Excellent post and of course the thorny questions this throws up for us.
I wrote a little piece on the difficulties if traversing the “middle ground” in relation to this BioLogos controversy, if I may be so bold as to link to it:
P Z Myers & Phil Johnson still putting the boot in to BioLogos

“Is there any intrinsic value toward seeking a middle ground…?” In so many contexts today, the middle ground/third way has become an effective and very overused rhetorical device. (Think of those boilerplate Obama speeches.) It resonates with certain people at a deep level. It gives the holder of the middle ground an aura of standing on the high ground. I agree with RJS, there is no intrinsic value in being in the middle. But there are many who seem to instinctively think that it does. And others who instinctively think that the middle ground is for those who are wishy-washy, people-pleasing compromisers. I think that some personality types automatically gravitate toward a center, whereas others gravitate toward polar extremes. Those who sit far apart at different ideological extremes are often more similar than they realize.

Hi, here is an indirect answer to your question for discussion about middle ground. Have any of you read any of the generational work by Strauss and Howe? The baby boomer generation in their view is/was a highly idealist generation ? as well as narcissist, at least in young adulthood. It struck me the other day that the reason why our society has become so intensely partisan and polarized is that a generation of ?take no prisoners? moved into power in the late 90s and early part of the 21st century. The elders of our society (and I am one) are extremists and idealists. The pragmatic, bridge building ?silent? generation is passing away.
There no longer is a tenable middle ground on anything.
This remind me of the poem, The Second Coming, by Yeats.
TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
By-the-way, I agree with all of your propositional points. I guess there is information we still don?t have ? chalk it up to limited information and divine mystery.

I think I tend to be one of those middle-ground people. I used to think that one of the positive attributes of my personality was that I could generally see both sides of an argument well and could argue for or against either side. But as I’ve grown older I tend to view that personality trait as more of a curse. I’ve studied the YEC/OEC/TE debate, off and on, for most of my life. As a scientist I feel like I ought to engage in the discussion, even if for my own benefit, and yet, I still have no real convictions on which way to go. The lack of depth of conviction is very troubling to me.
On the other hand (of course, since I’m a middle of the road’er), time and time again when I look at issues the truth seems to be found somewhere in the middle. So much of life seems to be a balance of extremes.
For now I feel about the only thing I can say for sure is :
“I am convinced of the truth of the essence of the orthodox Christian faith”
So I continue to press on, trying to find more conviction and try to be less wishy-washy. This site is certainly invaluable in that pursuit.
captcha: make weary (no kidding)

I had similar experiences as JHM (“I used to think that one of the positive attributes of my personality was that I could generally see both sides of an argument well…”)
More and more I adhere to Keith Drury’s guidelines: Some things believed are written in pencil, some in pen, and some in blood.

Many folks, including myself, grew up with the idea that the theory of evolution was a direct target at the concept of God. Therefore, we (at least I and others in my experience) felt it necessary to defend young earth creationism with a sort of fervor that comes only in a passionately fought battle.
When I recognized that fear was one of the primary motivating factors in my approach, I realized that this fear said something about my belief in God. The question I asked myself eventually was – if somehow I found out this (evolution, etc.) is true, would I still trust God and His Word? Is it possible for me to take the scriptures seriously if God indeed used evolution to create the world? Much of my approach had been rooted in the idea that I had to defend God – so my personal belief or understanding of God did change. God became bigger to me when I left open the possibility that He could both use evolution as means for creation, as well as give us trustworthy scriptures. I have thus far felt less of a need to know the details and more trust in God who is much bigger than I can comprehend. This plays out for me in daily life as I continue to attempt to let go of fear and trust God with the “smaller” things, as well. Letting go of the battle (as I was fighting it internally) had very practical implications for the way I relate to God and other people.
I do not assume that everyone who holds to a young earth view (or scientific naturalism, for that matter) is motivated by fear, as I was. But it seems that without space in the middle to question and consider other views, I would have felt that my choice was simply between God and science. Then I would be stuck having to continue the good (God) vs. evil (science) mentality…with implications for many aspects of life. The middle ground may not have intrinsic value, but middle ground, as a space for questions, listening and considering motivation, does.

