as a scientist to promote a personal belief. Being very careful not to cross this line, and clarifying publicly when ever there has been confusion, has kept people from being angry with me. I’m following the rules here.
I am okay with this because the rules are fair. Neutrality is the culture of science, and it promotes neutrality on religious matters so science can be a place of common ground. Following these rules, also, is a place of common ground with my colleagues.
That is why, even @patrick says…