Two Rooms in the Forum?

[sfmatheson]

@Patrick

Isn’t Peaceful Science a place to discuss science? I thought the whole purpose for PS was for Christians and non-Christians to discuss science free of religious dogma and doctrine with scientific experts in all fields of science.

I would suggest that there are two different topics here, at least that’s what it looks like to me.

One topic is about the mission and values of Peaceful Science. @swamidass and his team have been working on setting and clarifying those things, and have made significant changes on the forum to solve some problems but also to better align the forum with those values. They are discussed here:

Our Mission and Values

[image] This post is particularly important for forum participants to read (@trust_level_2) . @Moderators are currently discussing several large changes to the forum to bring it inline with our mission and values. Some of these details will be made public soon, with a request for comment. In the meantime, we welcome questions and comments on this mission and set of values: Our Mission Peaceful Science ’s mission is to advance a civic practice of science… …by seeking dialogue in discord and understanding across disagreements, …by fostering interdisciplinary scholarship engaged with science and the public, and …by encouraging conversation around the grand question: what does it mean to be human? Trust, Questions, and Virtues We are “peaceful” in that we seek in peace in areas of controversy, where different views are held and these differences matter. For this reason, we expect to encounter conflict. We navigate discord by building trust across disagreement, taking questions …

At one point, Joshua is explicit about the non-religious nature of the core mission of Peaceful Science. That’s here:

Our Mission and Values

These are good questions @Michelle, and I am sure they are on several people’s minds. That is very much the case. Our aim is to bring science into legitimate dialogue with other fields and other perspectives, in a way that serves the common good. There is quite a bit on the blog about how my personal faith perspective informs the mission of the organization, but the organization itself is bigger than my personal point of view. Though I am a Christian, and can motivate these values from my understanding of Jesus, I can also motivate them from a secular point of view. Several non-religious scientists (e.g. @Dan_Eastwood, @T_aquaticus, @davecarlson, @evograd, @nlents and @sfmatheson) are closely aligned with our values, even though they are not Christian, and Peaceful Science intends to include them as equal participants. Yes, and there is in some ways already. Clearly, it is visible in The Genealogical Adam and Eve. But also… One of the misconceptions about Peaceful Science i…

The other topic is the goals/nature/values/mission of the forum. It seems to me that some in this conversation are equating the forum with Peaceful Science. It’s a common mistake–for example, people regularly talk about what BioLogos “thinks” about something after they read a comment on the open forum there. I am sure the PS team wants the forum to align with the organization’s mission and values, and again, that seems to have motivated some significant recent changes. But, at least in my opinion, the forum and Peaceful Science should not be equated.

This can help us a lot, I think. It can mean that opinions about the value of theology or the utility of debates about god’s existence need not be judged “off mission” but also cannot be defined as the mission (or even a primary mission) of the forum. First, because the mission of PS is pretty explicitly NOT centered on Christianity or even on religion. Second, because the forum is not itself Peaceful Science. It’s a forum hosted by and aligned with Peaceful Science.

Disclaimer: I don’t speak for @swamidass or in any way for Peaceful Science, and my impressions are my own and may very well misrepresent what the Peaceful Science team intends or wants.