I am convinced that scientific naturalism, the position that the material universe described by the laws of chemistry and physics is the whole story, is an untenable position. It conflicts with the intrinsic evidence in the very core of our being. It is difficult to reconcile with the nature of the human mind.

One must be careful to avoid what Daniel Dennett calls “The Philosopher’s Syndrome” – “Mistaking a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity.” My own inclination is to avoid committing what I call Haldane’s Error.
After reading up on neurology (Oliver Sacks is a neurologist who writes like he swallowed a poet, BTW – check out his “The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat”) I find the idea that minds are fundamentally natural less daunting. It’s still puzzling how it works, but then, lightning and genetics were quite puzzling once, too.

My understanding of Grace is that there is room for both ends of the spectrum including the middle. Sometimes one feels the need to visit the middle to begin their journey toward which ever end it may lead them to.
1Co 9:19-22 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. ? I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

I’d like to thank you for opening a civil discussion on this topic.
In the end though, the question is a religious one, and not a scientific one at all. You have come to the conclusion that you don’t need to read the Bible as a history text, a physics text, or a biology text. This has been the case for many Christian denominations for over a century.

RJS,
Overall I respect your position, given that the existence of your faith is not an option for you (note: this is in direct contradiction to your claim that ‘truth’ is your primary focus)
It seems to me that a lot fewer people would justify their faith by pointing to their psyche, if people weren’t so sheltered from nature, from non-human animals. So many have convinced themselves that they are indeed gods, the immortal children of the one most powerful god… but if we were closer with nature I think this *extreme* attitude would be tempered. And yes, I see it as an attitude.

@Ray Ingles:
I agree that reading about odd cases of the brain-gone-wrong really does help put the human mind into perspective. Its fallibility, and more importantly, the way it can fail is very revealing about the nature of the mind.

I like the idea of looking “with” tradition. I have spoken of tradition as an integral part of the conversation, just as our fellow Christians at home and abroad play a significant role as well. However, in the case of traditions they guide us by revealing what has stood the test of time and runs as a thread throughout all of Christian history. Therein we can find the bedrock of our faith.

Ray and A Greenhill,
The first conviction I’ve listed is certainly one worth continuing discussion. I don’t expect you or some of the other regular commenters here to affirm it. But it isn’t an affirmation of something “on faith,” it is a conviction I’ve reached after a great deal of (still continuing) thought, reading, and conversation.
In this sense it is part of my search for truth – and a result of this search.

I, too, find the elevation of “middle-ground” an overused and frequently unhelpful metaphor. It is frequently a power play by those who claim to occupy it.
However, I will say that there are couple of ways of seeing the middle-ground. Usually it is meant to convey that compromise has been reached between two camps where each side has diluted their views to reach agreement.
But the other way of seeing the middle is to embrace paradox … to firmly hold to two seemingly incompatible truths and live within the tension, often without effective resolution. This is my stance with regard to science and Scripture. I’m firmly convinced of the age of the ancient earth, evolution, and so on. I’m also firmly convinced that we are sinners in need of redemption and that voices in Scripture talk about the Adam and Eve story as what we would be perceive to be a historical reality. How do a reconcile the two? I have some thoughts but not definitive resolution.
IMO, only hubris would dictate that because I (or we) can not see the answer to the paradox that therefore one or the other is wrong. Sometimes, in all human humility, we need to admit that we just don’t know. (That doesn’t mean we should stop asking.)
I’m not suggest this paradox embracing middle-ground is applicable to all disputes but I think it applies to more than we frequently are willing to acknowledge. For whatever reason, we have a proclivity to one pole in a paradox. Our inclination is to champion that pole and eliminate paradox be eliminating or marginalizing dissenters.

