BioLogos Foundation (Christian)

[Alex]

http://biologos.org

The BioLogos Foundation explores, promotes and celebrates the integration of science and Christian faith.


BioLogos is most similar to Theistic Evolution. Theism is the belief in a God who cares for and interacts with creation. Theism is different than deism, which is the belief in a distant, uninvolved creator who is often little more than the sum total of the laws of physics. Theistic Evolution, therefore, is the belief that evolution is how God created life. Because the term evolution is sometimes associated with atheism, a better term for the belief in a God who chose to create the world by way of evolution is BioLogos. BioLogos comes from the Greek words bios (life) and logos (word), referring to the gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
http://biologos.org/questions/biologos-id-creationism/

[Alex]

http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-the-origin-of-biological-information-part-3-csi-on-steroids/

[Alex]

Christianity and Science in Historical Perspective, Part 1
http://biologos.org/blog/christianity-and-science-in-historical-perspective-part-1/

Christianity and Science in Historical Perspective, Part 2
http://biologos.org/blog/christianity-and-science-in-historical-perspective-part-2/

[Alex]

God and Creation, Part I: Transcendence
David Opderbeck
May 11, 2011
http://biologos.org/blog/god-and-creation-part-1-transcendence/

...But how do we know anything about God? And how can we say anything about God? As we go about our daily lives, we can’t converse with God in exactly the same way that we might talk with our families, friends or neighbors. We can’t touch or smell God like a patch of green grass or taste Him like an apple. We can’t see him like an image on our TV screens. In theological terms, there is a sense in which God is “hidden” to our human senses.  ...

...The very fact that God cannot be directly perceived by our ordinary human senses tells us something important about God and creation. God is “hidden” because He is “other.”  ...



Alex's comment:  I consider as key sentence in the article this: "God is hidden because He is other."  This marks the opposite attitudes of faith and science.  When something is not detected yet you have faith in it, you will offer explanations like "it is hidden because it is other."  Science, in contrast, simply and honestly admits "since it cannot be found, we have no ground to tell it exists or not."  Faith is gambling: "I have faith that heads (God) must turn up" upon tossing a coin (God exists or not).  Faith is superstitious: "though not detected, it must exist."  Science is honest.  Science says "don't know" if it does not know.

[Alex]

http://biologos.org/blog/god-and-creation-part-2-immanence/

[Alex]

I was wrong: BioLogos promotes Jesus, not evolution
by Jerry Coyne PhD
Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolution
University of Chicago
May 23, 2011
Why Evolution is True
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/i-was-wrong-biologos-promotes-jesus-not-evolution/

[Alex]

BioLogos and the June 2011 “Christianity Today” Editorial
June 6, 2011
http://biologos.org/blog/biologos-and-the-june-2011-christianity-today-editorial/

"...BioLogos does not take a position on the historicity of Adam and Eve..."

[Alex]

http://biologos.org/blog/authority-in-an-interdisciplinary-setting/

...By its very nature, BioLogos is interdisciplinary, intended to bring together at least two fields, science and religious faith, often considered to be entirely incompatible. ...

...The only real value of academic credentials to an assembly of individuals from such different intellectual fields, or from none, is to have the ability to express informed truth in a way that is understood by, and persuasive to, those outside one’s own discipline.

In the end if only specialists are qualified to decide the truth of propositions, those propositions aren’t particularly worth believing. Yet specialists are uniquely equipped to bring sufficient understanding of those propositions for ordinary people to make up their minds with some degree of confidence, and to learn in the process. This, however, has nothing to do with ones tenure of a University post or publication history, and everything to do with the human values and communication skills one picked up along the way. ...



Alex's comment:  "Ah ha, finally, someone is going to deal with the problem at the heart of BioLogos--the problem of authority," I thought to myself when I spotted the title. To my disappointment, this article talked about something else. For inter-disciplinary dialogues, as both sides are layman to each other, both sides have the responsibility to explain in layman terms their own discipline to the other side. The message of this article is as simple as that. Why need a full article to say this single sentence?

