Three Views of Creation I Accept As Possibile

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Charles_Miller

explained terminology enough, George. You must only read Korean!

I believe, @Charles_Miller, you explained all sorts of terms except the actual term I asked you about.

I repeated my request so that readers could tell we were STILL talking about the same words.

[Charles_Miller (Charles Edward Miller)]

I do not have to repeat anything, George. I was quite clear with what I meant. Stop contacting me.

@swamidass

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@gbrooks9

My point was that Theology has the capacity to embrace the entire Cosmos… if a holy book requires it.

@gbrooks9

This refers to Christians attempting to put God’s design within the scope of Science.

@Patrick

Christians (or any other theist) shouldn’t attempt to put God’s design within the scope of science, then it wouldn’t be science anymore.

@Patrick

I think this is likely to fail… and more importantly, it is not an important question to answer in order to champion the idea that God uses Special Creation AND Evolution to create Earth’s living things!

A pointless hypothesis that can’t be proven or disproven.

I’m missing this dialogue. Don’t you both agree on this? I’m just confused how two people who (1) affirm evolution, (2) reject ID from science, can end up disagreeing on so much. It is almost like you are talking two different languages. Do you see how much you have in common?

[Patrick]

@swamidass

I’m missing this dialogue. Don’t you both agree on this? I’m just confused how two people who (1) affirm evolution, (2) reject ID from science, can end up disagreeing on so much. It is almost like you are talking two different languages. Do you see how much you have in common?

I think I have a solution. If George would say up front that “if the God hypothesis is true then …” If he says this instead of making unproven declarations like God does this and God does that, we can be doing Peaceful Science.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

I think I have a solution. If Goerge would say up front that “if the God hypothesis is true then …” If he says this instead of making unprovable declarations like God does this and God does that. we can be doing Peaceful Science.

When he says things like this, why is that a problem then? He only means that in theology. If you ask him, he will agree with it. If it is not clear, you could just say…“to be clear, I can accept that as a theological statement, but not within science.” He would say, “well of course patrick!”, and you’d move one. Right?

The thing is that I think you both agree that

1. the theology should be kept separate from the science.
2. the science should be explained as neutrally as possible.
3. there is space to explain what we think about the theology (atheism or special creation or whatever).
4. you, in fact, disagree on the particulars of #3.

It seems like when ever #3 happens, both doubt the other is following the rules on #1. When not just clarify the part you think is outside science? Frankly, you will both be agreeing in this case.

Am I missing something here?

[Patrick]

@swamidass

When he says things like this, why is that a problem then? He only means that in theology. If you ask him, he will agree with it. If it is not clear, you could just say…“to be clear, I can accept that as a theological statement, but not within science.” He would say, “well of course patrick!”, and you’d move one. Right?

The thing is that I think you both agree that

1. the theology should be kept separate from the science.
2. the science should be explained as neutrally as possible.
3. there is space to explain what we think about the theology (atheism or special creation or whatever).
4. you, in fact, disagree on the particulars of #3.

It seems like when ever #3 happens, both doubt the other is following the rules on #1. When not just clarify the part you think is outside science? Frankly, you will both be agreeing in this case.

Am I missing something here?

Yes, I could agree with this if George can accept my atheism as an equal to his theism. In other words, he gets no special privilege that his theism is better, more correct, more moral, more right, more ethical than my atheism.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

Yes, I could agree with this if George can accept my atheism as an equal to his theism. In other words, he gets no special privilege that his theism is better, more correct, more moral, more right, more ethical than my atheism.

Equal in what sense? You both can disagree on this, right? When not have the standard being that you can both tolerate each other and work to understand each other and clarify each other to others overstatements are accidentally made?

For example, I’ve been watching @Michael_Callen do this really effectively. It seems possible.

[Patrick]

@swamidass

Equal in what sense? You both can disagree on this, right? When not have the standard being that you can both tolerate each other and work to understand each other and clarify each other to others overstatements are accidentally made?

For example, I’ve been watching @Michael_Callen do this really effectively. It seems possible.

I get the feeling from George that non-theism is offensive to him personally. That a person can’t really be a moral, ethical, atheist. An atheist shouldn’t be allow to mingle with Christians as we might spread our atheism to the on the fence Theists that might come by here.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

I get the feeling from George that non-theism is offensive to him personally. That a person can’t really be a moral, ethical, atheist. An atheist shouldn’t be allow to mingle with Christians as we might spread our atheism to the on the fence Theists that might come by here.

I suppose I am a more confident Christian. It is just as likely the “infection” will spread the other way .

If he think that atheists cannot be ethical and moral, he is wrong. If that is the case, just prove him wrong by outdoing him kindness.

I’m not sure that is the case though. I think it seems more that he is afraid that if we associate with you, we will loose trust with creationists. Perhaps it is like a guilt by association. It is probably analogous to your protests when I treat ID leaders kindly, and let them contribute here, and your fear I’ll get attacked by scientists for this. Honestly, there maybe truth in both your protests. There is danger to some goals for each of these associations. But I am seeking peace, and seeking peace is dangerous.

I think both of you want Peaceful Science to be successful, and both have a rightful place and role here. You are going to be disagreeing on a lot, but I am hoping we can articulate enough common ground and establish enough patterns that we can build from common ground. Maybe we do not need to be at odds?

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@swamidass

I think both of you want Peaceful Science to be successful, and both have a rightful place and role here.

But @swamidass, he doesnt. He has already AVOWED his opposition…

He did it because he doesn’t even understand how his AVOWED opposition affects anyone else in the world.

[Charles_Miller (Charles Edward Miller)]

Why do you and Patrick have to fight all the time? George, Why did you have to fight against me on Biologos. Just get along and work for a common cause without fighting all the time. If you are not both going to do that, do not reply to me.

[Charles_Miller (Charles Edward Miller)]

What you believe does not make it right, George.

[Charles_Miller (Charles Edward Miller)]

George, I surely admit. You are frantic. Why can’t you stop being so? Stop attacking the people here and whether you agree with them or not, be kind and friendly to people. Does anyone agree with me?