“Middle” is a term lots of folks want to claim, but the center is defined as the midpoint from the opposite edges. To be in the middle, we first have to define what is “extreme”. Biologos and RJS define extreme as Dawkins’ militant atheism on one edge and Ken Ham’s YEC and Discovery Institute’s ID on the other. (And often in spite of pleas for civility condescension reigns when those viewpoints are addressed here and at Biologos.)
But a lot of folks in the “old universe” theological camp would see denial of an historic Adam and an historic fall as theologically extreme, so Biologos and RJS could not be the “center”. I always thought Francis Schaeffer’s views of Genesis were an acceptable center, but RJS would consider his position on an historic fall untennable, so I guess even he would be extreme.
Which is to say, anyone can claim the center as long as they get to decide who the extremists are. That sounds so postmodern…but I think we’ve just outsmarted ourselves as finite fallen humans thinking we know what really happened in the distant past using inferences from present day observations. I think God laughs at our wisdom.

The more I think about it, the more I become convinced of the importance of this sort of ?middle way?. In college in the early 80?s I was the one who argued for the literal understanding of the Genesis account, believing that the foundations of the Christian faith would crumble without it. But now I understand things a bit differently.
First, I have come to realize that even if there was no inspired word from God before the coming of Christ Jesus, his unique and miracle-filled life, tragic death and physical resurrection would stand authenticated as something supernatural ? God reaching into this creation in an unprecedented way. On its own merits, this one life is worthy of our attention.
Second, the first eleven chapters of Genesis stand unique in all of Scripture. The distance in time between the events recorded and the time of that recording is immense. And as so many on this blog and others have written, the focus of the creation accounts is the Who, and not the How or When. Why, then, would we feel the need to tie that which is fairly well testified in history ? the life and resurrection of Christ and the birth and rapid spread of the Church ? to that which is hidden in the deep shadows of time? At times I feel like we are living out another chapter in the Screwtape Letters, being led astray by another of the enemy?s strategies.
Finally, why can?t we recognize that every time the Bible talks in detail about creation, there is an accommodation of limited human understanding taking place? For instance, I don?t find anyone maintaining that when God confronts Job in chapter 38 of that book, asking, ?What is the way to the abode of Light? And where does darkness reside? ?Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail,?What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?? that we must therefore believe that these various meteorological phenomena are best explained as being shipped from supernatural storehouses to the atmosphere above our heads. Doesn?t God merely want our belief that, however He accomplished it, this universe is His creation?

But it isn’t an affirmation of something “on faith,” it is a conviction I’ve reached after a great deal of (still continuing) thought, reading, and conversation.

I didn’t say that it was a totally irrational or nonrational position, nor do I expect to ‘convert’ you otherwise. ( ) I can understand why people think that minds just have to be supernatural in some sense.
So I’ll just appropriate Kruse’s words: “Sometimes, in all human humility, we need to admit that we just don’t know.” And, from everything I’ve read and seen, people have a – ahem – strong tendency to populate the ‘unknown’ with the ‘supernatural’. But there’s been so many cases throughout history where that’s proven wrong that I’ve developed a reflexive mistrust of such conclusions.
Maybe that’s just a bias of mine. But it is part of the “foundation [that I] approach an understanding of the nature of the world around us”.

It is especially difficult to live and work in the middle, when there are some who consider the middle completely unacceptable and will only go on the attack. Most often we think of the atheists as most anxious to take such a position. Unfortunately, there are also Christians who want to do this.
John MacArthur has written a very strong criticism of BioLogos
http://www.gty.org/Blog/B100625
as has Philip Johnson.
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/06/middle-of-road-rip-kermit.html
It is very unfortunage that Darrel Falk used some very strong language in trying to identify a middle position, which became like red flags in front of a bull. There are many very faithful Christians in the sciences who live in this middle space and have a vibrant and mission minded faith.
May the Lord guide us all into the future.

I don’t think intentionally seeking a middle position is a wise course, you always end up in the “mushy middle”, a place of compromise devoid of conviction. You also are in a place where the extremists define what you believe, after all, if you are self-consciously in the middle and an extreme changes, then to stay in the middle you have to change where you are. A better way, I think is simply to pursue the truth, _all_ of the truth, and let that determine where you end up. It may indeed place you in the “middle” somewhere, but it won’t be a mushy middle. I also think that, on this issue particularly, the “extremes” and all the ground between them takes up a very small space compared to all the possible solutions. The real truth lies not in between the extremes but off in another direction entirely. Thinking in terms of “extremes” and “middle” seems to view truth as existing on a line, when really it is n-dimensional.