And this is not what I expect from the title. When we talk of authority, Christianity and science have very different, if not opposite, loci of authority. The Christian holds as highest authority a book allegedly "inspired" by an ancient warrior deity of a Middle East tribe. The scientist cannot accept this. For the scientist, "authority" is evidence obtained by observations and experiments. The modern Christian cannot object evidence obtained by observations and experiments. In the end, when the two are in dialogue, the common authority becomes evidence obtained by observations and experiments. That is science. BioLogos becomes Biology.

[Alex]

by Steven Benner
Distinguished Fellow
The Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution
Gainesville, FL.
http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/benner_scholarly_essay.pdf

[Alex]

A Response to Coyne (and Contemporary Atheists Generally)
Part 1: http://biologos.org/blog/a-response-to-coyne-and-contemporary-atheists-generally-part-1
Part 2: http://biologos.org/blog/a-response-to-coyne-and-contemporary-atheists-generally-part-2


Robert C. Bishop
Associate Professor of Physics and John and Madeleine McIntyre Professor of Philosophy and History of Science, Wheaton College, Illinois
member, American Physical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Scientific Affiliation, Philosophy of Science Association



Alex's comment to Part 1:

The central message of the author is that "Coyne's demand for evidence is based on a rather naive evidentialist epistemology from the 19th century that's not even adequate for scientific inquiry."

Oh, it seems that modern evidence-based medicine is based on mere "naive evidentialist epistemology from the 19th century."  What should we do with those advises from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which have been reached using this "naive" methodology?  And what to do with those images of our body obtained by "naive" CT/MRI/PET?

Theologians and philosophers can talk a lot, but I'm sure they all trust "naive evidentialist epistemology from the 19th century" medicine when it comes to their own lives.

And actions are louder than words.  But then you know what hypocrisy is.



Alex's comment to Part 2:

Okay, the method of objectification can never be perfect, always under the influence of multiple non-objective factors including meanings, relationships, concerns, values, background knowledge, cultural ideals, and assumptions.  And we should give serious consideration to the nature of the subject of our inquiry and to what are the appropriate approaches for engaging it accurately.  And there are multiple ways of knowing and we seem to know how to use these ways for various kinds of questions and concerns we have.

I would like to ask for a demonstration of application to a practical question that other responses here have already raised:

How to determine whether to believe in astrology and Islam/Allah?

What “ways of knowing” to use and how to use them for this specific question?  For example, how to “know Allah as a subject” (as suggested by a response here)?  The basic question is (echoing glocke01): Is there a method more reliable than the method of objectification?  If not, we must use the method of objectification (with full awareness of its presuppositions), not because it is perfect (it certainly isn’t), but simply because we don’t have a more reliable method to use.  Testimonies (as suggested by another response) are plenty for astrology (needless to say Islam/Allah).  Sure, we have “non-objectification” feelings of love and appreciation of arts etc but these couldn’t help answer my practical question above.

[Alex]

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Summing Up
June 14, 2011
Pete Enns
Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation
http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-our-theological-traditions-summing-up

[Alex]

A comment suggested this good parable:

Philosophical sausages
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/philosophical-sausages/

[Alex]

http://biologos.org/blog/science-faith-and-the-chicago-statement-on-biblical-inerrancy

[Alex]

http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-the-deep-resonances-between-science-and-theology-part-1

[Alex]

The Christian Revolution
July 4, 2011
Matt J. Rossano
http://biologos.org/blog/the-christian-revolution

...Into this stilted milieu, Christianity pronounced a message as radical as it was attractive: That all humans were created in the image of the one God and therefore had intrinsic value undefiled by social circumstance. Furthermore, this one God was a God of infinite love who sacrificed his only son to provide salvation to all of unworthy humanity. Therefore, Christians were divinely mandated to extend charity and compassion to the weak and lowly.  ...

