Miraculous special creation is not science.
I’m not following what you mean. Are you saying that @swamidass’ views offend you less because he is not affirming science?
Okay… but how about the science part of the scenario that he is affirming? He is actually mixing religion with science much more egregiously than most anyone in the BioLogos camp.
Many BioLogos supporters think God does everything by natural processes … even things that most people think are purely miraculous contravention of natural law.
@swamidass doesn’t hold back in such a way. He plunges right in to say that both could be happening all the time, throughout time.
Hey, is it my imagination, Patrick? Or is it starting to get hot in here?
Dr Swamidass views don’t offend me at all. I find him to be an honorable man. What I know about his work in the sciences has the potential (or perhaps already is) to help a lot of people. He has my admiration for that. His purpose is to improve lives through scientific understanding of diseases and ultimately help people.
For the record, if we are going to address Joshua as Dr. Swamidass in this forum, I request to be addressed as Dr. Trischitta.
Are PhD's "Doctors"?
When you say things like this, knowing that others disagree with & reject that label, as you pick it up off the floor & brimming with intellectual pride stick it on them, do you know that you dishonour yourself by not honouring our request to speak in our chosen language? And in doing so, do you realise that your position and status in the discourse, as a participant, shifts in peoples eyes, for the very reason that you dishonour yourself by calling ALL TE ‘creationism’? It is not like saying such things makes you much less than a villain here, @Patrick. Do you recognise that?
If you are not interested in being made aware of such things, it would be best to leave because this is obviously a site you would prefer to disrupt, simply because of your ‘belief’ in, as you call it, ‘militant atheism’, than have any intention to contribute to fruitfully. If I am wrong, please answer: what do you consider ‘militant’ about your brand of atheism?
I am not aware there are any ‘militant’ Christians here, militantly advancing theocracy as an atheist boogie man whispering in your ear might have it.
It is a fine line between respected & valuable critic & odious disturber of the peace. The timing of the recent rows at this Forum have come, it is not difficult to locate on the timeline, coinciding with the first atheist arrival (the one that as a side note asked, “Who sponsors this place?” without a hint of humility or respect in address). I don’t see UU as a ‘problem’ for the board, it is just the volume disproportion of the other ‘non-mainstream’ voice at early stages of this site that is causing tension.
This site needs more of @jongarvey, @vjtorley, @Agauger & @paulnelson . IMHO, it needs a buffer against the deadly nihilism of @Patrick, who at least to me appears incorrigible in his pride & atheism. Now he wants to be called Dr. Enemy. It’s up to Joshua & his moderator team to find the navigating solution. Good wishes cleaning it up here already!
Dr. Trischitta, so it doesn’t bother you that Dr. Swamidass is intentionally mixing religious and scientific ideas in his development of historical scenarios? This is something that many BioLogos supporters are loath to do … and you, fact, state that it should not be done.
It seems to me, you are just switching on and off your inclination to be offended, depending on whether you are discussing a group that has banned you from the discussion pages, or whether you are discussing the group that allows you to post on its discussion pages.
If there were a third group, that also mixed religion with science … how would any of us know whether you were going to be offended or not offended?
Typo: the spelling of your name has been corrected. I usually don’t have to worry about spelling when I using login names that are either “nome de plumes” or surnames already.
You are offended because I label TE as creationism? Don’t you use such terms as Evolutionary Creation (EC) too describe how God created the universe. How is that not creationism? And how is that science?
Dr. Trischitta, what I don’t understand is the effort to divorce Christianity from rational consideration and the sciences merely by insisting on a category exclusion, viz. faith is not allowed to inform one’s science, and science is not allowed to inform one’s faith. That’s simple prejudice, in my view. So surely, you’ll understand why virtually everybody here will continue to disagree with you on this point. Glad to have you here, though, to bird-dog the scientific assertions; the other will just continue to fall on deaf ears. Atheism has, by the way, a really crappy track record of leading to better societies and human behavior, as history has shown us. Just sayin’…
Please spell my name correctly. And Patrick really is just fine in conversation. Dr. Swamidass (and everyone else) are free to profess their faith (or non-faith) in any way that they like. But don’t mix it up or confuse it with science. Science is neutral on matters of faith/religion. The site is called Peaceful Science not Peaceful Science/Religion.