Larry #19
“Thinking in terms of “extremes” and “middle” seems to view truth as existing on a line, when really it is n-dimensional.”
Bingo! And this also gets to my problem with “third way” langauge. There are almost always many more than three ways.

Is the middle-ground a real place? Or is it just meant to convey an understanding or tolerance? I think one of the things I see from the Biologos, YEC, and ID folks is a lot of uncharitable behavior. I believe Ayala called ID heresy. YEC frequently call out Biologos for abandoning the authority of scripture and you can certainly see a lot of ugliness from ID folks (especially on Uncommon Descent).
So if the middle is meant to say that we should all compromise our beliefs, but instead, to say, let us at least honor and respect each other and discuss our differences civilly as brothers and sisters in Christ while we search for truth with an open mind — then the middle is exactly where I want to be.

That should say, “shouldn’t all compromise our beliefs”

Larry #19 and Michael #20 – I may have missed this somewhere down the streach, but do you have suggestions for a different set of terms or descriptions to describe the concept of middle or third way (or whatever might exist in between or outside of extremes)?

As others have observed, often the “middle” is not just between two “extremes” in a one-dimensional linear matter.
In the case of people attacking Biologos, it is interesting how much the two extremes have in common. I remember one comment thread there where an aggressive atheist posted something about how the Bible was worthless if it didn’t agree with science, and one of the more fundamentalist commenters there, not realizing where the atheist was coming from, said something like “thanks for seeing things my way”
And that really seems to be a common element between the two extremes here — both the Dawkins-style atheists and the MacArthur-style Biblicists have the idea that it is essential for the faith for the Bible to be an accurate science textbook, and that if science and the Bible don’t “line up” in this Enlightenment expectation we might as well throw the Bible in the trash.
Somehow we need to encourage the “third way” thought that asking Scripture to answer modern science questions is a huge genre mistake.
I’m glad for Evangelicals like Enns, Sparks, Waltke, and Walton who are trying to make headway in that regard, but I fear that as long as hardline “inerrancy” remains an idol for much of the Evangelical church this will be an uphill battle.

RJS, I don’t want to play devil’s advocate, but why/how can you fall back on this? Is it because without, it you are no longer “housed” in the Christian camp?
“We have no institute or confession to fall back on – only belief in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, and in the Holy Spirit, as we move forward.”
I feel like we all are in search of “truth”, but we tend to forget that our view of truth is not 100% without bias or predisposition. It just can’t be, based on how we learn and grow. And it makes these discussions near impossible. Readers are probably thinking right now… well, you’re assuming your view of the “truth” is accurate. I have to proceed like this (but with caution) because what is the alternative?
And here’s the kicker… science comes closest to hitting the mark of that 100% figure. That’s why we have got to take it seriously and why it’s attractive to take the findings of science (and methods) to their logical extreme. Those of us that are scientists and believers in God live in an extreme tension but we believe it to be not only worth it, but the best explanation of all of the “data”.
scienceandtheology.wordpress.com

AHH,
“I fear that as long as hardline “inerrancy” remains an idol for much of the Evangelical church this will be an uphill battle.”
Keep in mind though that for a lot of inerrantists it isn’t about an “idol”, it’s about the only firm foundation of truth they know of. You can’t really expect most people to just wake up one day and think, “You know, all my life I thought the Bible was the only true way to determine truth and knowledge of God, but maybe I’m making a category error.” It is important for people to not just poke holes in fellow Christian’s systems for understand truth without providing some “replacement”. I see a whole lot of tearing down of Evangelicism right now but it seems like the proposed alternatives are some vague “third way” that is ill defined and filled with more questions than answers. That can be very hard for people to swallow.
I also don’t think people are really thinking they are asking the Bible to answer the wrong questions, I think they’re probably thinking that they aren’t asking the Bible any questions at all. They believe they are just trying to figure out what it says and that’s pretty much it.