...Without divine justification, upon what rational basis do we sustain a belief in individual human value? Surveying the bloody history of 20th century atrocities -- all far more secularly-inspired than religious -- Hart concludes that individual value has declined since the days of Christendom not increased. Furthermore, an alarming number of scientists, philosophers and ethicists are embracing a form of modern eugenics wherein "rationally dispensed" medical treatment, selective abortion, parental infanticide and genetic engineering are morally defended in order "improve" the human condition. The superficial garb may be modern, but the mentality has an ancient vintage.

We may have only a limited number of ways of envisioning human value. If not the Christian vision of inherent individual value based on Imago Dei, then what? Does modern secularism have the ethical tools or even the desire to ensure individual worth or is a return to a ruthless pagan practicality the only other option?



Alex's comment:

We might ask one question further:

What within Judeo-Christianity has revolutionized the status of human beings?

Lifting the status of humanity to "image of God" might have sowed the distant seed of Humanism—the affirmation of the inherent worth and dignity of every human individual.

By standing on the side of the poor and the oppressed, Jesus affirmed again the inherent worth of each human individual, regardless of his/her social status.  

Modern Humanism* has cracked open the superstitious outer shell of Christianity, putting aside all fairy-tale supernaturalism including the problematic, sometimes even blood-thirsty, personified God of the Bible, and preserves the pearl inside—value each human individual.

So we modern people shall cherish Humanism, the pearl of Christianity.

This non-theistic post-Christian epoch, with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, has not trashed Christianity, but is holding dear her pearl instead.

*Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.
IHEU Minimum Statement on Humanism
http://www.iheu.org/minimum_statement.html

[Alex]

http://biologos.org/blog/are-infinities-more-scientific-than-god



Alex's comment:

"The spirit of inquiry animates science. That spirit is equally violated whether we stop asking questions out of fear that God might be the answer or we stop out of fear that God might not be the answer. Just keep asking questions and follow honestly where the argument leads."

This is the conclusion and main message of this article.  I fully agree with it.  It invites all believers to step back from their beliefs, switch to unbelief or skepticism, and keep asking questions.

[Alex]

http://biologos.org/blog/life-in-an-expanding-universe



Alex's comment:  

Juxtaposition of Mark Sprinkle (author of this blog entry) with Pattiann Rogers (the quoted poet) demonstrates the sad contamination of pure adoration of Nature's beauty (of Rogers) by the superstitious narrow-minded Judeo-Christian brand of theism (of Sprinkle).

Pure reverence to the wonders of Nature with religious depth (without resorting to superstition) is Religious Naturalism: http://faculty.uml.edu/rinnis/2000_stone_2_1.pdf

[Alex]

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI)
http://biologos.org/blog/science-faith-and-the-chicago-statement-on-biblical-inerrancy

by Pete Enns, Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation

Today I am beginning a new series in which I take a look in detail at two influential Evangelical statements on Scripture: the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (CSBH).

These statements were composed by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, founded in 1977 to articulate and defend inerrancy. This group eventually composed three statements: CSBI in 1978, CSBH in 1982 and a third statement that for our purposes adds little, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Application in 1986.

These statements were written at a time when numerous influential Evangelical leaders were growing concerned that the church's doctrine of inerrancy (at least how they understood it) was coming under increasing attack both from within and from outside of Evangelicalism. In many respects, these papers were a galvanizing moment in the Evangelical tradition and for many they still represent the best of Evangelical thinking on Scripture. Also, the three-day summits that produced these documents boasted roughly 300 participants from various Evangelical traditions, and so represent somewhat of a cross-section of the evangelical community.

Over the past thirty years, CSBI and CSBH have been both praised for their lucidity and balance and strongly criticized for their obscurity and theological parochialism. My series is not intended to join that fray, but I do want to focus on the impact of these statements on the science/faith discussion—and as I see it, for that discussion, the impact has been largely counterproductive. ...

[Alex]

http://biologos.org/blog/is-the-bible-historically-and-scientifically-infallible-and-inerrant

[Alex]

http://biologos.org/blog/what-happens-in-inspiration-csbi-articles-vii-and-viii