Guy, please call me Patrick as I find the trotting out of academic credentials stuffy. Since we all agree that science is neutral on matter of faith/religion, why force compatibility?
Please don’t go down that path as it always ends up talking about Hilter, Stalin and Mao… I am not here in the name of Atheism. I am here for the purpose of truth in science. And how science and reason can be used to help people. Would you fell better if I say that I am a Cultural Catholic, or an ex-Catholic? Would my discussion of science be more palatable?
Don’t you mean: "I am here for the purpose of explaining “truth in science, and not in faith.” < ?
I am a long way from deadly nihilism. I live a life with purpose and meaning and am very hopeful on the future. I am very optimistic that my children and grandchildren will live even better lives with purpose and meaning. I believe that people’s lives can be made better through science and reasoning.
I don’t have a faith. I feel that I think more clearly without it. That’s been true for me. Live your life how you feel most comfortable with. Be happy, George - you’re alive.
You take positions against organizations like BioLogos mixing science with religion. I’m discussing this same dimension of activity here on this list.
You encouraging me to pursue my personal interests regarding my personal life doesn’t seem to be anything like what you are worried about, right?
Can you flatly state that you are fine with @swamidass and his volunteers mixing science and religion in public venues, affecting public policy in America as well?
The Rules of the Game
Yes, I am fine with Dr. Swamidass and his volunteers mixing science and religion in public venues. What I am not fine with is US Government officials mixing science and religion in setting US policy. And that goes for secular educational institutions as well. Keeping government and religion separate is a requirement of the First Amendment of the godless US Constitution.
For example I am fine with Dr. Francis Collins, eminent scientist and researcher, writing books and talking about science and his faith, and creating Christian initiatives like Biologos.
What I am not fine about, is the Director of the National Institute of Health (NIH) Francis Collins mixing science and religion in setting of US policy on health. Dr. Collins has been exemplary in this regard and should be a model to Dr. Swamidass on how a Christian can run a US Government organization that must remain secular.
The Rules of the Game
I would like to think that virtually all the supporters of @swamidass’ work are in full agreement with you in this matter.
But how, then, is PeacefulScience.Org the recipient of your blessings, while BioLogos.Org (which also opposes science and religion being mixed by US Government officials) does not enjoy your blessings?
Everything you’ve described as acceptable to you seems to be even more true of BioLogos. Can you explain this distinction you are making?
So, really, BioLogos is exemplary (except, perhaps, in their treatment of some Atheist commentators), and that BioLogos provides a model for how influential men and women can continue to explore religious ideas without trying to impose religious ideas on branches of American government and/or to US government policies.
Edit: the reference in the sentence above, to the “American public”, was in error. The wording has been revised.
I don’t have any objections to general views along these lines.
Here I will make it easy for you:
Mixing of Science/Faith okay for Joshua Swamidass, father, husband, son, Christian, private citizen.
Mixing of Science/Faith not okay for Dr. Swamidass, science faculty member in secular educational institution receiving government funding.
But that is for Joshua to work out. If he can walk that fine line as Dr. Collins has and is doing, he will get no grief from me…
The Rules of the Game
I don’t think anyone has ever suggested that anybody at BioLogos or PeacefulScience has attempted to do such things. Both entities are on record for opposing such matters.
It’s good to see that we can work out your views and discover that both groups are very difficult to distinguish in a way that would justify opposition to one, and encouragement of another - - especially when you have already posted your opposition to a number of @swamidass’ views purely on the matter of religious views of Creation of life in Earth’s prehistory.
Biologos is NOT exemplary in how they treat people with opposing views.