Justin,
I am not quite sure what you are asking. The last paragraph, the one that begins “For the Christians,” was intended to be a comment on the idea that we can/should decide these issues on the basis of precedent – read the faith through tradition. I think it is useful to consider how Calvin or Augustine or Aquinas wrested with the issues of their day – but the fact that they had a literal reading of a global flood doesn’t mean we are bound to the same interpretation in the light of our knowledge today.
When something is written out precisely, for example, the Westminster confession, it should be considered informative – but not binding. We cannot have a profitable discussion by referring to such documents as definitive. The idea that an individual or a group of people, wrestling honestly and sincerely with scripture and the faith, hit the definitive answer on all issues 450 years ago or 1600 years ago doesn’t make much sense.
So the last paragraph is really another of my “convictions” – we read with, but not through tradition. We stand alongside and on the shoulders of those who came before – but we don’t kneel at their feet.

As much as I’ve struggled, and continue to struggle, with these sorts of matters, I feel that I have to agree with Justin on this one.
We can’t prove with 100% certainty that what we believe is truly the case. Yes, I do happen to believe that the evidence does point in the direction of Christianity, but I can’t eliminate all of my biases in this. There are plenty of people in the world who feel ‘convinced’ of something and turn out to be wrong in the end. There were many scientists back in the day who were ‘convinced’ that quantum physics just couldn’t be correct at all, and yet here we are today, having developed quantum theory and having string theorists attempt to come up with a way to reconcile both quantum and particle physics. Though I’m not an existentialist, this is one area that I think the philosopher Kierkegaard was right about: we need to approach God with fear and trembling, putting away arrogant thoughts of having direct knowledge of things.

JHM,
I think you are right. I also think a way to get people to loosen up a bit may be start a discussion that gets people thinking about the role preconceptions play in interpretation. We don’t just read scripture – we always read it within a context and with assumptions. The first three quarters of Scot’s The Blue Parakeet tries to get people thinking in this fashion. (The last quarter applies it to a specific example – women in ministry – whether you agree with his arguments and conclusions there or not, the first quarters are worth serious consideration.)
captcha “people inept”

RJS,
Sorry for the confusion. What I was getting at is how do you even fall back on this?
- only belief in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, and in the Holy Spirit, as we move forward.
captcha: sherri ment

I may have missed this somewhere down the streach, but do you have suggestions for a different set of terms or descriptions to describe the concept of middle or third way (or whatever might exist in between or outside of extremes)?
Some have adopted a metaphor of “layers”, so evolution and the Bible don’t conflict because they are in different layers. I’m not overly fond of this metaphor, either, as it has the tendency to keep the layers entirely separate from each other, but at times it can be useful. Good metaphors are hard to come by and even harder to formulate, especially in this area. Maybe its because of my engineering background, but I sometimes think of it in terms of multi-dimensional spaces and vectors and tensors and so on, but this may not be too useful for most people. You might find John Franke’s “Plurality of Truth” helpful, too.

Justin,
I fall back on this (belief in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, and in the Holy Spirit) in the context of what I gave as my first two convictions. This becomes the basis on which I wrestle with “how this all fits together.”
I don’t think we will get anywhere if tradition is the basis on which we wrestle with putting things together.

Part of the problem with people who want to say anything with certainty is that they then fully commit to an outlook without having the humility to keep in the background the thought that they could be wrong. If a YEC holds their view strongly and thereby refuses any research into the implications of evolution then there is a real price to pay if they are wrong.
But if an evolutionist adopts their view then what price do they pay if they are wrong? I suppose the YEC would say they are at risk of losing their soul to the eternal fire?.
Rick #6 sort of says this in ?Some things believed are written in pencil, some in pen, and some in blood?
Scientific naturalism has a huge downside if it is wrong. I would want to hold that believe loosely (or in my case not at all). But it is probably OK to hold onto the believe that there is more than scientific naturalism very strongly since there is no downside (that I can see).
I have been speaking to quite a few people from the Indian subcontinent lately and many don?t have the dualism of mind (spirit) and body that the folks in the western world do. One friend has put it that thinking is simply a property of being human, not something separate from it. That line of thinking has profound implications if one were to start to interpret the Bible in the manner of an NT Wright that says we die, then are asleep, then are bodily resurrected. This whole belief in heaven and out of body experience may be disingenuous.
So do we hold to the idea of heaven strongly by my standard? The downside of believing in it is that we can waste our whole life of living the creation of God if we do. I find it interesting that the resting point for this line of thinking is remarkably close to that of Atheists or Scientific Naturalists?.except that they would not be seeking to experience the creator while here.
Now that I wrote this much I see Michael Kruse had a similar concept (I believe) in #14. And again I like Michael in #20.
Dave

