It is still a strange experience to see myself the topic of a blog somewhere. This one from @TSZ is no exception. Seems like there is some confusion to clear up.
I encourage a secular-confession society, where “secular” means “fair,” and “confessional” means “dignifying of self-disclosure.”
This is how Greg takes it.
Apparently, he means ‘non-confessional,’ since he actively pits ‘secular scientist’ over against ‘confessional scientist’ at ‘Peaceful Science.’
Swamidass’ chosen dichotomy may seem stark to some people, almost as a kind of ‘you’re with us or you’re against us’. Notably, it has achieved some success so far, mainly among natural scientists. In other words, you’re either with ‘mainstream science’ or you’re against it. Swamidass upholds ‘mainstream science,’ while at the same time promoting non-mainstream evangelical protestantism as a ‘confessionalist’ approach to the topic.
“The science we are putting forward here is solid. It does not require a religious point of view to accept. Even secular scientists endorse it.” – S. Joshua Swamidass
The devil is in the details when natural scientists write: “does not require.” This is the legacy Swamidass’ confused embrace of ‘methodological naturalism’ as if it were free from ideology.
Hopefully it is obvious that Greg is confused, and in fact he advertises this with a question in the title. So perhaps he knows he is confused. Reading some of the comments it seems others might have questions too.
The key point I want to make is that I am not pitting secular science against confessional science, and I have no idea what “confessional science” could possibly be any way. Rather I am saying that confession (by which I mean self-disclosure) is entirely consistent with “secular” science. Christians do not need a new version of science. Mainstream science works just fine. We can still disclose our personal beliefs alongside science, and this is accepted and even encouraged in secular science.
Secular science is pluralistic, including people from a large range of personal views. We include Atheists, Jews, Agnostics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, and everything else, and use a largely common set of rules to adjudicate evidence. That does not mean science is always correct, but secular science is fair in that it is not guided by any idiosyncratic agendas or claims.
I am a secular scientist, and I also confess my personal beliefs. My title “confessing scientist” does not pit itself in opposition to secular science, but is an expression of secular science’s best ideals.
Happy to take any additional questions here.
On this thread, please keep focus on understanding what I mean by these terms, not what they could mean or what others want them to mean.