One more – The analogy to me is not that you believe A or B. It is more that A is in the center of a sphere of possibilities. You have the choice to strongly believe A and not go off your point, or to consider B, and C, and D….which can all be in different directions.
So one could hold so tightly to A that the choice is A or Not A. But hubris would dictate that the choice is actually, which way from A?
Dave

In support of an earlier statement about the wisdom of the middle way, I think it is important to be reminded of two ideas.
1] Paul says in I Corinthians regarding our knowledge of Jesus, that we all “see through a glass darkly”. I think this idea can be applied to many more cases.
2] In science, the search for truth is always provisional, always surreounded by new data and possible hypotheses.

Sorry RJS. Perhaps I need to look at some other of your posts, but I still don’t understand WHY you believe either of the things below. I know why I do, but I’m interested in why you do. Does this make sense?
“I am convinced of the truth of the essence of the orthodox Christian faith – found in the creeds and baptismal formulas of the early church and the apostolic witness of the NT writings. This rule of faith has, as Tertullian put it some 1800 years ago, come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics.”
“…belief in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, and in the Holy Spirit, as we move forward.”
I’m interested in your reasoning through this as I bet many are. But I apologize if this has already been covered in other posts and I just haven’t seen it.
captcha: tension suit

I have come to affirm two things in regards to this discussion: That scripture is revelation that reveals truth and the true nature of God, and that the cosmos/natural world is revelation that reveals truth and the true nature of God, because God created the cosmos. Correcly/Accurately observed, interpreted, and understood, scripture and the cosmos complement each other and ultimately reveal the same truth about the cosmos and about God. The comos speaks without the commentary and explaination/insight that scripture often provides; the cosmos speaks of detail and process and “cosmos mechanics” that scripture often does not concern itself with.
I assume inherent and ultimate consistancy and harmony between the two, not conflict. When I read some of the works of current writers on astro-physics, such as Michio Kaku (ie – Hyperspace), I see the fingerprints of God nearly jump off the pages. When Kaku summerizes String Theory as suggesting that the cosmos is like a Symphony, I shout out Amen, and Amen. String Theory may not turn out to be correct, but if it is, it is a beautiful testimony to the creator God of scrpture.
I do not uncritically accept science theories or “discoveries”, but neither does the scientific pursuit scare me or threaten me. I often see theology jump out of scientific discoveries in a very exciting way. I reject the secular atheism of most practitioners of science, and I take that underlying worldview into account when I review scientific work.

DRT –

Scientific naturalism has a huge downside if it is wrong. I would want to hold that believe loosely (or in my case not at all). But it is probably OK to hold onto the believe that there is more than scientific naturalism very strongly since there is no downside (that I can see).

Well, I’ve linked to examples of a potential downside before – in #7 above, and to this before. People who believe in the supernatural (which, in my experience, always ends up meaning ‘unknowable’) hit some problem and decide the answer must be supernatural, and stop trying to understand it. Other people – who don’t accept the supernatural ‘explanation’ – eventually figure it out.
Read the link in #7, and imagine for a moment what medicine might be like today if we’d discovered the structure of DNA forty years earlier than we did…

Justin,
Ah. If I understand you now you are asking why orthodox Christianity. When there are many paths away from scientific naturalism, why take this one?
I don’t think that I have ever addressed this question in a blog post. Although it has been discussed in comments on some of Scot’s posts long ago, and probably came up in the context of the posts on Tim Keller’s book “The Reason for God”.
Worth a post and some discussion. I don’t think I can give a quick answer.

RJS,
Yep, that’s where I was heading. It seemed like you were just taking those points “as a given”. Wondered why.

Ray #38
Agreed. But my holding the belief that there is a God is a different belief than that God routinely interferes in physical processes. I would hold the belief that he (it?) routinely interferes in physical processes as we understand them loosely because of the downside you mentioned.
Dave

RJS said: “I am convinced that scientific naturalism, the position that the material universe described by the laws of chemistry and physics is the whole story, is an untenable position… It is difficult to reconcile with the nature of the human mind.”
Yet every part of the human mind can be altered by altering physical aspects of the brain: cognitive ability, memory, personality, moral judgement, perception, awareness of space, awareness of body… Name one part of the “mind” that can’t be altered by physical forces.
For a fascinating example of how a physical event can alter a person’s fundamental abilities, google “Tony Cicoria”.
I think a good tool for determining truth is evidence.
There is evidence to suggest that human belief doesn’t make truth. There’s even evidence that millions of people can believe completely and utterly in something that is simply not true. There is evidence that people can devote every fibre of their conviction to things that are false. There is evidence that people can completely mis-perceive events. There’s evidence that people will believe a good story, even if contradicted by vast amounts of evidence.
And there’s evidence that methodological naturalism is the best system we’ve found so far for cutting through all these human foibles to determine the true nature of things.
So… I don’t really think an honest “search for truth” can start with a unquestioning assumption of “God”.

Ray (#38),
Belief in God or supernatural doesn’t mean “stop trying to figure it out.” (Except, I should add, for a limited number of people and even then in a limited number of situations.) The majority of questions for which God is the answer are not scientific questions at all. The ‘danger’ is overblown and over-hyped.
We certainly did not jettison God then develop science or scientific method. I don’t even think it is right to claim that many have jettisoned God because science made such a belief superfluous. The reality is much more complex.

RickK,
The body/mind connection is real, no question. It does cause a rethinking of some assumptions – especially dualist assumptions. I’ve posted on this several times (a couple of posts here on Science and Sin Part One and Part Two and carried on the ideas here Science and Christian Virtue and there were more).
I intend to post on Joel Green’s book “Body, Soul, and Human Life” sometime soon (when I have time to read it). This book intentionally brings modern neuroscience into the discussion.
But – I did not say that I started the search for truth with the assumption that God exists. I said that I am convinced that God exists.
I am also convinced that evolution is true – I didn’t start with a presupposition that evolution is true.

How is it extreme to be concerned with only those issues that have some reality which is all materialism is? Atheists would accept your God if their were some evidence other than faith in the supernatural. Athiests have faith but only in real things. Basically, if it is not real it doesn’t matter. Also Athiests
don’t say that the science we know describes everything in the universe because there is plenty we don’t know. We simple don’t label that inevitable ignornace as God.

Brett Allen,
There is plenty we don’t know – and I also don’t label that inevitable ignorance “God.” God is not the pre-scientific answer for how the world, universe, life came into being.
But there are questions and concepts for which the scientific answers seem to me inadequate – they provide only part of the truth. These deal with things like love, purpose, meaning, consciousness, mission, dignity, morals. This is where I would look for God – in relationship.

RJS, I said that ‘not trying to figure things out’ was a “potential downside”, I didn’t say it was universal and covered all situations. However, I think you minimize the range and effects of this risk factor. Science didn’t develop in the absence of God, but it certainly developed in the areas that weren’t seen to threaten religion. Later on, it started to. (Resistance to lightning rods only started to really decline after a church in Italy was struck by lightning and exploded, killing 3,000 people. That’s where they stored their gunpowder – God wouldn’t hit a church with lightning, right?)
Belief in God or the supernatural definitely does mean ‘stop trying to figure things out’ for the areas where God is taken to be the explanation. (How do you ‘figure out’ a Mystery?) In practice, the supernatural means ‘unknowable’. Once we understand something, it’s not considered supernatural anymore. Saying something’s supernatural is saying ‘nobody will ever figure that out’.
Research into biology, geology, human origins, consciousness, sexuality, cosmology, and so forth continue to make a lot of people uncomfortable today, precisely because those are areas that are considered to touch on the supernatural. The more people attribute to the supernatural, the less they engage in or accept science. Look at science and Islam today.

I have reflected on my post 41 “I would hold the belief that he (it?) routinely interferes in physical processes as we understand them loosely because of the downside you mentioned.” and also Ray’s continued caution and thought of a different hypothesis we should believe.
Instead of the one about God not regularly interfering in natural process, how about the core belief that:
Everything is governed by natural processes, and God has the power to interfere in them if he choses.
I like this because it takes the God part out of the research but allows for a strongly held belief in God. I think it gets past the downside that Ray rightfully cautions about.
Dave

RJS Love, most of morality and consciousness are well within the realms of science. The first is pretty obvious: to mate, protect children, to build cohesive groups to enhance ones survival and other evolutionary reasons. It is a canard that love is some invisble force as it is visible in people’s behavior and brain scans can show what particular parts of the brain the emotion activates. Just because I cannot taste peanut butter the way you do does not make tasting peanut butter supernatural. Consciousness while not yet adequately described by science, will be I believe. As for purpose that’s your choice but for most athesits it is to contribute to human survival and civilisation. It is isn’t some selfish quest to get you non-existent soul into a non-existent heaven through acts to gain leverage over a non-existent God. This hits the crux of the issue in that God is not the most important part of religion, the afterlife is. God is just the ring master in the afterlife circus. Without the afterlife God can’t reward or harm you eternally so he becomes just a good luck charm in this reality which is teh fate of most Gods.

Brett,
The reasons you give for love, morality, and consciousness are all mechanistic rationalizations – part of the answer, but not the whole answer. In your definition love is a utilitarian illusion.
Purpose becomes an individual matter of choice. You can caricature religious belief as a selfish quest for immortality – but I can find an equally true (i.e. real examples) of selfish purpose among atheists (hedonistic satisfaction for example). We can also both point to people, atheist and religious, who found purpose in totalitarian dictatorship and mass murder.
It isn’t the rule in either case.
Look – I don’t expect you to agree, but this is the real center of the disagreement.
I do not think that love is a utilitarian illusion, I also think that there are moral absolutes, moral behavior is not only a system of optimized utilitarian solutions for survival.

Love is not an illusion and does not become one by pionting out its obvious purposes and the real world observations of its reality. Quite the opposite. I have sat thru sermons where the priest always uses love as an example to mock those who do believe in the supernatural. He makes out that love exists outside of our senses and goes on to equating not acknowledging God as not acknowledging love. But what is love? It is readily observed human behavior and instinctual drive. It is not some entity that exist in and of itself. I can’t feel the way you feel love but I can’t taste what you taste as peanut butter either that doesn’t make it supernatural. Love is not that different to faith in this respect. Fath is an observable human behavior and extension of our evolutionary drive to control everthing around us to keep us alive and perpetuate the species. It is calming because it gives us the illusion that everything is somewhat under our control as all we need to do is pray to the right God and he will protect us from the wild out of control things in this life and in the eternal afterlife. Point being that faith is real as love is real. But that does make the object of that faith or love real. I can love a character in a movie. As for morality that is function of the world we are raised in. Moral absolutes are the illusion. Take murder. It is our highest crime yet we allow soldiers and police to murder under controlled circumstances to protect us. We even laud them for it. Thus murder is not a moral absolute like the commandment that says never do it. Not to mention the contradictory biblical stories that have heroes murdering entire races despite the commandment. It is not contradictorty either as few, christian or otherwise, would argue it should not be our highest crime or that soldiers or police should not do it to protect us. That is not a compromised moral it is the moral and should be recognized as such. Thus morals are not absolute as they all have context and the context determines their use. That context is also situational and cultural. The larger piont being that love, faith and morality do not exist in some magical invisible realm but are hard realities thus morality itself can’t come from supernatural faith objects. It needs to be reality based and human centric.